West Bengal
,
Sevoke
,
Darjeeling
Published :
Jul 2018
|
Updated :
Forest Dwellers in Darjeeling Oppose Sevoke-Rangpo Railway Project, Demand revenue Village Status
Reported by
Mitali Biswas
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
40000
People affected
2009
Year started
87
Land area affected
Households affected
40000
People Affected
2009
Year started
87
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Railways
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Railways
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Sevoke-Rangpo broad gauge railway project, the only other connecting link between Sikkim and the rest of India in addition to NH-10, is facing opposition by forest dwellers affected by the project. They have alleged that the project violates the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The railway project holds significance for India because of the geographical location of Sikkim, which is surrounded by Nepal, Bhutan and China, even as the latter is trying to develop its hegemony in the region by building infrastructure and communication. Local organisations, such as the Himalayan Forest Villagers Organisation (HFVO), North Eastern Society for Preservation of Nature and Wildlife and Uttar Banga Ban Jan Shramajibi Manch, have protested against the implementation mechanism of the project. The railway line, which is proposed to be laid between Sevoke (in Darjeeling district in West Bengal) and Rangpo (in Sikkim), covers 52.7km, of which 51.7 km falls under the Gorkha Territorial Administration (GTA) in Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts in West Bengal. According to Lila Kumar Gurung, general secretary of the HFVO, more than 40,000 people in 24 villages will be affected by the project, although the Railways has only identified 26 families. Under the FRA, a project developer requires a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the village assembly (gram sabha) of the area in the presence of at least half of its representatives for acquiring land for developmental purpose. "In 2011, village assemblies were formed by the residents of 24 villages, but the GTA did not recognise them," said Swarup Saha, a leader of Uttar Banga Ban Jan Shramajibi Manch. The forest villages in an area where the FRA is implemented need to be converted into "revenue villages". Invoking the law, the residents of one of the villages demanded the same. But since village assemblies are not recognised in Darjeeling, their demands have remained unfulfilled. Meanwhile, the GTA itself has been issuing NOC for the project, flouting the FRA norm, which stipulates that a village assembly has the right to consider the diversion of forestland under its jurisdiction for developmental purpose through a specially convened meeting and after carefully considering all factors. The foundation stone for the project was laid in 2009 by then Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee. The deadline was 2015, but it never saw the light of the day due to massive protests by forest dwellers. In 2015, the National Board For Wildlife (NBFW) gave the green signal to the project on the assurance of the railway board that speed restrictions will be enforced, and animal-tracking sensors will be set up to prevent any harm to the wildlife in the area. It also ordered that tunnels should be dug only during the day. The Supreme Court cleared the project in 2016, subject to the strict guidelines of the NBFW. In 2011, approximately 200 families had applied for forest rights under the FRA. In July 2020, the district officials responded by questioning their rights on the land and rejected their claims. Gurung said, We had been submitting the claim forms since 2008, then we had to submit them again in 2011. We have done this several times. They are only holding us back with such claim forms. We want our villages to be converted into revenue villages." According to local MP Raju Bista, the rejection of claims is an easier route to evict the forest dwellers to facilitate the railway project.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Refusal to give up land for the project

Complaint against procedural violations

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):

4100

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

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:

Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, District Administration of Darjeeling, Indian Railways

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

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:

Himalayan Forest Villagers Organization (HFVO), North Eastern Society for Preservation of Nature and Wildlife, Uttar Banga Ban Jan Shramajibi 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
Mitali Biswas

Mitali has previously worked as a freelance journalist for Doordarshan. She has directed and produced documentaries themed on sexual violence against women and the peasant movement at Bhangar in West Bengal. She has also co-directed SD, an investigative biography on slain Naxalite leader Saroj Datta. She is currently in the editorial board of Protibidhan, a Bengali magazine dedicated to women’s movements.

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 for legal recognition of land rights

Refusal to give up land for the project

Complaint against procedural violations

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