Goa
Pirla
,
Caurem
,
South Goa
Published :
Jul 2023
|
Updated :
August 5, 2024
Caurem villagers resolve to protect sacred forest land against iron ore mining
Reported by
Malavika Neurekar
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
150
Households affected
People affected
2023
Year started
70
Land area affected
150
Households affected
People Affected
2023
Year started
70
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Mining
Reason/Cause of conflict
Iron Ore Mining
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Mining
Reason/Cause of conflict
Iron Ore Mining
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In April 2023, the Caurem-Pirla gram sabha or village council in South Goa, passed a resolution to oppose any state plans to divert forest land for a mining project.

The diversion of forest land has been proposed at the mountain at Survey no. 19/0, an area which consists of forest and agricultural land. The Zamblidadga Iron and Manganese Ore Mine is spread across 70.20 hectares on the mountain, and lies at the heart of this conflict.

Located in Quepem, Caurem has a significant Scheduled Tribe population, a large number of whom belong to the Velip and Gaonkar communities.

The gram sabha's resolution comes after the mine owners of the area sought environmental clearance to carry out open cast iron ore mining in the area. According to the villagers, the land is a proposed reserve forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It has one Community Forest Right (CFR) and 149 Individual Forest Right (IFR) claims pending since 2015.

As per the tribes people, they have been exploited for centuries by the Dessais, an upper caste community which forms a small slice of the village population. Earlier this used to occur through collusion with Portuguese colonisers. Today, it occurs through their collusion with mining corporations.

Mining began in Caurem in the 1960s, and intensified in 2004 with the onset of mechanised mining. Village residents claim land control was captured by mining companies through various illegal means.

"Mining has disrupted traditional agriculture and water supply, and caused a lot of damage in our village. It has led to a depleted water table, polluted fields and water bodies, and affected cultivation of paddy, coconut, jackfruit and cashew, among other crops" said tribal activist and resident Ravindra Velip.

The lease is held by late Naraina S Quirtonim and is owned by Pradnya Zoivant Poi Cano. According to Velip, “Local communities have traditionally depended on these forests for agriculture and foraging; it is linked to our livelihoods. But there is also a lot of cultural and religious significance attached to the mountains.”

A report on Caurem, prepared by village elders and accessed by LCW, details the ecological and cultural significance of the mountain. Villagers use the land at Survey 19/0 for cultivation as well as to procure honey, wild mushrooms, and berries. A spring that starts at the bottom of the mountain provides irrigation to other parts of the villages.

The mountain also serves as a site to make religious offerings as the villagers believe that it is the abode of several local gods. “[In present day], the tribals could build their houses, educate their children and buy two wheeler vehicles with little savings only with blessings of this mountain,” the report reads.

The Community Forest Right (CFR) claim was made in July 2015 under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. The villagers had submitted their CFR claim to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC).

In April 2017, villagers submitted a reminder after no initiative was taken to process the claim.

In February 2023, they filed an RTI to find out the status of the CFR claim, but their concerns were not adequately addressed, according to Velip. “The claims for CFR have been pending with the authorities for seven years and despite multiple attempts, we have not received any favourable response. Instead, they have started the process to grant an Environmental Clearance for mining,” added Velip.

On 6 March 2023, the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) announced that a public hearing would be held on 11 April 2023 to decide on the Environment Clearance sought by the mining lease owners.

The terms of reference for conducting the environmental impact assessment (EIA) had been heard and approved by the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in March 2022. The EIA was conducted between 1 March 2022 and 31 May 2022.

On 5 April 2023, the GAKUVED Federation – comprising four ST communities in the state, Gawada, Kunbi, Velip, and Dhangar – approached the Goa bench of the High Court. They requested that the CFR claim be fast-tracked and that the Environment Clearance not be processed before the settling of the claim. The federation also sought directions for restraining the scheduled public hearing.

Subsequently, the public hearing scheduled for April 11 was cancelled by the GSPCB on direction of the South Goa District Magistrate. Report suggested that the move was taken in anticipation of a law and order situation. The PIL was admitted to court on 25 April 2023.

The Bombay High Court disposed of the case on August 2, 2023. The Advocate General told the court that while the SEIAA would continue the process of considering the application for environmental clearance, the clearance will not be granted until the forest right claims have been decided upon. It added that the SDLC would take the decision on the claim within one year. 

As on 5 August 2024, no progress has been made on the forest rights claims. “We have raised the issue in our meetings with the District Collector and the Deputy Collector, but there has been no action taken. The court had given one year’s time to consider the claim, which is over now,” Velip told LCW.
 
LCW has approached the mining lease owners for comments but did not receive a response at the time of filing the report. 

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to cancel the project

Opposition against environmental degradation

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

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

Agricultural land, Grazing, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Religious/Sacred/Cultural value, Water bodies

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

51.9

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

5

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Goa state government, Directorate of Mines and Geology, Caurem-Pirla panchayat, State EIAA, Chief Conservator of Forests, Collector, Deputy Collector, State Pollution Control Board

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

The concerned party did not respond to a request or comment till the date of filing this conflict report.

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Pradnya Zoivant Poi Cano alias Pradnya Zoivant Pai Cano

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Yes

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Gakuved Federation

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
Malavika Neurekar

Malavika graduated from Azim Premji University with a Master's in Development. She has worked as a journalist and has written for Hindustan Times, Scroll and Mint Lounge.

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 to cancel the project

Opposition against environmental degradation

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

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

Agricultural land, Grazing, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Religious/Sacred/Cultural value, Water bodies

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