DAMMED FUTURE?

Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Status of Rehabilitation ofProject Affected Families (PAFs) of the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP)

in Maharashtra

Tribunal Headed by:Justice Rambhushan Mehrotra(Retired Judge, Allahabad High Court)

The Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights

March 2000

Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the Status of Rehabilitation ofProject Affected Families (PAFs) of the Sardar Sarovar Project in Maharashtra

With Special Reference To The Sites Within The Akkalkuwan & Akrani Talukas, namelySomawal, Rozwa, Amlibari, Amoni & Dekhati.

MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL

Justice Rambhushan Mehrotra was born on 3rd July, 1934 in the small town of Kalpi inUP. After completing his post graduation in law from the University of Lucknow, hepractised as a lawyer from 1956-1967 in the District Court of Jalaun at Orai. He was electedas the Councillor of the Municipal Board at Kalpi from 1962-67. He practised at theAllahabad High Court as a lawyer from 1967-80 and at the Supreme Court from 1980-90. Hewas appointed judge at the Allahabad High Court from 1990-96.

After reaching the age of superannuation he has been practising in the Supreme Court as aSenior Advocate. Since 1997 he has been serving as President of PUCL (Peoples Union forCivil Liberties), Delhi unit.

Mr. Vijay Paranjpye has an M.A. and M.Phil degree in Economics and an M.A. in Politics.He has authored six books including: ‘Evaluating the Tehri Dam, INTACH, New Delhi(1988)’, ‘High Dams on Narmada, INTACH, New Delhi (1990)’ and ‘Rehabilitation Policyand Law in India: A Right to Livelihood’; (Edited 1997). He has done a number of studiesand has contributed a number of research papers on environmental. The following are a fewamong his various assignments as an expert with various associations.

- Member, Expert Committee on Environmental Science (UGC). Framing of Syllabus forEnvironmental Science - University Grants Commission, New Delhi from 1982-1984.

- Member, Executive Committee, International Rivers Network, USA.- Subject Expert in Economics of Dams, International Water Tribunal (IWT), Amsterdam,

Holland.- Member, Environmental Sub Group Committee and Forest Sub Group Committee Ninth

Five Year Plan, Government of Maharashtra.

IPT SecretariatApoorva Kaiwar, Preeti Verma, Deepika D’souza, Sarbani Sarkar, Amarjit Singh

The Publishers do not hold any copyright in respect of the material printed in this report.However, if any part of this material is reproduced, acknowledgements should be given to thepublishers and a copy sent to the publishers.

Published by : Indian People’s Tribunal onEnvironment and Human Rights, India

Suggested Contribution : Rs.30/-

EXTRACTS FROM

Master Plan for Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Project AffectedPersons of Maharashtra State

The Most comprehensive statement of policy for Sardar Sarovar by the Government ogfMaharashtra was published in its 1991 Master Plan. General policy objectives were set out.

The resettlement policy of Sardar Sarovar Project PAPs in Maharashtra attempts tosubstantially improve their living conditions while causing minimum disturbance to theirsocial and ethnic conditions… PAPs must:

1. Improve or at least regain the standard of living they were enjoying prior to theirdisplacement

2. Be relocated as village units, village sections or families in accordance with the PAPspreference as far as possible.

3. Be fully integrated in the community in which they are resettled.

4. Be provided with the appropriate compensation and adequate social and physicalrehabilitation infrastructure including the community services and other facilities whichare normally available under the various development schemes.

CONTENTS

Preface

Introduction

1. Procedure of the Enquiry

Summary Of Findings

2. Observations of the Tribunal

Somaval

Amblibari

Amoni

Dekhati

Rozwa

3. Occupied Land Allotted for Resettlement & Rehabilitation

4. Availability of Land for Future Oustees

5. Response by Government Authorities

6. Conclusion

7. Recommendations

Annexures

I Some Relevant Provisions of the NWDTA

II Resettlement And Rehabilitation:Site-Wise Land Availability in Maharashtra

III An Account of the Meeting at Nandurbar between theDistrict Collector, Other Officials and Oustees of the SSP

IV Sardar Sarovar Project: Major Social Impacts

THE NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

30 Large Dams, 135 Medium Dams and 3000 Small Dams on the river and its tributaries.

2 dams out of these are the gigantic ones - Sardar Sarovar and Narmada Sagar (Indira Sagar).All of these except Sardar Sarovar are in Madhya Pradesh.

Sardar Sarovar is in Gujarat, with impacts and benefits in four states namely MadhyaPradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra.

Four of the large dams already completed - Bargi, Tawa, Barna and Sukta. Ongoing onesincludes Sardar Sarovar, Indira Sagar, Maheshwar, Maan, Hobat and Kolar.

Maheshwar is the first privatised Hydropower project in the country.

Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award of 1979 decided allocation of Narmada watersbetween various states, fixed height of SSP, Indira Sagar gave orders for R&R.

Water Yield of River Fixed at 20 Million Acre Feet (MAF)

Allocation of WaterMadhya Pradesh 18.25 MAFGujarat 9.00 MAFMaharashtra 0.25 MAFRajasthan 0.50 MAF

Sharing of Power Benefits (From Sardar Sarovar Only)Madhya Pradesh 57%Maharashtra 27%Gujarat 16%

PREFACE

Adivasi people comprise 7% of the population of India but make up 70% of the displacedpopulation. These figures are indicative of the Indian Government’s attitude and apathytowards adivasis. Neither is their culture nor is their attachment towards their ancestral landrespected. People who were evicted due to the first large dams in the 1960s have till dateneither been given proper rehabilitation nor cash compensation.

In most cases rehabilitation has meant tearing apart an otherwise closely-knit adivasicommunity and dumping them in inhabitable tin sheds. Rehabilitation has usually meantliving in deplorable conditions without even basic amenities like water, food and medical aid.In the long struggle against the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) one of the main grievances hasbeen that of the conditions of rehabilitation and the manner in which people are beingdisplaced from their ancestral land and community. It was because of the people’s oppositionto the rehabilitation process that the World Bank under pressure in September 1991 set up anindependent review committee – the Morse Committee as it came to be known – to reviewthe process of rehabilitation. The Morse Committee through its findings found the state ofrehabilitation so pathetic that it advised the World Bank to pull out of the project and stopfunding. This created history and the people who were to be affected by the Project hopedthat the Government of India would learn a lesson.

The Government unfortunately intends to proceed with the project notwithstanding people’sconcerns and despite sustained protest. Numerous reports and studies have raised questionsabout the viability of the dam. The government has been unable to answer them. During thelast six years the Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (IPT) hasconducted two other investigations on the Status of Rehabilitation and the Condition of theOustees of the SSP. These were conducted in Manibeli, Kevadia and in districts of Barodaand Bharuch in Gujarat by two independent judges. The situation there was very similar towhat the IPT team saw in Maharashtra i.e. rehabilitation has been grossly inadequate, thegovernment has failed to meet its own criteria for rehabilitation and the country’s mostvulnerable citizens have been cheated.

It is not surprising therefore that most adivasis feel the Indian government has beenrepressive and exploitative and that the government does not represent the best interests ofthe adivasi people.

IPT Secretariat

INTRODUCTION

The Indian People’s Tribunal (IPT) was approached by the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti(PSS) to conduct an investigation into the Status of the Tribals who have voluntarily acceptedgovernment rehabilitation in the Nandurbar District of Maharashtra. The tribal people hadbeen relocated here eight years ago from their ancestral lands in the Narmada Valley, as thedam had submerged their villages. On shifting to the new site they were promised, land forland, separate plots for adult sons, cash compensation for shifting to the new site, housingmaterial as well as water supplies, schools, medical facilities and other facilities like parksand playgrounds.

However, even after almost a decade of residing in the new area they find they have beencheated and most of what they had been promised remains a dream. In 1999 the SupremeCourt that had earlier stayed construction on the dam pending the final hearing of the casechanged its decision and allowed for the dam height to be raised by 5 metres. Fearing furtherdisplacement of people and having experienced the complete failure of the government’srehabilitation scheme the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti approached the IPT to conduct aninvestigation.

The Tribunal comprised of Justice Rambhushan Mehrotra, (Retd. Judge, Allahabad HighCourt)and Professor Vijay Paranjpye, an economist and expert on the impact of large dams.Advocate Apoorva Kaiwar of the IPT accompanied them. The team visited the rehabilitation

sites in Maharashtra from 19th – 21st March 1999. A series of public hearings were heldwhere Project Affected Families (PAFs), Government officials in charge of the Rehabilitationand Resettlement (R & R) process in Maharashtra and representatives of the PunarvasanSangharsh Samiti, Taloda, deposed before the Tribunal. Other citizens and prominentpeople’s representatives were also invited to present their views before the Tribunal.

The process of public hearing was carried out in a remarkably cordial and transparentmanner, and the Tribunal members noted the forthright manner in which the Governmentofficials as well as the oustees and their representatives made representations. On previousoccasions when the IPT has conducted investigations, government officials have chosen tomaintain a bureaucratic silence, hence their presence at this hearing was appreciated.

Terms Of Reference1. To enquire into the process and status of the Project Affected Families of SSP being

settled in Maharashtra since 1992, in the light of the provisions of the Narmada WaterDisputes Tribunal Award (NWDTA).

2. To hear the depositions made by the adivasi people amongst the PAFs who are beingresettled in Taloda Tehsil of Nadurbar in Maharashtra, at Rozwa, Somaval, Amlibari-Akkalkuwa and Akrani Tehsils, and to record their statements.

3. To assess the preparations and the readiness of the Government of Maharashtra interms of providing adequate land and associated infrastructure for rehabilitating allthe oustees likely to be displaced by SSP in Maharashtra.

4. To make appropriate recommendations with regard to the above-mentioned terms.

BackgroundSardar Sarovar Project on Narmada has remained controversial due to the various issuesraised by people’s organisations during the last fourteen years. A major reason for

controversy and the people’s struggle has been the large-scale displacement and status ofrehabilitation of the Project Affected Families. However, the Central Government and theGovernments of the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat have made claims ofcomprehensive plans and the best possible, legally perfect rehabilitation policy. The affectedpeople and their organisation on the other hand have protested against human rightsviolations of the project-affected people as well as violation of their Constitutional Rights.They allege that the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal Award (NWDTA) has been verypoorly implemented. The parties have presented their views to the Supreme Court as well asat various forums in the civil society.

For almost 4 years i.e. between 5th May 1995 and 18th February 1999, the Supreme Courthad stayed all work related to the height of the dam which had been stopped at a reservoirlevel (height) of 80.3 metres. However on 18th February 1999, in the case Narmada BachaoAndolan Vs. the Union of India and others1, the Supreme Court passed an interim order, tothe effect that the height of the dam could be raised by 5 metres from 80.3 + humps to 85 +humps2. The operative clause of this order states that, “At this stage, however, we permit theState of Gujarat to raise the level of the dam to RL 85 metres, excluding the humps necessaryfor the maintenance of the safety of the dam.”

As a result of the order issued on 18th February 1999, approximately 220 additional ProjectAffected Families (PAF) would be displaced in Maharashtra and would need to be resettledbefore the reservoir level rose in June 1999. This order will have a serious impact on a fewthousand families especially in the tribal villages in the Satpuras and Vindhya falling in thethree riparian states affecting their fields and houses. The Court’s order stipulates full and fairrehabilitation of all those to be affected at 88 metres as per NWDTA provisions.

Many people’s organisations have raised allegations that the governments of Maharashtra,Gujarat and India have made false claims concerning land availability in their affidavits,which led to the said interim order. These organisations claim that the rehabilitation of SSPoustees is not as per the policy and stipulations in the Narmada Water Disputes TribunalAward (NWDTA) and is rather incomplete even in the case of the families already affectedupto 80 metres and that there is no master plan for rehabilitation of all categories of theoustees.

As Smitu Kothari puts it so aptly “Beyond a point, it makes sense to reiterate what has beensaid dozens of times before. For over ten years (and longer if one takes into account theevolution of the project in the aftermath of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award thatadjudicated on the sharing of the waters in the region and also gave consent to the SSP), thestate and central governments have had time and enough resources to define a detailed,workable plan to comprehensively rehabilitate those who will be displaced or adverselyaffected by the project. And though extremely detailed plans exist for the physical structureof the dam and its infrastructure, even today this rehabilitation plan does not exist. If thelocation of every inch of the dam and its infrastructure can be defined in great detail prior todigging the first shovel of earth, why isn’t such a plan equally integral to the planningprocess?

1 Writ Petition No. 345/94, SLP No. 3608/85, CA 6014/94, Writ Petition No. 104/97 and transferred case No. 35/95.

2 Humps means a speed breaker construction strip which could break / limit the speed of the waters gushing in to save the stilling basin ofthe dam from any damage which is now completed upto (85+3) 88 metres

Today, even project officials unofficially concede that the land to adequately rehabilitatethose to be displaced by the project has not been found - and even if some of it is broughtfrom landlords, the price will be exorbitant and the communities will be broken up anddispersed over a wide area. Besides, how justified is it that communities are not only brokenup, not only dispersed but also relocated in geographical and linguistic areas significantlydifferent from their own? And even when lands have been found, what about those who weredependent on it earlier?

And this is true of large projects all over the country. Particularly when the social andenvironmental costs are so enormous and, in many ways, so irreversible. I am not even goingto into the continuing violations of basic civic rights by the state - the number of peoplefalsely implicated, the continuing harassment, the use of repressive measures to break-uppeaceful protest.”3

3 Lokayan Bulletin, May – August 1991, Editorial, Pg. 5, Published by Macro Graphics, New Delhi

Chapter 1PROCEDURE OF THE ENQUIRY

19th March 1999: Public Hearing at Somaval Resettlement site.The IPT team left Baroda at 9.00 a.m and travelled by car to Taloda, reaching at about 4.00p.m. After a brief halt, the team proceeded to the first resettlement site, namely Somaval,located about 10-12 kms to the northwest of Taloda town. The team was accompanied byShrI Devendra Borse, journalist from Nandurbar and Smt. Pratibha Shinde of ‘PunarvasanSangharsh Samiti’ (PSS)

20th March 1999: Public hearing at Rozwa Resettlement site.The hearing was conducted from 9.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. The Government of Maharashtramade elaborate arrangements, consisting of a large pandal for 200 villagers and seatingarrangements for officials, local MLAs and concerned citizens who wished to participate.

Among the officials present wereB.J. Padvi, Tehsildar, Taloda;G.M. Bhavsar, Resettlement Officer, Rozwa;B.D. Thakre, Circle Officer Rozwa and Amoni;G.W. Kotkar, Circle Officer, Somaval;Shri S.R. Valvi, Ex RSO, SomavalShri Bhoi, Ex RSO, Amoni

Others present included, Narendra Padvi, local MLA, BJP, Kantilal Talia, Narayan Patil,President of the Taloda Taluka Unit of the BJP, Vidya Bargal, Ex-Municipal Corporator,Taloda and a member of “Vasundhara Bachao”, K.L. Jadhav, Devendra Borse, YogendraDorkar, Ranjit Rajput, a team of journalists. Approximately 250 oustees attended the meetingand twelve PAF heads made detailed oral presentations along with written submissions. Smt.Pratibha Shinde also gave a detailed testimony alongwith a written submission containingindividual cases, specific problems and complaints regarding the process of rehabilitation.Each submission was duly dated and thumb impressions or signatures were inscribed.

20th March 1999: Public hearing at Amlibari Resettlement site.During the post-lunch session, from 3.30 to 7.00 p.m., the team heard the depositions byoustees residing at the site. Here too similar arrangements had been made by the governmentauthorities of Maharashtra. Besides the officials mentioned above, the meeting was attendedby Shri Bipin Shrimali, Upper Ayukta and Collector, Nandurbar and the DistrictResettlement Officer. Senior officials of the District Police Department were also present.Approximately 20 PAPs submitted their cases / complaints.

21st March 1999: Visit to the resettlement site at Amoni.The PAFs, Government officials and the SSP officials were present. Some PAFs madepresentations, however, the officials did not make any submissions. The officials presentwere:

D.P Shelar, Deputy Collector, SSP, AkraniS.T Babul, Naib Tahsildar (Rep/DRO) NandurbarG.M Bhausar, RSO, Rozwa

R.S Bhoi, Ex. RSO, AmoniEGS Tahsildar, Collector’s Office , NandurbarS.R Valvi, Ex.RSO, Dekhati & SomavalAdditional District Supply Officer, Nandurbar

21st March 1999: Visit to Dekhati.In the afternoon, the team visited Dekhati, the fifth resettlement site in Maharashtra. At thissite also the PAFs made written submissions.

Summary Of Findings

A detailed study of the documents available with the organisations and an analysis of the oraland written presentations of the PAFs and officials brought out the following points.

• The history of the adivasis indicates that the tribal economy was essentially dependent onforest lands and other such common property resources. Tribal families belonging to BhilBhilala communities have been the inhabitants of the Satpura region since generations.Their livelihood, cultural beliefs and practices are all rooted in the forest and the naturalresources. The adivasis, since many generations have been collecting a variety of forestproduce, mahua, chironji, temru leaves, apta leaves, etc. which were used at home or soldin the market. A variety of medicinal herbs and materials for making and repairing houseswere also collected. They are settled agriculturists and have been cultivating land andgrowing a variety of crops. The written submissions of two oustees Jordar and JehangirPawra list the crops - jowar, maize (cereals), tur, charu, udad, (all pulses) banti, bhadi,mor (hilly millets) ground nuts and sesame.

• Regarding the decision-making process, the oustees say that they were at no timeconsulted about their own resettlement. They were forced to move out due to the pressuretactics of the government and because their lands were being submerged. The Tribunalwas informed of the Manibeli Satyagraha and the use of police force by the governmentdue to which they were compelled to move out.

• A large number of oustees have not yet been declared as PAFs even though their houseshave been dismantled and they have been moved along with their belongings includingmaterial like bamboo (dismantled houses) from villages which were submerged.Consequently, the Government of Maharashtra has not provided them with land or titles,even though they have been living at Rozwa for many years.

• The process of measuring and distributing began before the number of people who wereto be ousted was final. The result was that finally there was no land left to distributeamong several oustees. These oustees have been landless for as long as 5-7 years and itnow appears that the government does not have adequate land to give them.

• The oustees said that when they were moved out, government officials told them that theywould be given irrigated land, ready for cultivation. They were told that the land wasready and available for their occupation and therefore, they should move out. Today aftermore than seven years, many of them are still without any land.

• Government officials were to resettle the ousted villagers as one unit in the same place,fulfilling the requirement of Community Resettlement. But, in reality, many families havebeen forced to split as land for two adults of the same family has been given at twodifferent resettlement sites. As one of the villagers remarked, “The Govt. may say that the

people will be taken to Gujarat, this is unacceptable as we want to be in Maharashtra andif our community is here, then some people cannot go elsewhere”.

• There have been several cases where major sons were not declared as adults. Many ofthese adults were in fact married, had children and were cultivating land in their villages.They were denied benefits available to major sons. In several cases names of major sonswere declared by the government but were not given land.

Chapter 2OBSERVARTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL

SOMAVAL

The hearing at Somaval took place at ‘Narmada Nagar: Somaval Punarvasan’. People fromMukdi, Gaman, Dhanel, Sindhuri, Mandwa, Bamni came to give their depositions before theTribunal. 81 submissions were made. These mainly concerned the non-declaration of a largenumber of people as PAFs despite them fulfilling the criteria for being thus declared, nonavailability of land, lack of irrigation facilities and other basic amenities

Many project-affected people from Akkalkuwa Taluka are resettled at the Somavalrehabilitation site. Project affected persons had started coming to this site in 1992 when theheight of the dam was 60m. Fearing submergence of their lands and houses these peopledecided to accept the government package of rehabilitation. As per the Award thegovernment had promised to make all arrangements one year before resettlement. They hadalso been assured that people would be resettled 6 months before the submergence wouldbegin. However none of this happened. People’s houses had begun to get submerged beforethey were brought here.

Those who had moved believing in the assurances given by the government now question thepoint of part rehabilitation. Vadgia Gardhnia Vasave told the Tribunal, “the government toldus that you first move there (to the resettlement site) and then you will be given everything.But till now, we have not got anything – no land has been given. What is the use of us gettingonly tiles and a bullock cart, when there is no land?”

Non-declarationSeveral people complained of not being declared as PAFs. When asked what proof they hadSmt. Pratibha Shinde of the PSS told the Tribunal that the people have documents pertainingto the shifting of their property and other relevant papers. The Government had also issuedthem notices saying their houses and families would be affected. Yet the Government has notdeclared them as affected. The Government has paid them a subsistence allowance, giventhem tiles for the roofs but is yet to declare them as PAFs.

Bajia Metia Padvi mentioned that his father was a ‘khatedar’ (separate family) in the oldvillage. The father and two brothers had been declared as project affected. Bajia at age 35 forsome reason is yet to be declared.

The people mentioned that no proper surveys were done in the original villages, people above18 in 1987 who had to be declared as PAF have not been declared. 35 families from Sindhuriand Mukdi who are affected and have been brought here have also not been declared. No landor facilities have been given to them.

HousingUnder the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) all the displaced people were entitled to a completehousing package. This included building material like tiles and bamboo. Now the governmentwas offering them these materials for a price. Only around 50 PAFs have been given Rs.6000/- in addition to the tiles and bamboo instead of giving them the amount of Rs.18,000 orRs.28,000 to which they are entitled.

AgricultureIn his deposition before the Tribunal, Jerma Jalpa Vasane of village Gaman said, “In our oldvillage we used to cultivate rice, toor, bhatti etc., but here because there is no water we canonly grow dadar. The government had promised us that land would be irrigated but they havedone nothing in 7 years. The land, which has been given to my sons is very bad, there is astream running across it and it is a rocky terrain. Nothing can be grown there. During themonsoon, the land gets filled with water. Compensation for my house has not been given.”

In his deposition, Bana Ponda Padvi of Mukdi, said, “There is a well in my field for the last 3years, but no water comes out of it. I had struggled to cultivate land and had managed tomake one piece of land cultivable. There was a survey again after four years, this piece ofland was taken away from me and I was given another piece of land, which is bad. Whathappens to the money I had spent on my land?”

Dadma Damha Padvi another oustee stated that since he had no land he was forced to work asa coolie on land belonging to other people. They barely have work for 15-20 days. When theyhave no work they collect wood from the forest the but if they are caught then everything isconfiscated.

Another case was that of Themnia Dolvia Padvi from Mukdi village. He has been declared asa project-affected person and has been given some land. However he said he was unable toget anything from the land since it is full of stones and there are 2 streams running through it.Despite making several applications to the Deputy Collector and to the AdditionalCommissioner nothing has been done.

Other Facilities

SchoolBana Ponda Padvi of Mukdi described the condition of the school at the resettlement site. “In

the Ashram School, classes are up to 10th Std, but there is only one teacher since 2 years. Intheir school initially, the children used to get milk, oil for their hair and green vegetables butnow nothing is available in the school.”

Civic AmenitiesThe Tribunal observed that the villagers at the resettlement sites were also deprived of basicfacilities such as water Other facilities such as the grazing land and a bus stand which werepromised have still to be provided 8 years after the first batch of people were brought here tobe resettled. The drainage system is also non-existent and during the monsoons the waterenters their houses.

It is evident from these depositions that complete land settlement has not been done. InDecember 1992 an order was passed for land settlement, but in January 1993 this wasdiscontinued. There was no more place for displaced people. Much of the land had beenencroached upon. Despite this, further notices were sent out and people were directed tocome to Somaval.

AMBLIBARI

258 submissions were given to the Tribunal mainly regarding the non-declaration of manydisplaced persons as PAFs, allotment of land and the non-availability of basic amenities.

Most of the oustees claimed that in Gat Nos. 414, 413, 409, 410 and 412 there are no waterfacilities available. They also stated that for landless PAFs, the Government of Gujaratprovides five acres of land, while the landless oustees in Maharashtra get only two and a halfacres. This was very discriminatory and unfair. The Government of Maharashtra officialscould not give any reason for this. The people demanded that the land that the governmentclaims is available for further resettlement should first be given to these families.

AMONI

89 submissions mainly regarding the non-declaration as PAFs were made. The presentationsmade at the public hearing brought out the following:

• Several people have not been given 7/12 land extract papers giving them possession ofland.

• In several houses electrical meters were fitted but there was no electric supply. However,ectricity bills have been received.

• 23 oustee families at Rozwa and Amoni have not been given roof tiles for the past fouryears, forcing them to face the monsoons literally without a roof over their heads.

The desperation of the displaced people came across clearly in a deposition by Hajia GansiaPawra from Bhusia village; “we never knew that the dam would be built, the Governmentmust have decided that it is easy to remove us from the valley. We were with the NBA, butlater due to pressure from Government we accepted resettlement. People were brought herebut were not declared. There is no land available here, then why did the Government say inthe Supreme Court that there is land. My land was submerged, my house was dismantledand brought here, but here no land has been given to us. We feel like running into theNarmada and jumping in. People in the old villages will be submerged and we will diefighting with the encroachers. We will go back and die in the valley.”

DEKHATI

During the team’s visit to Dekhati 22 submissions were made regarding the non-declarationas PAFs, non-availability of housing material and other basic facilities.

ROZWA

102 submissions regarding the non-declaration as PAFs were given to the Tribunal. Theseincluded submissions made by those declared as PAFs but allotted encroached lands oruncultivable land or allotted land less than that entitled to. Some of the complaints concernednon-payment of compensation for the property and houses that were not shifted.

A number of oustees made very articulate presentations regarding their life in the villages,experience with authorities and life in resettled villages. They submitted specific documentsto the Tribunal showing that they had given a number of memoranda to the government andhad at several opportunities demanded :

- Land- Declaration of adult sons as PAFs- Removal of encroachers from land allotted to oustees- Some of the oustees showed occupation slips for land, which they have never seen.

E.g. Sega Rusha Bhil and 7 others from Bharad village and Jirya Phulji Vasave and othersfrom Domkhedi have occupation slips for land in Somaval but they have never seen the land.They have not been provided with land since 1993 - 94. The land exists only on paper.

Unfulfilled promises - False Assurances:Smt. Pratibha Shinde of the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti (PSS) Dist. Nandurbar gave adetailed account of their interaction with government authorities. The following are the mainpoints raised by her:

In 1998, the Deputy Secretary, (Rehabilitation) at Mumbai had assured that 14 oustees wouldbe given land immediately. Even after a year this land was not given.

In February 1999 at a public meeting opposite the District Collectorate, Nandurbar the PSSpresented a list of 169 oustees who had not been provided land. This list was accepted andsigned by the Minister, Shri Vijay Kumar Gavit and by other officials and was given to thePSS along with time-bound promises.

- The assurances given included completion of land allotment by March 1999.- The officials also admitted that more land is required for resettlement as the 4200 ha

of forestland made available had already been distributed.

However the situation remains unchanged. No land has been allotted.

Oustees in their presentations and written submissions complained that they have beenallotted land which has not been transferred from the Forest Department to the RevenueDepartment e.g. Coop no. 437.

22 families were given the same land at Rozwa, which led to disputes among them. Mr.Jehangir Ranjya an oustee complained that boundaries of land allotted were not demarcatedwith the result that some oustees have remained without land and several disputes have arisenamong oustees.

Many villagers had been asked to shift their houses but were unable to do so because thereare no proper roads for transferring their belongings. Villagers who shifted more than 3 yearsago were still unable to move things. Jania Mahan Vasave stated, “3 years ago theGovernment told us to shift and so we dismantled the house. Now my house is lyingdismantled there and is getting spoilt in the monsoons. We are asked to make our own roadsfor which the Government said they would pay later, but nothing has been paid till now,though we struggled and made our roads. R.S Bhoi the Ex-RSO of Amoni agreed thatshifting was not possible, as there were no roads from the old villages to the resettlement sitesand that an application had been made to the Narmada Vikas Agency.

Irrigation facilities have not been provided. In one place three out of the four existing borewells did not have water and the oustees were unable to irrigate their land.

The deplorable living conditions of the people are apparent from the lack of basic facilities.Jenia Pulzi Vasava, from Dhomkhedi mentioned that in case of illness they had no money formedicines. “We have been living in tin transit shelters for 3 years. Our children fall ill in thesummer. If we don’t have land, why are they bringing is more people; they are our people,why is the Government fooling them also?”

Ms. Vidya Bargal of “Vasundhara Bachao” and ex- Corporator of Taloda, in her presentationraised the matter of the only forest in Taloda taluka having been cut down for the purpose ofrehabilitation. This move she stated was of grave concern from the environmental point ofview. Ms. Bargal also strongly criticized the callousness and bureaucratic delays of thegovernment machinery in the process of rehabilitation of oustees.

At the end of the hearing at the Rozwa R&R site, it became clear that at least 72 PAFsoriginally displaced from Bharad and Junane in 1994, from Domkhedi in 1993 and fromShalakda in 1995, have still not received any land, and nor do they have any title deeds forland.

EXTENT OF REHABILITATION AT SITES VISITED

Somaval Amblivari Amoni Dekhati Rozwa

Total No. of PAFs 484 343 451 127 404

Non-declared 141 138 61 45 89

Declared as PAFs 343 205 390 79 315

No land allotted despitedeclaration as PAF 4 - 15 14 136

Non-cultivable land allotted 27 17 53 21 14

Chapter 3OCCUPIED LAND ALLOTTED FOR

RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION

A matter of grave concern in the area is the fact that the land demarcated for rehabilitation ofthe SSP oustees is occupied by adivasis who claim that they have been living there prior to1979.

The Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) has tried all means ofevicting these 396 households. Mr. Narayan Patil and Mr. Kantilal Tatiya gave details of acase filed in the Nandurbar District Court. It was also claimed that not 404 ha as earliermentioned but 600 ha had been encroached upon by the original adivasis.

Mr. Narendra Padvi, MLA, made a presentation regarding the situation of the originaladivasis of the area who have now been declared encroachers. He mentioned that thesepeople had been cultivating this land for several years before 1978, but the Forest Departmentreleased the land for rehabilitation without taking their claims into account.

In 1978-79, the GoM had taken the decision that all adivasis who had encroached onforestlands prior to 1978 would be granted ownership and the lands would betransferred to their names. The relevant Resolution was passed in 1979. It was claimedby Shri Kunwarsing Walvi, the sitting MLA from Taloda during the hearing that theforest department harassed the tribals by destroying their crops and threatening themwith eviction. Consequently they filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court(No.7339/1982).

On 29th June 1990, under pressure from the World Bank, 2759.80 ha of forestland from coopno 436, 448, 449 and 451 were declared available for rehabilitating oustees from SSP. It wasprecisely on this land that adivasis had earlier encroached upon. An area of approximately600 ha has been encroached upon and this has been deemed to have been transferred to themvide the GoM Act of 1979.

In 1995 the Supreme Court passed an order asking about 396 encroachers to stake theirclaims with the District Collector. At present, the process of settling their claims is underway.

The NWDT Award does not, however appear to have made any provisions for encroachers,to this extent it ignored the customary usages of tribal people using encroached land forcultivation or grazing. The 1979 Award did not take these social and economic factors intoaccount when it made its provisions for Maharashtra oustees.4

Jahangir Pawra in his deposition at Rozwa said, “on 26.8.91 we accepted resettlement.Government brought people here, gave them possession of land on paper, but in reality thereis no land. People who are here already are asking for this land, so where is the place for newpeople coming after the increase in the dam height? Where will these brothers of mine go?There are many instances where the plot of land has been given to 2 people. Government hasmade a major mistake. The people here, in the old village and the encroachers are alladivasis. By creating a rift the Government has created social and cultural problems.

4 Sardar Sarovar, The Report of the Independent Review (Morse Committee Report)

Everybody who has come here should be given land and later the Government should thinkof new people. The Government told us that there is no land and even journalists heard this.But in the Supreme Court the Government has lied. Now, it is the moral responsibility of theGovernment that people who come should be shown land immediately, but the officials arenot doing anything.”

Kisan Malisingh Pawra of Junnim spoke of the seriousness of the conflicts with theencroachers, “We were given land which was encroached. When we approached theGovernment they said it is your land, you will have to clear them (encroachers). Due to thisthere were major fights and one person was killed.”

Ranja Munshi Pawra, from Shalagda expressed similar concerns and stated that the landgiven to him had also been given to others. “The Government is creating fights due to land;the question is whether the Government has brought us here for living or for killing us.”

The NWDT Award clearly mentions that within two years of the declaration of the Award,the lands necessary for rehabilitation should be acquired. It is a matter of grave concern andsurprise that the GoM has been unable to acquire adequate land in 20 years, i.e. since 1979.The relevant portion of the NWDT Award is at Annexure 1.

Chapter 4AVAILABILITY OF LAND FOR FUTURE OUSTEES

The Government of Maharashtra has claimed that a total of 4200 ha. of forestland has beenmade available for resettlement of the PAFs. This land was released in two instalments viz.2700 ha in 1990 and 1500 ha in 1994.

However, the GoM has also admitted that out of this area, 741 ha. are not fit for R & R asthey include riverbeds, streambeds and land unfit for cultivation. Some land still has astanding forest cover.

In addition, some land is covered by gaothans or village settlements and consequently thisland will also not be available for resettlement of the oustees. Of the remaining landapproximately 400 acres was already being cultivated by adivasis living there forgenerations.*

The Government officials submitted a detailed note with the following figures regardingavailability of land for R & R:

Total land (forest land) made available 4191.86 ha for R & ROf this

Land not fit for cultivation = 836.56 haEncroached cultivation = 404.50 ha*Land for gaothans = 209.60 ha

Land land not available for R & R = 1450.66 ha

Total Land available with Governmentof Maharashtra for R & R (4191.86-1450.66) = 2741.20 ha

Of this land already allotted = 2292.56.ha

Thus land now left withGOM for R & R (Even on paper) = 448.64 ha

This land i.e., 448.64 ha is the only quantum of land available for both present and all futureresettlements. This figure, is as per the Government statistics.

The Tribunal further notes that the Government of Maharashtra officials have accepted thefact that there are 555 applications of oustees still pending to be declared PAFs. These inaddition to the 72 PAFs, who have not been given land as yet at Rozwa site, brings the totalto 627 PAFs, whose claims have not even been considered despite them having beendisplaced over 7 years ago.

*Non-government sources claim that land occupied by the earlier adivasis is not 404 ha but600 ha., thus leaving only 253.24 ha. with the GoM for R&R. A further investigation shouldbe done to ascertain the exact extent of land occupied by the adivasis

Chapter 5RESPONSE BY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES

In most cases brought before the team the officials were unable to refute the followingclaims:

• A large number of oustees have not been declared PAFs even though they have beenmoved with their belongings and material (dismantled houses) from villages which weresubmerged. Consequently GoM has not provided them with land or titles even thoughthey have been living at resettlement sites.

• About 95% of the oustees have not been given money for resettlement. (Those resettledprior to 1994 were to receive Rs. 18, 000/- while those resettled after 1994 were toreceive Rs. 28,550/- each).

• Indira Awas YojanaAll the project-affected persons have been made beneficiaries of the Indira Awas Yojanaand money was withdrawn in their name to purchase roof tiles and bamboos. Accordingto the Award housing material is to be provided free and the remaining money afterpurchasing tiles and bamboos is to be given for constructing the plinth. In most cases, themoney was not paid. Officials agreed that there has been a violation of the guidingprinciples of IAY and that the cases would be investigated.

• Storehouses for seeds though made, lie useless as agriculture lands have not beenallotted. There is also no grazing land

• Dispensaries have been constructed but serve no purpose as the doctors do not visit theclinic more than once in 2 weeks.

• Civic amenities are practically non-existent and the system of drainage is uselessbecause water from the drains enters the houses during monsoons

• About 65% oustees at Rozwa have not been given monetary compensation. Oustees madeapplications but no cognizance was taken.

Chapter 6CONCLUSION

1) The Government of Maharashtra has not yet been able to satisfactorily resettle andrehabilitate even the oustees displaced by the partial completion of the dam at a heightof 80.3 meters.

2) The land available for R & R is totally inadequate. The raising of the dam height toRL 85 metres will lead to displacement which completely contravenes the provisionsof the NWDTA (1979), because the GoM simply does not have enough land toadequately resettle the oustees.

3) ‘Zamin Dikhao Abhiyan’ - The Tribunal also took cognizance of the statement madeby Smt. Pratibha Shinde, claiming that when the PAFs took a delegation to the GoMofficials in March 1999, the officials were unable to show them the land.

4) As per the Maharashtra Government R & R Policy (1991-92), one ha. land has to beprovided to the landless PAFs. Further, major sons (completing 18 years in 1987) areto be considered as ‘khatedar’ (separate family). However, all the submissionsreceived showed that these conditions have been violated and that most of major sonshave not been considered as PAFs.

5) The NWDT Award clearly mentions that within two years of the declaration of theAward, the lands necessary for rehabilitation should be acquired. It is a matter ofgrave concern that the Government of Maharashtra has been unable to acquireadequate land during the 20 years since 1979. In the light of the Government’s failure,the IPT states that there has been a gross violation of the provisions of the NWDTA.

6) Another major issue is that oustees have been allotted forestland on which other tribalpopulations, referred to as “encroachers” by the Government officials are living.Displacing the existing population to provide land to the oustees of the SSP, will inour opinion, only give rise to more problems rather than solutions.

7) Government officials spoke of their efforts and intentions to rehabilitate the ousteesbut were unable to answer specific questions; rather they confirmed the submissionsmade by the people and those of the supporters, politicians, reporters, etc.

8) The committee concludes that the claims made by the oustees are genuine, since noneof the government officials present at the time of the hearing could give facts orinformation to the contrary. The committee makes a serious note of the fact that theexistence of such large numbers of oustees without any land grossly violates theprovisions of the NWDTA (1979).

9) Not only has the Government not been able to provide land as per the NWDTAstipulations but it has violated every other clause such as providing cashcompensation, housing material, medical facilities, schools and other benefits.

10) In no case were the people shifted a year before submergence as the NWDTArecommends. It is clear from the depositions, site visits and the study of relevant

documents that there is a large gap between the Model Rehabilitation plan of theGovernment and the ground reality. Sadly it is with this reality that the projectaffected families of the SSP are compelled to live.

NARMADA WATER DISPUTE TRIBUNAL AWARD

Work on the Narmada Valley Development Project was stalled because of conflictsbetween Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. The three states could not agreeon sharing of the Narmada waters. In 1969, the dispute was referred to the NarmadaWater Disputes Tribunal. Its decision the NWDT Award was handed down in 1979.Besides other things the Award is also the main legal basis for the rehabilitation andresettlement of those who would be displaced by submergence.

Some provisions of the NWDT Award specifically establish the following principlesto be paramount in the process of rehabilitation:

1. Land for land

2. Community resettlement - The Award mentions the establishment of rehabilitationvillages, with the process of shifting from submergence area to rehabilitationvillages to be completed in 2 years

3. Land for resettlement must be given in the irrigated area of Gujarat

4. If oustees do not wish to go to Gujarat, land for resettlement must be provided tothem in Maharashtra or Madhya Pradesh

5. Facility for irrigation of such lands is to be provided by the government

6. ‘Gujarat shall acquire and make available a year in advance of submergence beforeeach successive stage irrigable lands and house sites for rehabilitation of the ousteesfamilies from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra who are willing to migrate toGujarat’. Gujarat shall in the first instance offer to rehabilitate the oustees in its ownterritory. (NWDTAward See IV (2) (iv))

7. The Award envisages that rehabilitation has to be completed a year before submergence.

Chapter 7RECOMMENDATIONS

1) A major stipulation in NWDTA was to formulate the Master Plan for Resettlement,with land details within two years i.e. by 1981. That kind of ‘Master Plan’ is not yetready. The Tribunal recommends that this Master Plan should be prepared and madeavailable to the people before any further construction activity is undertaken.

2) An Independent Committee consisting of not just Government officials, but alsorepresentatives of project-affected persons and of organisations working in the area beconstituted to identify the project-affected communities and families. The Committeeshould also ascertain the availability, identity and adequacy of land available forResettlement and Rehabilitation.

3) Dereservation and clearing up of forestland is an environmentally damaging optionfor providing land for rehabilitation. Besides the identified forestlands are not freefrom claims from earlier occupants. Hence, further dereservation of forestland mustbe stopped.

4) All the stipulations regarding community resettlement must be adhered to strictly.

5) All the provisions of the NWDTA with respect to those already ousted due to thepresent height of the dam must be met with. E.g with regard to declaration of majorsons as project-affected persons and allotment of land that is cultivable

6) The Rehabilitation sites have not been provided with basic amenities. All efforts andresources must be deployed to ensure that the tribals already displaced are providedwith fertile land, housing material, water supply and medical, education and publictransport facilities. Further displacement will only compound the present dismalsituation.

7) Apart from proper rehabilitation the project affected people of Nandurbar districtmust be compensated in view of the tardy rehabilitation facilities they have beenforced to live with.

8) Government officials in charge of rehabilitation must be held personally liable forimplementation of the rehabilitation plan and should be punished in case of lapses.

9) No further construction on the dam or an increase in height should be permitted till allthe aforesaid recommendations are satisfactorily complied with.

Chapter 8SOME RELEVANT PROVISONS OF THE NWDTA

V (2)(ii): “According to the present estimates, the number of oustee families below RL106.68 metres (RL 350’) would be spread over 20 villages in Maharashtra. Within 6 monthsof the publication of the decision of the Tribunal in the Official Gazette, Gujarat, MadhyaPradesh and Maharashtra shall determine by mutual consultation the location of one or tworehabilitation villages in Gujarat to rehabilitate oustees from areas below RL 106.68 metres(RL 350’). Gujarat shall acquire necessary lands for the rehabilitation villages and makeavailable the same within two years of the decision of the Tribunal. Within six months of thedecision of the location of rehabilitation villages in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh andMaharashtra shall intimate to Gujarat the number of oustee families from areas below RL106.68 metres (RL 350’) willing to migrate to Gujarat. For the remaining oustees’ families,Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall arrange to acquire lands for rehabilitation within therespective States.

IV (2) (ii): Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall set up adequate establishments for landacquisition, land rehabilitation of the ousted families. Gujarat shall deposit within threemonths of the decision of the Tribunal Rupees Ten lakhs each with Madhya Pradesh andMaharashtra in advance towards cost of establishment and rehabilitation in these States to beadjusted after actual costs are determined. Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall start landacquisition process for areas below RL 106.68 metres (RL +350’) within 6 months of thedecision of the Tribunal and convey the lands to Gujarat for project purposes within threeyears of the decision of the Tribunal. Within 18 months of the decision of the Tribunal,Gujarat shall make an advance payment of Rs 70 lakhs to Madhya Pradesh and Rs.100 lakhsto Maharashtra towards the compensation of land, to be adjusted after actual costs aredetermined.

IV (2)(iii): Regarding the oustee families from areas above RL106.68 (RL+350’). Gujaratshall intimate to Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra within 6 months of publication ofthe decision of the Tribunal in the official Gazette the number and general location ofrehabilitation villages proposed to be established by Gujarat in accordance with the decisionsof the Tribunal. Within one year of the receipt of the proposal of Gujarat, both MadhyaPradesh and Maharastra shall intimate to Gujarat, the number of oustees willing to migrate toGujarat. The 3 states, by mutual consent shall determine within two years of the decision ofthe Tribunal, the number and general location of rehabilitation villages required to beestablished by Gujarat in its own territory. Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall intimate toGujarat the number of such villages to be established in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra,and for which Gujarat would be required to make payments to Madhya Pradesh andMaharashtra respectively.

IV (2)(iv): Gujarat shall acquire and make available a year in advance of submergence beforeeach successive stage, irrigable lands and house sites for rehabilitation of the oustee familiesfrom Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra who are willing to migrate to Gujarat. Gujarat shall,in the first instance, offer to rehabilitate the oustees in its own directory.”

Annexure II

RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION:SITE-WISE LAND AVAILABILITY IN MAHARASHTRA

In its affidavit of March 1998 (Vol. 98, Page 8), GoM had shown 1239 ha. of land asavailable for allotment. While in the latest (Vol. 106, Page 6) it shows only 449 ha. asavailable.

R&R Site Available Land Available Land(as per affidavit in March ’98) (as per affidavit in September98)(Vol. 98, Page 8) (Vol. 106, Page 6)

Somaval 179 ha. 48Dekati 418 ha. 24 ha.Amoni 197 ha. 51 ha.Rozwa 83 ha. 40 ha.Amli 362 ha. 286 ha.

Total 1239 ha. 449 ha.

The difference is not due to land allotted between March ’98 and September ’98 but due toadditional uncultivable land identified (836 ha, instead of 490) and acceptance that 404 ha isunder cultivation by local tribals. (‘encroachment’)

Annexure III

An Account of the Discussions on 15th March 1999 at Nandurbar between the DistrictCollector, Other Officials and the Oustees of the Sardar Sarovar ProjectSubmitted to the Tribunal during the site visit.

Translation from Original MarathiThe Supreme Court gave its interim order regarding the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam,and accordingly gave permission to raise the height upto 85-m. In getting this permission, theGovernment of Maharashtra had assured the Court that even if the height of the dam wasraised to 110m, it is prepared to resettle all the people with land, homesteads, resettlementsites and all the facilities. It also gave a written assurance that the people who had beenshifted till date had all been given land and only then shifted. It is because of theseassurances that the Supreme Court agreed to allow raising the height to 85-m. However, thePAFs living in the Narmada valley had grave doubts about both these claims and hence, totest the validity of these claims, about 1000 people went to the District Collector and UpperCommissioner (SSP) Shri Bipin Shrimali and demanded that he come in front of the peopleand discuss the same.

Acceding to this demand, Shri Bipin Shrimali (District Collector, Nandurbar) came to theground in front of his office at about 2 p.m. with this officials. These included Shri Mahajan(District Rehabilitation Officer), Shri Devmurari (Narmada Development Officer), Shri Patil(Narmada Development Officer), Shri Devidas Vasave (Resident Deputy Collector) and ShriVasantrao Koregaonkar (District Superintendent of Police).

Present also were representatives of the Narmada Bachao Andolan from Akrani andAkkalkuwa talukas, and as witnesses to the discussion Shri Advocate Nirmal KumarSuryavanshi (eminent lawyer in Dhule District), Dr. Ravi Kumar Kuchimachi (Scientist andSocial Worker), Shri Shyam Patil (Lecturer, SSVPS Engineering College), Shri PrakashBurate (Retd. Officer, BARC), Shri Rasikbhai (Gujarat Asargrast Sangharsh Samiti), PratibhaShinde (Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti), Shri Jordar Pawra (Medhanagar ResettlementVillage No. 4), Khaja Gansha Pawra (Amoni Village No. 3), Dilip Thoga Vasave (NarmadaNagar Village No. 1), Sesrya Vasave, Damnya Vasave (Amlibari Village No. 5), SuklalTadvi (Virakka Dharangrast Samiti), Ranchod bhai Tadvi (Dehli Dharangrast Samiti),Shri Yogendra Dorkar, Shri Diego De’Souza (Janseva Mandal).

At the start of the discussion, Ms Medha Patkar mentioned some important points from theInterim Order of the Supreme Court and stated that the Maharashtra Government had, in theirAffidavit of July 1997 said that there was enough land and all facilities to settle PAFs upto110 m, and in the NCA meeting however it said that readiness is there for PAFs up to 90 m,and by stating this, helped obtain the clearance from the Court for 5 m. The tribal PAFs fromthe valley raised the following issues and the discussion took off. The summary of thediscussions is as follows.

The First question of the people was : Will the humps be constructed on the dam? And if so,what will be the height of the humps? And what will be the backwater effect (impact) ofthese humps?

To this, the official of Narmada Development Department, Shri D. Murari, as also theCollector Shri Shrimali said that the work of the construction of the dam is of the GujaratGovernment and so we do not have the answers to these questions, nor has the MaharashtraGovernment asked for the said information from Gujarat nor has Gujarat sent anyinformation related to this in writing to Maharashtra Government, and hence we have notconsidered thc submergence that will take place due to the humps.

The PAFs asked a follow up question as to did the Maharashtra Government not feel the needto ask for this information, to which an answer in the negative was given. But then, becauseof the demand of the NBA, they said that “We will ask Gujarat and give you theinformation”.

The second question raised was: How many families would be affected by submergenceconsidering a 1-in-100 year flood and its associated backwater? (In this year).

After a long discussion on the issue, the following is the summary of the information that wasgiven by the officials. At the level of 85 m, a total of 180 PAFs remain to be resettled, and atotal of 335 families still remain in the valley and remain to be shifted, out of which 93 are inAkkalkuwa taluka and 242 in Akrani Taluka. A query was raised as to why this figure of 335was never put in front of the Court, to which the officials had no reply. At the level of 90 m,228 PAFs remained to be resettled.

However, these figures were not acceptable to the NBA and they said that as per the realsituation on ground these figures were too small and these are certain to go up, and so thepeople demanded that the Government provide them with the official list with the names ofthose affected (at 85 m) village and hamlet wise. The officials agreed to provide the lists.They also read out the impacts of the backwater corresponding to 85 and 90 m levels of thedam, and promised to give the relevant documents, but this information pertained only to 25villages. The impact on the villages Hatti, Kukadipar, Maal, Sawrya Digar, Bilgaon, Bamane,Tinismal, Hundya Roshmal, Duthal, Nalgavan was not stated by the officials, and peopledemanded information of all the 33 villages. At this, Shri Patil said that they are going tosurvey these villages. In this, they admitted that the survey of village like Tinismal, which is

to become a taapu1 , is also left out. Villages like Hatti were not included in the backwaterimpacts of the 85 m level dam when even in 1994, (when the height of the dam was only 69m) the agricultural lands were affected in Hatti. To this, the officials had no convincing reply.

The next question was - Which survey report has been relied upon to determine whichvillages, and which houses and lands in these villages will be affected by the submergence?To this, at first the official could not give any answer. However, when the people insisted.Then, after discussing amongst themselves, they said that the survey in 1983-84 carried outby the Tribal Research and Training Institute was the base in which the total affected familiescome out as 3113.

On this, the people of the Valley and Andolan raised the issue that Maharashtra Governmenthas in one of its affidavits stated that this number is likely to go up to 3300. Also, accordingto the inspection by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (the official Monitoring andEvaluation Agency) around 1990, it was indicated that this number would go up to 4000-5000. When they officials were asked as to why these surveys were not considered todetermine the levels of impact for this year, they evaded the answer.

The people also asked further: In 1985-86, the land settlement survey of 24 villages of AkraniTaluka was carried and it had been decided to accept the claims of (a large number of) thepeople, and for many years the inheritance rights had not been recorded for many people.Had the numbers of these families been considered for assessing the families to be affectedthis year?

To this, the officials did not give any specific answer. From this, the level of knowledge ofthe officials themselves is suspect. In 1992, the Government of Maharashtra brought outcertain Government Resolutions going beyond the Tribunal Order and decided that the cut offdate for the adult sons would be 1987 and declared its (resettlement) policy accordingly.Have the above-mentioned families been considered a separate family as would be necessaryas per this policy? To this, the officials replied in the negative.

According to the lists submitted by the then Collector Shri Ashvini Kumar to Shri P.K.Mohanty, Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Manibeli village has been shown as affected at90 m. level, but not at 85 m. However, the lands of Manibeli at 51 feet (sic) were submergedat the level of dam of 69 m. How is this? Why this difference? To this, the officials were notable to give any answer.

According to the Narmada Tribunal Award, and as per the Orders in the case B.D. Sharma vs.Union of India, the lands and arrangements have to be made one year in advance andrehabilitation (shifting) has to be completed in all respects six months in advance,respectively. In this respect, a discussion took place as to how many families are left in this.Shri Mahajan (D.R.O.) replied that 1114 PAFs remain to be shifted and 888 PAFs’rehabilitation remains, including allotment of lands. However, in the meeting held in theMantralaya in Mumbai on 18th February 1999 under the Chairmanship of the rehabilitationMinister Shri Jayprakash Mundada, Shri Devidas Vasave (R.D.C.) gave the figures as 1461PAFs left. When it was asked as to why this differences, Shri Vasave replied that theinheritance rights and adult sons have not been counted in this. Further, the claims of 555families for PAFs status, which remained to be decided on as per the Affidavit ofGovernment of Maharashtra of March 1998 still, remained outstanding, agreed Shri Mahajan.

According to their estimate, 1000 families were to go to Gujarat out of which 710 have beenallotted lands and 678 have been actually shifted. The officials were asked whether thesefigures include the PAFs of Manibeli and other villages who had been “resettled” very earlyon and who had a terrible experience with the resettlement, and who had returned to theiroriginal villages after returning the land titles to Gujarat Government. To this, the officialswere not able to give any specific reply. Similarly, they were asked whether these figuresincluded the PAFs of Dhankhedi and some other villages who had accepted resettlement buton finding the lands to he bad, asked for change of land and when the change has not beengiven, have returned to the original village. To this also, the D.R.O, Shri Mahajan was notable to give any reply.

Further, when asked about the basis of giving notices to 527 PAFs this year saying thattheir house / land will be affected this monsoon, the officials were not able to give anyclarification. However, they agreed to give the full list of these families.

In the 43rd Meeting of the R&R SubGroup, Maharashtra has given the figures of affected as1370 at 85 m, 1495 at 90 m, and 1973 at 110 m, that is:

From 0 to 85 m = 1370 PAFsFrom 0 to 90 m = 1495 PAFsFrom 0 to 110 m = 1973 PAFsFrom 110 m to 139 m = 1140 PAFs

In this, when Shri Patil had agreed that most of the affected families in Maharashtra are upto110 m, then how was it that there is such a large number of PAFs -1140 - shown between 110to 139 m level? The officials could not give any explanations for the same. Hence, thesefigures look very doubtful.

It was clear that the information that was being obtained from the discussion was creatingseveral doubts about the dependability of the figures given. However, the people said that forthe moment, let us accept the figures that the Government has given - that is, there are only180 PAFs left to be resettled at 85m, and asked the officials to show the lands andarrangements available for the resettlement of these families. The officials said that out of the5 settlement sites established in Maharashtra land is now available only at Amlibari, to theextent of 285 ha. This is sufficient for the 180 families with the average of 1.6 ha per family,they said.

On this, the people asked if this land was free. The PAFs Sesrya Vasave and Damnya Vasavefrom Amlibari resettlement site informed that the factual position was that there are 47families who are above 35 years of age. With the land titles or “order2” in the old village andover 13 adult sons’ claims are pending. Let these cases be resolved first and the lands allottedto them. Also, Sildar Pawra of village Varvali said that land has not been measured out andallotted to the 25 families of Varvali village who have been promised land at Amlibari. In thiscontext, the officials agreed to look into these claims and to give them land as appropriate.

Further, Damnya from Amlibari and workers of the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti said that1 60 People at Amlibari need to be declared as PAFs and given land2. The title lands should be given as per the Narmada Tribunal Award3. There is no road to access coup 412 and 409 as also in 413 and 414.These roads should be built. In cases where less lands have been alloted, the measurementsshould be done and deficit completed. Only when this has been done should the claim bemade that 285 ha land is remaining. To this, the District Collector agreed.

When this discussion was going on, Shri Jordar Pawra of Medhanagar Resettlement siteraised the issue that the administration has not been able to provide lands to over 169families (who have already been shifted). To this, the Government officials said the theirresettlement is certainly our responsibility. At the same time, Pratibha Shinde of PunarvasanSangharsh Samiti raised the issue that what about the lands for the 248 families who hadaccepted resettlement but they have not been shifted yet? What about the lands for them? Theofficials had no answer to this.

Then Damnya Vasave of Amlibari resettlement site said that we will not allow any newpeople to come where the people are cultivating lands in coup no. 409 and 412 and 411. Firstthe claims of our people must be settled and only then should any lands be allotted.

From this, it became clear that there is not enough land in Amlibari and that it is not possibleto allot lands to the new people at this site. At this point, the notice issued to PAF UgranyaVasave of Nimgavan village was presented. In this notice it was shown that lands are

available (for resettlement) at Somaval, Dekhati and Amoni {resettlement sites) inAkkalkuwa tehsil. It was then demanded that the officials take the people to show theselands.

At this, the District Collect Shri Shrimali said the land at these sites as followsSomaval-72.78 ha; Dekati-352.06 ha; Amoni-93.61ha were encroached upon and were in thepossession of the people from these villages itself and hence these lands were not available.

If these lands are not available, then why were they shown in the “offers” notice, the peopleasked. To this, the officials replied that they would reply in 15 days about the Dekati lands.When asked, then, where the land was available, the District Collector said that we will makeavailable private land and we have already submitted a proposal for dereservation of 316 hato the Forest Department. These lands too will be made available.

At this, Shri Rasikbhai, representative from the oustees organisation in Gujarat spoke aboutthe bad experience of private land purchase for resettlement. Also, Dadlya Karbhari ofDomkhedi village said that none of the lands shown on the sites in Gujarat mentioned in thenotices were acceptable to us and none of us are ready to take resettlement in Gujarat. Manyothers agreed with this.

While accepting that the process of purchasing private land and resettling people on the sameis a difficult and long drawn out process, the Collector, when asked if there was aGovernment Resolution to purchase private land for PAFs below 110 m also said that such aG.R. has not yet been passed.

The discussion then shifted to the issue of forestland. The Andolan representatives broughtout the fact that while Maharashtra Government was making the demand for release of forestland from 1980, the lands were released in 1990 (and then in 1994), and yet in March 1998the Government admitted in its affidavit in the Supreme Court that 490 ha out of this wasunfit for resettlement and in September 1998 that 836 ha was unfit. The Government took allof 9 years to admit that 836 ha out of 4200 are unfit for cultivation out of 4200 ha.

The whole process of asking for forestland and getting it released took 10 years. Then whenwill the newly asked for forestland of 316 ha get released, deforested, stumps removed andthe land become fit for cultivation? To this, the authorities were not able to give anymeaningful reply.

At the end, even though the Collector did not have satisfactory answers to the queries anddoubts of the people, it was decided to go to Amlibari resettlement site the next day and seethe situation of the land said to be available. It was decided to leave at 8 o’clock the next day.

Also, it was agreed that written replies would be given to all queries raised in the day’sdiscussions and all the lists agreed to be given would also be given.

The Resident Collector also agreed to the request of the Andolan that the Governmentsurveyors, DRO will accompany the people on 16.3.99 for examining the 285 ha land atAmlibari and that the Government make arrangements for the travel and food of the peopleon that day as also on the night of 15.3.99. After the meeting was over at 6.45 p.m., thepeople decided to stay in front of the Collector office and leave only when leaving for

Amlibari next day morning at 8 am. They also resolved to take the written answers to theirqueries.

Witnesses: (Signed)

1. Shri Nirmal Kumar Suryavanshi2. Dr. Ravikumar Kuchimanchi3. Prof. Shyam Patil4. Shri Prakash Burate5. Shri Yogendra Dorkar6. Shri Diego D'Souza7. Shri Rasikbahi8. Pratibha Shinde9. Shri Jordar Pawra10. Shri Khajya Ganesh Pawra11. Shri Dilip Thoga Vasave12. Shri Sukhlal Tadvi13. Shri Ranchod Tadvi14. Shri Sesrya Vasave15. Shri Amarjeet Bargaal

Annexure IV

SARDAR SAROVAR PROJECT: MAJOR SOCIAL IMPACTS

DISPLACEMENT♦ Government Figures say over 40000 families will be displaced due to project

submergence. This is certainly an underestimate.♦ Large numbers of these families are tribals.♦ Submergence includes self sustaining tribal villages in the hills these are independent

communities with their own highly developed economic, social, legal and culturalsystems. Displacement will destroy all this.

♦ Submergence also includes villages on the plains, “prosperous” in the conventional sensewith highly fertile soils, lift irrigation from the river, pucca houses, well-developedinfrastructure etc.

♦ Large numbers of people who will be seriously affected by the project - losing theirmeans of survival - are not counted as displaced or affected persons, and do not have thebenefit of any rehabilitation policy. This is because definition of displacement onlyconsiders those affected by submergence as displaced, even though other categories toomay be losing land.

These categories - not recognised as “Project Affected People” include:

Colony Affected People: People of six villages whose lands were taken in early 60’s to buildthe project colony. Many lost all their lands, but they are not yet fully compensated.

Canal Affected People: Huge numbers of people are losing land to project canals. The totalnumber of land holders (khatedars) losing land to canals is 1,69,493 according to theGovernment sources. Out of these about 24000 khatedars are such who lost more than 25% oftheir holding. Total land lost in the canal is about 85, 000 ha - over twice the submergencearea of the project.

Drainage Affected: Large areas of land will need to be acquired for the drainage. Just forthe main drains in Zones 4-13, it is estimated that 18, 000 ha of land will have to be acquired.(Estimates for other areas not available)

Downstream Affected: As the project aims to divert all the water of the river above the dam,a stretch of the river of about 150 km downstream will become virtually dry. This area is oneof the richest fisheries of Gujarat, with the famed Hilsa fish. It is estimated that at least 10,000 fishing families who depend mainly on fishing for livelihood will be affected. Otherimpacts include salinisation of drinking water sources, salt-water ingress and so on.

Sanctuary Affected: The project includes the expansion of the former Dhumkhal Sloth BearSanctuary (now called Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary) to compensate for the loss of wildlife, andwith the hopes of offering a “resettlement” for the wildlife which will flee the submergenceareas. Whether this happens or not the expansion of the sanctuary has meant about 104 tribalvillages in the sanctuary are slated to loose their traditional rights to forest produce, grazing,maintaining cattle - a virtual crippling of their economic sustenance. Plans are also there for“voluntary” relocation of 13 villages.

Compensatory Forestation / Catchment Area Treatment: These are being carried out as apart of the environmental protection measures. However many are being carried out on thelands of the tribal which they have been cultivating for generations. This is severely affectingthem and leading to serious conflicts.

Secondary Displacement: In Gujarat, resettlement land is being obtained by privatepurchase of land. In many cases, these are lands held by absentee landlords, and beingcultivated by tenant farmers or sharecroppers. Also a lot of the local landless labourers gotemployment on these lands. When these lands are sold for resettlement and occupied by theoustees, the tenant farmers / sharecroppers are simply thrown away. The oustee families alsonormally do not require the labour. This has resulted in a wave of secondarydisplacement involving hundreds / thousands of families. This has also led to hostilities andconflicts in many places. In Maharashtra also the allocation of forest land for resettlement hasdisplaced many tribal cultivating there earlier.

Other Occupations: A large number of people are such whose occupations depend on theriver or the existence of a community. When the river is destroyed or the communitydispersed these people will be rendered jobless - even though they may not be affected bysubmergence. These include - the fisher people, the boats people, the riverbed cultivators, thepetty traders in the village, the village service providers such as shopkeepers, barbers, pottersand so on.

Narmada Sagar Affected: Since the benefits of the Sardar Sarovar depend critically on theregulated release from the Narmada Sagar, the displacement due to NSP must also beconsidered here. The NSP submergence are (91, 000 ha) is more than twice the SSP.

There is till date no proper estimate of the total number of people affected by the project, inspite of repeated recommendations by various authorities.

List of Documents Scrutinised by the Tribunal

he Project Affected Families and State Authorities were invited to submit documents insupport of their arguments. In addition, the IPT had also provided the team with certaincritical documents, all of which were scrutinised by the team.

1. Final Order and Decision of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (Chapter IX) of themain report (Pages 62-81)

2. Minutes of the 43rd meeting of the R&R Subgroup of the Narmada Control Authority(NCA) held at New Delhi on 6th January1999 (Indore January 1999)

3. Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award provisions/stipulations for R&R andLiberalised Policy of State Governments (Pages 2-16).

4. Source Volume 24/1 (5 pages) which gives the details regarding displaced persons.

5. Letter and note from Shri Ashwini Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Government ofMaharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, dated 17th Dec.1994 giving the numberof families to be affected at different levels of dam construction.

6. Copy of the letter, according environmental clearance from S.D.Maudgal, Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, New Delhi, dated 24th June 1987.

7. Copy of letter from Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 8th September 1987granting approval (signed by R.S.Bisht) for diversion of forest land (13385.48 ha) forSSP.

8. Order of the Supreme Court dated 18th February 1999.

9. Document submitted by Dr. Kantilal Tatiya, Vice President, BJP, Dhulia District (Pages1-179) related to the 400 families living within the 2700 ha of forest land acquired forrehabilitating SSP oustees.

10. Document (containing 82 pages) submitted by the oustees of Amlibari R&R site, dated20th March 1999.

11. Document submitted by Punarvasan Sangharsha Samiti showing the problems and fieldreality faced by the oustees of SSP, entitled ‘Awirat Sangharsh ki Dukhad Trasdi’ dated20th March 1999 (64 pages).

12. Document submitted by oustees of Somawal site and Rozwa site (98 pages).

13. Document submitted by Kunwarsing Phulji Walvi, President, Bharatiya Janata Party,Dist. Nandurbar regarding the problem of about 800 encroachers who have been residingwithin the 2700 ha of land (11 pages).

14. Submission made by the following press reporters : Dilip Tiwari (Sakal), Ranjit Rajput(Apla, Maharashtra), Chetansingh Rajput (Nandararthan), Devendra Borse (Deshdoot).