In Korba district, residents of over 18 villages have opposed the Gevra Coal Mine. Operational since 1981, this mine is one of the three in the Gevra Open Cast Coal Block. South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, operates this mine spread over 4,000 hectares of land. According to official documents, the project has affected more than 3,300 families in 18 villages, of which over 2,000 have been displaced. In 2012, SELC proposed to increase the production capacity of the mine from 35 metric tonne per annum (MTPA) to 41 MTPA. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change accepted the proposal in 2014. In 2015, the ministry granted environmental clearance (EC) to the project, following which the protests have intensified. There seem to be three main points of contention. First, many of the projectaffected families (PAFs) have claimed that the company has failed to compensate or provide employment and land according to the promised Rehabilitation and Resettlement plan for the existing mine. Second, they have accused the company of violating the Forest Rights Act, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act and the Coal Bearing Areas Act. They also raised objections to the procedural violations in conducting the public hearing, held in August 2008, for the expansion plans. They have also raised concerns about the increasing levels of pollution due to mining, blasting and transportation activities. The opposition also stems from the negative impact of mining on the neighbouring villages. Before the EC was granted, Amnesty International claimed in 2014 that the company had started demolishing households without offering proper compensation. According to a media report, the PAFs were unhappy with the compensation package offered. On May 2, 2016, over 670 people from 41 villages gathered at the Gevra mining site to protest against SELC projects in the block. They protested against the alleged illegal land acquisition and demanded employment, rehabilitation and compensation as per the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The police arrested protesters for halting the mining work. In February 2018, a delegation of protesting villagers held a meeting with the district administration to list their concerns and demands. The administration reassured them and claimed that the villages chosen for rehabilitation would provide all the basic amenities and public infrastructure to the affected families, reported a newspaper. On February 21, 2018, SELC again got an EC to expand the mining capacity. On June 18 that year, the Chhattisgarh high court ruled in favour of nine villagers demanding compensation for the land acquired for the Gevra project and directed the SELC to compensate the petitioners. In 2019, SELC again applied to increase the capacity of the mine to 49 MTPA. In June that year, the Expert Appraisal Committee of the environment ministry recommended the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board to seek feedback from the local stakeholders by issuing public notices, observing that the last public hearing was held in 2008. However, villagers allege that no such notifications were issued. In January 2020, the residents of Raliya village submitted their comments on the project, but the administration allegedly ignored them. In March, the residents of Bhathora village stopped the coal mine work and reasserted their demands. They threatened to continue their agitation if the authorities did not address their concerns. Reportedly, security forces had to intervene to control the protests. In May 2021, the environment ministry granted EC to SELC to expand the mining capacity to 49 MTPA. SELC now reportedly plans to reapply to increase the capacity to 70 MPTA.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand for rehabilitation
Complaint against procedural violations
Opposition against environmental degradation
Demand for employment
Demand for promised compensation
Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources
Refusal to give up land for the project
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Rural
Type of Land
Both
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?
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):
₹
11816.4
Type of investment:
Cost of Project
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Land Acquisition Laws, Environmental Laws, Other, Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Forced evictions/dispossession of land
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Non-implementation/violation of PESA
Non-payment of compensation/promised compensation
Non-rehabilitation of displaced people
Violation of free prior informed consent
Delay in compensation
Non-implementation/violation of LARR Act
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Disposed
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Number
W.P. (C) 1602/2018
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Displacement
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Yes
Reported Details of the Violation:
Before the protests of May 2, 2016, the Korba district administration had imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This led to the arrest of 679 farmers, along with MLA Jaisingh Agarwal, all of whom were later released.
Date of Violation
May 2, 2016
Location of Violation
Gevra mining site
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board
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:
South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Sarthak Srijanatmak Sanstha, Janabhivyakti
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?
Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills
Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex
Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest
Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court
Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya
Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project
Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra
Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction