Chhattisgarh
,
Barnawapara
,
Mahasamund
Published :
Aug 2017
|
Updated :
Chhattisgarh Government Evicts 25 Tribal Villages from Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary amdist Protests
Reported by
Eleonora Fanari
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
8000
People affected
2009
Year started
24500
Land area affected
Households affected
8000
People Affected
2009
Year started
24500
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary, the administration displaced three tribal villages between 2010 and 2014. The sanctuary, located in Mahasamund district, had 25 villages within the reserved area, where the majority of the households belonged to the Kond, Saura and Binjhwar tribes and the Scheduled Caste. The families have been protesting since 2008 against their forceful relocation without compensation or rehabilitation packages.  Reportedly, the displacements happened under the garb of protecting the wildlife, for which the state had partially utilised the Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds.  In 2010, the state government decided to relocate all the villages in the 245square kilometre area of the sanctuary. In the first phase, the administration relocated Rampur, Latadadar and Nawapara villages, which affected 374 families. The environment ministry released funds to aid the relocation process, but according to a 2014 news report, there were discrepancies in fund utilisation.  Also, while the government claimed in the 2013 State Assembly that the relocation of the affected families was complete and they had access to basic amenities and social welfare schemes, the families argued otherwise. Ground reports showed that the forest dwellers did not receive proper rehabilitation and compensation they were entitled to under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.  In January 2013, the State Assembly decided to relocate Bafra, Gundagarh, Mudpaar, Bhimauri, Dheba and Akaltaraare villages in the second phase. But the relocation is not yet complete.  According to a 2018 factfinding report, the families relocated from Rampur to Srirampur village did not have access to social welfare schemes. They claimed that the officials had promised them land allocation, but there were differences in the final allocation. They also claimed that the newly allocated land was difficult to cultivate. According to the report, the state has also failed to settle the community forest rights (CFR) claims. The factfinding report further stated that the families in Rampur who had refused to relocate faced threats and intimidation by forest officials.  Over the years, the relocated families have raised their concerns several times with the block and district administration, but their issues remain unaddressed. In October 2017, the residents of the remaining 22 villages decided to launch a protest against the relocation plan under the banner of Dalit Adivasi Manch. They also demanded the settlement of their CFR claims first.  On January 18, 2018, according to local testimonies, forest officials physically assaulted and abused a resident of Rampur village and his family for refusing to relocate. He was arrested and detained for 10 days. In protest, from January 25, the villagers organised an indefinite sitin demanding state action against attempts of forceful evacuation and instances of intimidation and casteism. They called off their protest in February after the subdivisional magistrate of Kasdol block intervened and verbally accepted the protesters memorandum of demands. In the same month, Dalit Adivasi Manch filed a petition with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes demanding to stop the forceful eviction of the Scheduled Tribe community from the sanctuary. The villagers have reportedly reapplied for CFR entitlements with the support of their respective panchayats. 

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Demand for promised land

Demand for promised compensation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

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?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Forest Department, Kasdol Block Administration

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:

Dalit Adivasi Manch

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
Eleonora Fanari
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

Complaint against procedural violations

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Demand for promised land

Demand for promised compensation

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

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