Odisha
Balitutha
,
Dhinkia
,
Jagatsinghpur
Published :
Nov 2020
|
Updated :
March 19, 2025
IOCL's pipeline project displaces thousands in Odisha, affected families demand compensation, rehabilitation
Reported by
Shazia Nigar
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
1752
Households affected
8410
People affected
1998
Year started
1354
ha.
Land area affected
1752
Households affected
8410
People Affected
1998
Year started
1354
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Petroleum and Gas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Petroleum and Gas
1
Summary

The Paradip-Hyderabad Product Pipeline (PHPL), an initiative of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), will bypass Dhinkia and Balitutha villages in Jagatsinghpur district. The 1,212-kilometre pipeline will be spread across Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, of which approximately 330 kilometres will be laid in Odisha.

At the inception of the project in 1998, at least 143 families were displaced from Dhinkia. By 2018, about 1,752 families were displaced from the village as the project expanded. The 143 families have alleged that IOCL has violated the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006, of the Odisha government as the promises of rehabilitation and compensation to the displaced were not kept. They have demanded that at least one member from each of the displaced families should be provided with employment and remuneration for skill development. Additionally, they have reiterated that those who are yet to receive rehabilitation should be attended to immediately and that the rehabilitation facilities should be further developed. According to a news report, a clarification by IOCL in May 2018 says that of the 143 families, 45 families had benefited from employment opportunities and 95 families had received INR 1.18 crore. Authorities have been unable to contact the remaining three families.

Meanwhile, the 1,752 families that were displaced later have alleged increased air and water pollution from the pipeline project. Dhinkia panchayat and neighbouring villages have also been facing acute water crisis which, according to a news report, IOCL tried to abate by providing water tankers. But the local residents say the tankers are inadequate. These families too have demanded employment and opportunities for skill development. According to the same news report, IOCL claims to have provided jobs to 700 of the 1,752 displaced families and skill development trainings to 120 youths.

Sarpanch of Dhinkia panchyat Salila Nayak was quoted in a news report as saying: "The villagers are agitated over the high handedness of IOCL authorities and lack of job opportunities; due to pollution, trees and betel vines are adversely affected”. She added that the panchayat had adopted a resolution to not allow PHPL to lay its pipeline in the village.

In neighbouring Balitutha village, IOCL has acquired approximately 50 acres of farmland. The farmers in the village allege that the land was forcibly acquired and that the compensation offered was inadequate.

Bichitra Sena, a lawyer from Jagatsinghpur representing the displaced families, told LCW: “Local farmers from Balitutha have alleged that IOCL, with the support of the police, forcibly acquired their land in 2018 and provided inadequate compensation. They had demanded INR 30,000 per decimal of land. After negotiations between the Jagatsinghpur district administration and IOCL, the rate of compensation was settled at INR 19,100 per decimal. But defying the agreement, IOCL later attempted to pay only INR 7,600 to the farmers, which they refused. The oil corporation then agreed to pay the originally decided amount of INR 19,100 per decimal. The residents of both Dhinkia and Balitutha have, however, insisted that they will only accept INR 30,000 per decimal of land as compensation.”

In June 2020, police arrested 22 farmers who were protesting in Balitutha against forcible land acquisition and inadequate compensation.

On 1 October 2020, Dhinkia residents in a letter requested the Collector to stop the pipeline construction and prohibit the diversion of grazing land (gauchar land) When previously confronted by the people, IOCL had cited a 2018 notification by the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas which had earmarked that land in Erasama Tehsil for laying of the pipeline for the PHPL project. IOCL further stated that they had paid the license fee for the grant of the right of way for the project. However, the notification had overlooked the fact that the land was reserved gauhar land. As per the Odisha Government Land Settlement Act 1962, reserved gauchar land cannot be used for industrial purposes without recategorisation.

Following inaction by the government in removing the construction equipment and restoring the gauchar land, the people staged a massive demonstration on 9 November 2020.

On 17 November 2020, they wrote another letter to the Collector with a comprehensive list of demands including restoration of their right to the grazing land, employment opportunities as promised by IOCL, public facilities to be provided by IOCL as promised and withdrawal of cases filed against villagers for opposing the land grab among others. 

Due to a lack of response from the state administration, the villagers filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court on 20 November 2020 to prohibit IOCL from using the gauchar land. On 12 January 2021, the High Court directed the Jagatsinghpur Collector to resolve the dispute by 1 March 2021 and communicate the decision to petitioners by 8 March 2021. The court further noted that the land schedule provided in the 6 (1) declaration of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 does not have any reference to grazing land and such ambiguity during the process of land acquisition is not sustainable.

However, despite the order, the work by IOCL continued and was vacated only on 22 December 2021 after villagers erected bamboo fences restricting the entry of company officials.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

23 including two women

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Nil

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case 1 (114/2020) - Sections 341, 342, 323, 353, 294, 506, 186, 120B, 35; Case 2 (129/2020) - Sections 143, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323, 353, 427, 506; Case 3 (130/2020) - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323 353, 307, 332, 324, 354-A, 354-B, 506 of IPC &

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962; Disaster Management Act, 2005; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

Section 15; Section 51(b); Section 3

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

_Not granted by the Session’s Court despite revoking the section 307 of IPC for which High Court gave the bail after 43 days. Quantum of bail was Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) per person. _

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

No Also attaching a factsheet here

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Manas Kar : Activist and Protester Contact details : 9778777575

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2021

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

890

Type of investment:

Investment Expected

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:

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (RDC), Central Range, Cuttack

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Yes

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

The office of Ajit Kumar, head of IOCL's Corporate Office, New Delhi, forwarded LCW's call to the reception, but no one answered despite several tries. There was no response on the toll free number either.

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Yes

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

23 including two women

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Nil

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case 1 (114/2020) - Sections 341, 342, 323, 353, 294, 506, 186, 120B, 35; Case 2 (129/2020) - Sections 143, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323, 353, 427, 506; Case 3 (130/2020) - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323 353, 307, 332, 324, 354-A, 354-B, 506 of IPC &

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962; Disaster Management Act, 2005; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

Section 15; Section 51(b); Section 3

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

_Not granted by the Session’s Court despite revoking the section 307 of IPC for which High Court gave the bail after 43 days. Quantum of bail was Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) per person. _

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

No Also attaching a factsheet here

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
Shazia Nigar
Show more work
Latest updates
Karbi Anglong
Assam

Controversy erupts over Assam's 1000 MW solar power project in Karbi Anglong

Chengalpattu
Tamil Nadu

EC for Sun Pharma's expansion in Vedanthangal bird sanctuary put to abeyance

Purulia
West Bengal

Land acquisition for Turga storage project in West Bengal violates FRA

Hooghly
West Bengal

Hooghly residents in West Bengal oppose railway project over water body

Paschim Medinipur
West Bengal

Jindal Group returns land to West Bengal government, land losers demand jobs

Sundergarh
Odisha

Villagers in Odisha's Sundergarh protest over delay in R&R settlement for land acquired in 1988 for Mahanadi Coalfields

Nuapada
Odisha

Displaced people of Lower Indra Irrigation project await rehabilitation

Jajpur
Odisha

Farmers affected by Angul-Sukinda railway line in Odisha demand adequate compensation

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Opposition against environmental degradation

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

_Not granted by the Session’s Court despite revoking the section 307 of IPC for which High Court gave the bail after 43 days. Quantum of bail was Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) per person. _

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

No Also attaching a factsheet here

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2021

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

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