Karnataka
Chikkaballapur, Ramanagara, Kolar and Bengaluru Rural.
,
Sakleshpur
,
Hassan
Published :
Sep 2018
|
Updated :
Coffee Farmers' Compensation Demand, Refusal to Sell Land Halts Karnataka's Yettinahole Project
Reported by
Elizabeth Mani
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
337
People affected
2016
Year started
600
Land area affected
Households affected
337
People Affected
2016
Year started
600
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Water Management
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Water Management
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Yettinahole Integrated Drinking Water Project, one of the flagship projects of Krishna Neeravari Nigam Ltd, was conceived to transfer water from the Nethravati river in Hassan District to address low water levels and provide drinking water in the drought-prone districts of Chikkaballapur, Ramanagara, Kolar and Bengaluru Rural. When the state government began the land acquisition for the project, local people and environmentalists demanded a public notification and hearing of objections as well as a social and environmental impact assessment. But these did not take place as work had already begun. On September 22, 2016, the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), headed by Justice Swatanter Kumar, directed the state to take prior mandatory forest clearance (FC) from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The FC was allowed under the condition that the project proponent may do an ecological assessment after the completion of the project. The FC itself was challenged as being void for illegality and arbitrariness, and relief was asked for by the petitioner, K.N. Somashekhar, against the implementation of the project in two separate appeals before the Southern Bench of the NGT. These appeals were transferred to the Principal Bench on July 5, 2016, which dismissed them on October 5, 2017 without citing reasons. The appeal was again taken up for hearing in 2018, but the judgement was not pronounced. It was listed before another bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice A.K. Goel, which finally gave its judgment on May 24, 2019. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, saying they lacked merit as the appellants could not furnish proof to validate the setting aside of the sanction given for the project. It also cited a 2015 draft notification issued on the basis of the Kasturirangan Report on Western Ghats, which did not prohibit drinking water projects. Therefore, it was not necessary under the law that a scientific environmental impact study be conducted, the Bench concluded. The coffee plantation farmers, meanwhile, are unhappy with the land price fixed by the district committee and have refused to part with their land. The district committee announced the prices for 483 acres of land in 22 villages of Sakleshpur tehsil in Hasan district, fixing the land acquisition price at INR 15-20 lakh per acre. The landowners were given a month's time to file objections, if any. Farmers claim that land under coffee cultivation costs high compared to dry land, which is why they had objected to the price fixed by the committee. After a few protests, the government agreed to directly purchase land from the coffee growers at INR 25-30 lakh per acre, but more than 35 farmers are still waiting for their compensation. The Hassan Planters' Association has been helping them find a job to make ends meet. P.P. Sunder, one of the farmers who did not receive compensation, told LCW that those who received the money had to bribe the government to get what was promised to them. Meanwhile, the state, in its state budgetary allocation for 2020-2021, allocated another INR 1,500 crore for the Yettinahole project. This move has reiginited opposition amongst activists against the project who have questioned its usefulness, especially backed by their claim that there is no surplus water available in the region to divert it towards potable use. Additionally, they also suggest that the blasting activities in the catchment areas of the project - namely in Kadagarahalli, Hiradanahalli, Hebbasale, Heggade and Maranahalli - have already had a major impact on the eco-sensitive areas of the Western Ghats and have urged a rethinking of the project immediately.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for more compensation than promised

Complaint against procedural violations

Refusal to give up land for the project

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Scrapping of the project

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Both

Forest and Non-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):

25000

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:

Government of Karnataka

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam 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
Elizabeth Mani
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

Demand for more compensation than promised

Complaint against procedural violations

Refusal to give up land for the project

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