Jharkhand
Ichakdih and Laiyo villages (Mandu block)
,
Kedla
,
Ramgarh
Published :
Jun 2024
|
Updated :
Decades-old wait for compensation turns villagers into labourers in Jharkhand’s coal belt
Reported by
Sukriti Vats
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
30
Households affected
144
People affected
1984
Year started
9
Land area affected
30
Households affected
144
People Affected
1984
Year started
9
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Mining
Reason/Cause of conflict
Coal Mining
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Mining
Reason/Cause of conflict
Coal Mining
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Ministry of Coal's response in the Parliament in July 2023 highlighted the issue of delayed compensation after the acquisition of land in 2004 under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, in Jharkhand's Ramgarh district.

While the response only mentioned the plight of Kedla village, it was found that even the residents of the neighbouring Ichakdih and Laiyo villages were unhappy as the Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) had denied compensation or offered inadequate reparations to them.

The central government subsidiary acquired land in Kedla village in 1984, 1996, and 2004 for coal mining in the Kedla underground and open-cast mines. In 1984, the land was also acquired in Ichakdih and Laiyo villages for Jharkhand collieries and Layio underground mining projects, respectively.

The Rajya Sabha response talked about the delayed compensation for 17.47 acres of tenancy or raiyat land i.e. the land held by a person who has a right to hold it primarily for cultivation directly under the government. However, the total land acquired in that year was 475.40 acres including the Gair Marzua land (deemed forest, common land) and the company promised to provide compensation even to those who had build houses on such lands.

The CCL had stated that it was the Jharkhand government that held up the compensation, but the latter alleged that the coal company had not given them documents for verification.

In Ichakdih village, three villagers displayed documents showing how they had been awaiting employment for a long time but were denied eventually for asking about it "too late." They alleged that about 86 families in their village had suffered a similar fate.

They further explained that it took years for them to collect paperwork (genealogical trees, revenue receipts), attest them and made revision every time those were sent back with more requests. However, in the end, the CCL denied them jobs citing an order where the Jharkhand High Court order had denied tenants compensation for requesting it beyond a reasonable time. The court order didn't involve anyone from the Ichakdih village but was regarding a similar case in a different district.

The Laiyo villagers were offered compensation but at a rate "less than the market rate" that they didn't accept at the time. The money was eventually put in the treasury. Here the CCL had violated the CBA provision by not negotiating with the land losers before deciding on the compensation amount. While the villagers were free to approach a tribunal or high court to demand more compensation, they alleged they were illiterate and poor, so neither did they know how to express grievances nor did they have the resources to hire lawyers.

The 9-10 residents who expressed grievances of their respective villages used to be cultivators before the agricultural land from which they sustained their families was acquired for coal mining. Now these people were forced to become daily labourers and depended on their wages to buy food. Sarpanch of Ichakdih village Chhaya Kumari claimed that this was the trend across Ramgarh wherever coal mining had been initiated.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for compensation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Demand for employment

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Other than 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

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

No

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

No

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

17.3

Type of investment:

Investment Made

Year of Estimation

1979

Page Number In Investment Document:

26

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Circle office, District Commissioner Office and Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Central Coalfields Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Yes

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:

Village Panchayat

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
Sukriti Vats
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 compensation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Demand for employment

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

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

No

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

No

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