JOIN THE LCW
COMMUNITY

Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, quarterly analytics report, curated expert talks, merchandise and much more. Support our work!

Sign up today

Kotia Villages in Odisha Reel under Identity Crisis, Andhra Pradesh Claims Territory

Reported by

Faizi Ahmad

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Published on

March 16, 2021

May 17, 2022

Edited on

March 16, 2021

State

Odisha

Sector

Land Use

People Affected by Conflict

5500

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

ha

Starting Year

1953

Location of Conflict

Kotia

Koraput

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Border Dispute

Land Conflict Summary

Twenty-one villages in Koraput district in Odisha, more commonly known as the Kotia group of villages, have been caught in an identity crisis since the 1950s. Both Odisha and Andhra Pradesh claim jurisdiction over them, as they are situated along the inter-state border, although the villages are part of the Kotia panchayat in Koraputs Pottangi constituency. After Odisha was formed in 1936, the state government wrote to the then government of Madras Presidency to take steps for delineation of the interstate boundary with Andhra Pradesh. H.S. Gilby, the then assistant director of Survey and Land Records, was appointed to demarcate the boundary in 1942. According to his report, the 21 villages fell within the boundary of Andhra Pradesh. The dispute started in March 1955 when some subordinate government officers from Andhra Pradesh tried to collect rent from the village residents, following the formation of the state in 1953. Y.V. Chavan, the then home minister of India, tried to bring the chief ministers of both the states together to resolve the dispute in a meeting in September 1968. Chavan noted that based on Gilbys report of 1942, which Odisha had accepted, it was difficult to support the states claim over the disputed villages. The Odisha government filed a case in the Supreme Court in 1968. In the original suit, 73 villages were specified to be disputed, but, subsequently, the number was reduced to 21 in 1980. The disputed villages are Doliamba, Madakaru, Kotiya, Digurasembi, Equrasembi, Gangaibhadra, Dhulipadar, Sidivalasa, Arjuvalasa, Panika, Narlavalsa, Tadivalsa, Ranasingi, Simageda, Mahipani, Pattuchenaru, Pagulchenaru, Solapguda, Harmadangi, Kanadora and Barnaguda. The suit claimed that the villages falling within the territory of Odisha were being trespassed upon by Andhra Pradesh. It questioned whether the disputed villages were part of Salur or Pottangi tehsils. The court noted that Pottangi appears to be within the territory of Odisha while Salur comes within the territory of Andhra Pradesh. On March 30, 2006, the suit was disposed of by the Supreme Court, which held that the Parliament alone is authorised to determine the territorial limits of states. At least 5,500 people are caught up in this border war, which has lasted for over 60 years. The villages have two sarpanches (village panchayat heads): Biswanath Khila who represents Odisha and Bisu Gemel who represents Andhra Pradesh. In a bid to woo residents towards them, the two states have provided various benefits to the people in these villages, such as ration, houses, roads and healthcare facilities. In February 2020, the Andhra Pradesh government distributed forest land rights to 19 families of Arjuvalasa village. On February 13, the state also held panchayat polls in three of the disputed villages. On February 25, the Odisha Assembly witnessed ruckus over the issue and the session had to be adjourned. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Andhra Pradesh government over a contempt of court plea filed by Odisha. The plea states that the disputed villages have been under the control of the local administration of Odisha and that the state has undertaken several infrastructure initiatives in these villages.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

No items found.

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Private

Type of Common Land

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

No items found.

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Supreme Court of India

Case Number

Original suit number 10 of 1968, decided on March 30, 2006

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

No items found.

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Odisha Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Twenty-one villages in Koraput district in Odisha, more commonly known as the Kotia group of villages, have been caught in an identity crisis since the 1950s. Both Odisha and Andhra Pradesh claim jurisdiction over them, as they are situated along the inter-state border, although the villages are part of the Kotia panchayat in Koraputs Pottangi constituency. After Odisha was formed in 1936, the state government wrote to the then government of Madras Presidency to take steps for delineation of the interstate boundary with Andhra Pradesh. H.S. Gilby, the then assistant director of Survey and Land Records, was appointed to demarcate the boundary in 1942. According to his report, the 21 villages fell within the boundary of Andhra Pradesh. The dispute started in March 1955 when some subordinate government officers from Andhra Pradesh tried to collect rent from the village residents, following the formation of the state in 1953. Y.V. Chavan, the then home minister of India, tried to bring the chief ministers of both the states together to resolve the dispute in a meeting in September 1968. Chavan noted that based on Gilbys report of 1942, which Odisha had accepted, it was difficult to support the states claim over the disputed villages. The Odisha government filed a case in the Supreme Court in 1968. In the original suit, 73 villages were specified to be disputed, but, subsequently, the number was reduced to 21 in 1980. The disputed villages are Doliamba, Madakaru, Kotiya, Digurasembi, Equrasembi, Gangaibhadra, Dhulipadar, Sidivalasa, Arjuvalasa, Panika, Narlavalsa, Tadivalsa, Ranasingi, Simageda, Mahipani, Pattuchenaru, Pagulchenaru, Solapguda, Harmadangi, Kanadora and Barnaguda. The suit claimed that the villages falling within the territory of Odisha were being trespassed upon by Andhra Pradesh. It questioned whether the disputed villages were part of Salur or Pottangi tehsils. The court noted that Pottangi appears to be within the territory of Odisha while Salur comes within the territory of Andhra Pradesh. On March 30, 2006, the suit was disposed of by the Supreme Court, which held that the Parliament alone is authorised to determine the territorial limits of states. At least 5,500 people are caught up in this border war, which has lasted for over 60 years. The villages have two sarpanches (village panchayat heads): Biswanath Khila who represents Odisha and Bisu Gemel who represents Andhra Pradesh. In a bid to woo residents towards them, the two states have provided various benefits to the people in these villages, such as ration, houses, roads and healthcare facilities. In February 2020, the Andhra Pradesh government distributed forest land rights to 19 families of Arjuvalasa village. On February 13, the state also held panchayat polls in three of the disputed villages. On February 25, the Odisha Assembly witnessed ruckus over the issue and the session had to be adjourned. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Andhra Pradesh government over a contempt of court plea filed by Odisha. The plea states that the disputed villages have been under the control of the local administration of Odisha and that the state has undertaken several infrastructure initiatives in these villages.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

No items found.

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Private

Type of Common Land

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

No items found.

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Supreme Court of India

Case Number

Original suit number 10 of 1968, decided on March 30, 2006

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Nature of Protest

No items found.

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Odisha Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch

Other Land Conflicts in Odisha

cross
Not a member yet?
Sign up now