The importance of land rights as a means for women’s empowerment is fairly evident, as it provides women with financial security, shelter, income, and livelihood opportunities. But how does the existing legal framework concerning land in India further the cause of women’s land rights? And what are the existing gaps that need to be addressed? Based on the experiences of the Centre for Social Justice and the Working Group for Women and Land Ownership, this article presents a closer look at three land laws and their impact on women’s land rights.

Regulation of the distribution of land vested in the state

The Land Acquisition (Right to Fair Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013, (LARR) and the Forest Rights Act, 2006, (FRA) are two integral laws in this realm. While the former involves the acquisition of land from citizens, the latter confers land rights upon them.

The LARR repealed the older Land Acquisition Act of 1984, which has been described as a draconian piece of legislation as it inflicted huge injustices on farmers in the name of development. The LARR instead made numerous progressive provisions, such as the need to obtain consent from affected families and a higher compensation rate.

The FRA is geared towards forest-dwelling Adivasi communities and recognises their right over forest land and resources, which they depend on for their livelihood, habitation, and other socio-cultural needs. These communities have been historically wronged by parties seeking to exploit the resource-rich forests that they rely on. Therefore, the FRA was designed to safeguard them.

Where the laws fall short

1. Inclusive, but not enough

Although the LARR recognises the rights of those who rely on but do not own land with regard to rehabilitation, it states that 70–80 percent of landowning families must consent to an acquisition for it to move forward. Thus, although the significant percentage of women who constitute non-landowning families would be rehabilitated, their consent is not sought in the first place. Landowning families are entitled to compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. But families that do not own land are only entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement. Even under the rehabilitation package, which includes a nominal cash package, year-long subsistence grant, housing unit, etc., these families are not entitled to land.

The LARR recognises the rights of single women as separate units of entitlement, but the manner in which the act distinguishes between landowning and non-landowning families makes the interpretation confusing. The act considers an “adult of either gender with or without spouse or children or dependents” as a separate family. Therefore, the unmarried adult daughter in a landowning family may be considered as a separate non-landowning family and would thus not be entitled to the same benefits that her parents receive as a landowning family.

 2. Changing how communities live

Through our work, we have observed that the recognition of individual forest rights in areas that were largely collective-oriented has contributed to the emergence of an individualised world view. Operating as a collective offers greater social security to the women of these communities. Therefore, the spread of individualism has had a negative impact on them.

Access to and control over land-based natural resources have also come into question due to the demarcation of boundaries. This has led to strife between communities that have traditionally shared resources.

Implementation challenges

Though a number of protections for women exist in the way the laws are currently framed, there are discrepancies in its implementation that hinder the cause of women’s land rights.

Read the full article about women's land rights in India at India Development Review.