(From top) The site for IIM and law university in Nagri on the outskirts of Ranchi on Wednesday; a poster put up by villagers forbids entry of outsiders; and farmer Birsa Toppo and his wife show their land rent receipt. Pictures by Hardeep Singh

Nagri (Ranchi), April 25: A piece of land is valued either Rs 1.55 lakh or Rs 340.5 crore. Take your pick. If you recover from this shock, you can proceed to figure out who should get in part or full 227.71 acres at Nagri, 15km from Ranchi.

Construction of IIM-Ranchi and National University for Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) campuses has halted after villagers refused to budge from the acres, saying there are dodgy areas in the government’s land acquisition bid.

The face-off between villagers and the state over the land has gathered momentum. Villagers say they are the real owners living off farm produce for generations. The state has decided to give 76 acres to IIM-R and 63 acres to NUSRL for campuses. Ranchi district administration officials say that Undivided Bihar acquired the land in 1957-58 to set up a seed farm of Birsa Agriculture University (BAU) under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The seed farm did not come up, but it sowed enough seeds of confusion.

First, the money tangle is sizeable. In the 1950s, 1 decimal of land was valued at Rs 27 only. Today, 1 decimal is worth Rs 1.5 lakh. So, the entire 227.7 acres can be worth Rs 1.55 lakh, or Rs 340.5 crore, depending on whether you choose to live in 1958 or in 2012.

According to papers accessed by villagers under Right to Information Act, the erstwhile Bihar government had acquired the 227.71 acres from 153 landholders to set up farms under BAU in 1957-58. A total of Rs 1,55,147.88 was allocated as compensation for landholders, but 128 ryots refused the money. The state deposited the untouched amount of Rs 1,33,732 into the treasury.

Secondly, villagers and tribal rights leaders say the land should have gone back to landowners when not used for the said purpose. “According to Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (amended in 1972), land acquired before 1972 and not used for the said purpose had to be returned to tenants back then,” said civil law expert Rashmi Katyayan.

Tribal leaders Bandhu Tirkey, Prabhakar Tirkey and Dayamani Barla second this. “As per rule, if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, it should go back to tenants. Secondly, Chotanagpur Tenancy Act bars acquisition of agricultural land for non-agricultural use,” Mandar MLA Bandhu Tirkey said, adding he had raised the issue in the Assembly to which Speaker C.P. Singh ruled a panel headed by chief secretary S.K. Choudhary would talk to villagers and sort out the problem.

That has not happened.

“Why take land forcefully? The government should negotiate with people and take land with their consent. If people lose land they will have nothing live on. And I believe the state should look for barren land for such projects,” said Nirsa MLA Arup Chatterjee.

BAU agrees, if only obliquely. In 2008, it said it did not own the acres when it was asked for a no-objection certificate from the state road construction department, which wanted to construct the ring road over this land.

Third, villagers show revenue receipts (land tax) as proof that they own the acres. “I and my husband pay revenue to the state for our 16 acres. This is proof that the land is in our possession,” said villager Bandhni Toppo.

But the government is bent on distributing it to premier cradles. It has even started the process of putting up a boundary wall.

In the near future, the fertile patch will either continue to grow paddy and potatoes or a fresh crop of managers and lawyers. But not both.

Ranchi district land acquisition official Surendra Lal, however, said the said acres were to be termed “acquired”.

“As per rule, the compensation is deposited in the treasury. As far as the purpose of use of acquired land is concerned, it is up to the state to decide. If villagers are paying land revenue, it is the fault of local officials,” argued Lal.

Incidentally, Jharkhand High Court, while hearing a petition filed by a villager, had directed the district administration to compensate the tenants with 15 per cent interest rate per annum. “We will go ahead with direction of the high court,” the official said.

Will the figure be anywhere close to Rs 340.5 crore? No one is telling.

Farmer Birsa Toppo said he grew wheat, potato and vegetables on his land, but crops were ruined when “the government forcibly cleared the patch for the boundary wall”.

“Now, I am left with nothing to eat,” said Birsa.

The Act perhaps needs an explanation.

It was created to help the government acquire privately held land for “public purpose”, referring to educational institutions or housing, health, slum clearance and rural schemes. The colonial Act helped the British get land at what was felt a fair and reasonable price to build roads, canals and later, railway lines.

After Independence, the Indian government adopted the Act, but protesters call it draconian, claiming that owners get cash far below market rates. Not all projects have a “public purpose” either. The Act also does not address thorny issues of relocation and rehabilitation.