Madhya Pradesh
,
Karamdi
,
Ratlam
Published :
Jan 2019
|
Updated :
Bhil Farmers in MP's Ratlam Face Risk of Eviction from Industrial Cluster
Reported by
Nihar Gokhale
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
101
People affected
2009
Year started
18
Land area affected
Households affected
101
People Affected
2009
Year started
18
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Food Processing
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Food Processing
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

Twentyone families belonging to the Bhil tribal community face the threat of being evicted from 18 hectares of farmland in Karamdi village on the outskirts of Ratlam city. On paper, the land belongs to the government and is classified as grazing land. A silver lining for the farmers came in the form of a Supreme Court ruling on April 29, 2019, which upheld the temporary stay on their eviction issued by the Ratlam civil court in 2016. In January 2019, the farmers filed another petition before the Madhya Pradesh high court, stating that under an 1984 state law, they should receive titles to the grazing land. On January 9, the high court ordered a stay on the industrial cluster. The petition is being heard. In 2015, the state had proposed to set up a namkeen industrial cluster for the production of Ratlami Sev (a popular snack in the city) over 18 hectares of grazing land, which included approximately 12 hectares of farmlands belonging to the Bhils. In 2016, the government began excavation on the site, damaging the standing crop of the farmers. Twelve Bhil families are now landless and work as daily wage earners to make ends meet. In the past three years, the farmers have filed cases at all levels of the judiciary. In February 2016, they filed a suit in the Ratlam civil court, seeking protection from eviction. The court granted an immediate oneyear temporary stay on the eviction. But the stay order was overruled in March by an appeals court in Ratlam and then by the high court. The farmers appealed this before the Supreme Court, which, in November 2016, ordered a stay on the construction of the cluster. However, in April 2017, the government resumed construction, leading the farmers to file a contempt petition, which is still being heard. The cluster has been constructed, and more than 50 plots have been allotted for commercial purpose, according to the state government's website. Ratlam District Collector Ruchika Chauhan declined to comment when contacted by LCW. In an application to the Union Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, the state government claimed that the cluster is necessary to support the city's namkeen makers who are losing market share to largesized competitors. In affidavits to the local courts, the government has claimed that the land is rocky and that the Bhil farmers are merely encroachers. Shailendra Gandhi, president of the Ratlami Sev Evam Namkeen Mandal, dismissed the Bhils' claims as _bakwaas _(bogus). "This is just a _saazish _(agenda) by the Indore namkeen lobby and opposition politicians because they don't want our industry to grow," he said. Ankit Luniya, an entrepreneur setting up the first namkeen unit in Ratlam, said the land was rocky and that the cluster did not take up farmland. The Bhils, on the other hand, claim to have been cultivating on this land for the last 80 years and to have been recorded in revenue surveys dating back to 1967. The farmers claim that their forefathers had worked hard on the rocky land to make it cultivable and that they should be given patta or permanent lease so that they can continue to cultivate. The Bhils are landless and grow food on their farms. The origin of the conflict between the Bhils and the state can be traced back to 2009, when the government proposed a foodprocessing park over 32 hectares of the grazing land, including the entire area cultivated by the Bhils. The district officials had attempted to evict some farmers then, but they returned to the land and the government did not pursue the project.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Grazing 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?

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):

22

Type of investment:

Investment Made

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:

District Administration, Ratlam; Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Madhya Pradesh; Union Ministry of Micro, Medium and Small Industries

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Ujjain) Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Yes

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra VIkas Nigam (Ujjain) Limited (A Government of Madhya Pradesh company)

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Adivasi Ekta Maha Sabha

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
Nihar Gokhale
Show more work
Latest updates
Nagaon
Assam

Farmers in Assam resist land acquisition for solar plant, beaten by police

Surat
Gujarat

Surat farmers claim fertile land re-included in Gujarat's development plan without consent

Gadchiroli
Maharashtra

Villagers in Gadchiroli campaign to shut down Surjagarh iron ore mine

Biswanath
Assam

Encroachment, land dispute pose threat to newly designated Behali Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam

Krishnagiri
Tamil Nadu

Residents in Krishnagiri protest against takeover of land by SIPCOT

Lower Siang
Arunachal Pradesh

Tension in Arunachal's Lower Siang over Likabali-Durpai road project amid boundary disputes

Kanyakumari
Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu revives plan to construct Kanyakumari Port despite protests by fisherfolk

Koraput
Odisha

Bauxite mining at Mali Parbat in Koraput seeks to displace and disrupt local livelihoods

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

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