Assam
,
Chandardinga
,
Dhubri
Published :
Jan 2017
|
Updated :
Forest Department in Assam Forcefully Evicts Flood-Displaced People in Dhubri District
Reported by
Abdul Kalam Azad
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
57
Households affected
274
People affected
1997
Year started
Land area affected
57
Households affected
274
People Affected
1997
Year started
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Natural Calamities
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Natural Calamities
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

On December 28, 2016, the forest department evicted 57 families from Chandardinga hill area in Dhubri district. The officials demolished 118 houses/huts, a school building housing 120 children and an Anganwadi centre. More than 300 people were rendered homeless.
The land, which belongs to the forest department, was home to 100 families, mostly erosion-affected Muslims and the landless Koch Rajbangshi community. These people had settled here in 1978-80 after migrating from the c_har _(river islands) of Roukhuwa Krishtimoni and Solakur, which got washed away in floods and erosion caused by the Brahmaputra. Although they were all landless farmers when they had migrated, their means of livelihood has changed over the years. Most of the families today depend on daily wage earnings.
A large number of these families opt for seasonal migration to urban areas, and many of them work in brick kilns in the nearby areas of Chapar. In the last two decades, hundreds of brick kilns have mushroomed in Chapar, most of which operating in forest and agricultural land violating environmental rules. However, instead of cracking down on the brick kilns, the forest department evicted 30-35 landless families living in Chandardinga hill in 1997. The evictees again settled in the area.
In October 2016, state Forest Minister Pramila Rani Brahma visited the area and instructed officials to evict the settlers. No plan was formulated for their rehabilitation. On November 11, the forest department sent an eviction notice to the settlers. The Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti mobilised the people into demanding rehabilitation before the eviction. But the administration did not pay heed.
According to media reports, on the day of eviction, the people pleaded for some notice period so that they could gather their belongings. But the eviction officials did not give them time. Two women who protested were allegedly beaten up. This infuriated the settlers who started pelting stones on the eviction officials. The police resorted to lathicharge and opened fire on the protesters. Five officials were injured. Later on, the Army was called to bring the situation under control. Eight people, including two women, were hurt and a protester was arrested.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

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):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Revenue Department

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?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Krishak Mukti Sangram Samity

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
Abdul Kalam Azad
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 rehabilitation

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