Uttarakhand
Lalquan to Kathgodam stretch of the project (NH 87)
,
Haldwani
,
Nainital
Published :
Jul 2022
|
Updated :
Affected families demand fair compensation for lands acquired for highway expansion in Uttarakhand
Reported by
Urvashi Mahtolia
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
5000
People affected
2012
Year started
68
Land area affected
Households affected
5000
People Affected
2012
Year started
68
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban and Rural
Ended
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban and Rural
Ended
1
Summary

On 4th July 2012, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway issued a gazette notification for the proposed acquisition of land for four-laning National Highway 87 (NH-87). The four-laning proposed is for the section that stretches from Rampur in Uttar Pradesh to Kathgodam via Rudrapur in Uttarakhand. The INR 1335 crore project, spanning 93 km, will be covering towns such as Rampur, Bilaspur, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, Haldwani, and Kathgodam. The project is expected to shorten the journey from Delhi to Nainital and improve road infrastructure by linking famous tourist destinations like Nainital, Ranikhet, and Kausani.

The conflict started after a notification was published in 2012 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, announcing the union government’s intention to acquire land for the highway's expansion. In 2013, two PILs were filed in the Uttarakhand High Court alleging that the land proposed for the acquisition was more than what was required for making it a four-lane road. The petitioners argued that NH-87 was only 20 metres wide at other stretches, but for the part that crosses through the petitioners' land, a requirement of 60 metres had been made for acquisition. They also claimed they were not given a hearing for raising objections as required under law. The High Court disposed off the two PILs and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)/ Competent Authority (Nainital) to address the petitioners’ objections.

In 2014, the government published a notice inviting claims for compensation to be paid to the landowners. By 2018, the SLAO published a notice stating the rate of compensation to be paid to landowners. Subsequently a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court in the same year, by a few individuals and Rashtriya Rajmarg Utpidan Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti (RRUVSS), a local civil society organisation. They represented residents of 17 villages between Lalqua to Kathgodam, including more than 5000 landholders. The petitioners argued that the compensation amount determined by the state was lower than both the prevailing market and circle rates, considering sale deeds of recent transactions. It was alleged that the compensation amount was calculated according to a pre-determined formula, which ignored the demands of the landowners completely. They further alleged that state agencies were trying to acquire large tracts of land to widen and construct roads, which would later be handed to builders at higher rates for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court however, disposed of this petition with the suggestion that petitioners should approach the Uttarakhand High Court instead.

One of the petitioners, Mr. Chandra Prakash Dal, said, “It has been more than eight years; we have spent a lot of money on the matter. But the government won’t listen to us. But we will fight for our land and do our duty. Now the fight is for fair compensation, but we know nothing will come out of it,” he added.

According to Mr. Dal and a few other affected parties, as of now, the land has been acquired for the project. Some landowners have accepted the compensation provided by the government after waiting for the legal battles to deliver justice. Others are still embroiled in legal struggles, mainly in the District Court, fighting for fair compensation.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for more compensation than promised

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

State agencies should determine the compensation on the basis of current market rates.

Region Classification

Urban and Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Forest and Non-Forest

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?

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):

1335

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2016

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, National Highway Authority of India, Special Land Acquisition Officer

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

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:

Rashtriya Rajmarg Utpidan Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti

5
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?

Legal Supporting Documents

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
Author
Reported by
Urvashi Mahtolia

Urvashi graduated with a Master’s degree in Environment and Development from the School of Human Ecology, Ambedkar University Delhi, in 2021. She is currently working as a research consultant with the National Social Expertise team on an International Finance Corporation-funded project on Cumulative Impact Assessment of Renewable Energy Projects. She is an interdisciplinary researcher interested in land and forest governance and is keen to learn more about the domain of public policy and issues of displacement and resettlement.

Show more work
Latest updates
East Jaintia Hills
Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela
Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja
Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan
Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai
Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune
Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat
Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for more compensation than promised

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

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?

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

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
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us