Madhya Pradesh
,
Sausar
,
Chhindwara
Published :
Apr 2019
|
Updated :
Farmers in MP Fight to Get Back Land Acquired for Chhindwara SEZ
Reported by
Aditi Patil
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
269
People affected
2007
Year started
430
Land area affected
Households affected
269
People Affected
2007
Year started
430
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Special Economic Zones (SEZ)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Special Economic Zones (SEZ)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

Thousands of farmers in Sausar tehsil in Chhindwara district have been struggling to get their land back from Chhindwara Plus Developers Limited. The farmers have accused the company of purchasing thousands of acres of fertile land at throwaway prices since 2007 in the name of setting up a special economic zone (SEZ). SEZ is a specifically delineated dutyfree enclave with all the required infrastructure provided under a single administrative umbrella. The development of Chhindwara Plus SEZ was envisaged as a multiproduct SEZ, incorporating a smartproduction, hasslefree environment for manufacturing, information technology, garments, pharmaceutical and engineering industries. Madhya Pradesh Trade and Investment Facilitation Corporation Limited and Chhindwara Plus Developers Private Limited signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on October 27, 2007, to set up the SEZ in Sausar. Thereafter, Chhindwara Limited purchased land from farmers at different rates. The farmers allege that Chhindwara SEZ is a nexus between government officials and the company to grab fertile land. When the land acquisition notice was issued in April 2015 to the village panchayats, representatives of the villages went to the Chhindwara District Collector (DC) to submit their objections, but the DC reportedly refused to accept them. In July 2015, around 150 farmers from eight villages in Saunsar gathered at the guest house of the Public Works Department to protest the individual hearing process adopted for the land acquisition instead of a public hearing. Later, the farmers signed a memorandum and submitted it to the land acquisition officer, stating that they do not wish to part with their land and that the administration should not issue further land acquisition notices to them. They alleged that poor and marginal farmers were being targeted through touts and middlemen in the name of land acquisition. Chhindwara Plus got the approval to set up the SEZ on August 29, 2016. On April 2, 2018, the farmers staged an indefinite hunger strike in Satnoor village, which ended after nine days following assurances from the government that their demands would be met. Under the Land Acquisition Act of 2013, if the land acquired from farmers remains unused for five years, it has to be returned. It has been more than 10 years since the MoU was signed between the Madhya Pradesh government and Chhindwara Limited. There is no sign of the SEZ being set up, but the farmers are yet to get back their land. Nandkishore Dhoble, an affected farmer said, "Our demand is that the farmers should get back their land and action must be taken against the guilty government officials as well as the owners of the developer company." In June 2019, the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board organised a public hearing programme at Sausar Rest House where affected farmers told their grievances and lodged a strong protest against the company, opposing the grant of the environmental clearance for the project. The farmers are determined to get back their land and are consistently opposing the project.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand to get back acquired land

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Both

Forest, 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

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):

30000

Type of investment:

Investment Expected

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:

Department of Industry Policy and Investment Promotion, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Madhya Pradesh Trade and Investment Facilitation Corporation Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Chhindwara Plus Developers Limited

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

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
Aditi Patil

Aditi is a freelance development researcher. She has a Master’s in Development Studies from the Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India. She has previously worked with WWF India on forest-based livelihoods and international wildlife trade. She has also worked on the Forest Rights Act in Dangs district in Gujarat. Her paper, “Forest-based livelihoods, Malki practice and Forest Rights Act in Gujarat: The case of Adivasis in the Dangs,” has been published in the book, Adivasis in India: Livelihoods, Resources and Institutions, by Bloomsbury India.

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

Refusal to give up land for the project

Demand to get back acquired land

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