West Bengal
Barelhar, Ranga, Tadpania, Teliabhasa
,
Kudna
,
Purulia
Published :
Jun 2019
|
Updated :
March 19, 2025
Land acquisition for Turga storage project in West Bengal violates FRA
Reported by
Mitali Biswas
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
1600
People affected
2017
Year started
292
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
1600
People Affected
2017
Year started
292
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Power
Reason/Cause of conflict
Hydroelectric Project
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Power
Reason/Cause of conflict
Hydroelectric Project
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In a significant ruling on 2 July 2019, a single bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that the process adopted by the West Bengal government to acquire land for the 1,000-megawatt Turga Pumped Storage Project (TPSP) violated the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA). The court had earlier stayed the project in August 2018.

The TPSP hydroelectric power project was proposed in 2017 for the storage and generation of electricity. The project required 292 hectares of forest land. The state Cabinet has already approved the project cost of Rs 6,921.90 crore. Of this, Rs 5,000 crore will be loaned by the Japan International Cooperation Agency, with which the state signed an agreement on 2 November 2018.

According to a report, the project could have likely caused the destruction of three lakh trees and put the livelihood of the residents of many nearby villages at stake. Local people-led Ajodhya Buru Bachao Andolan Samhati Mancha organised meetings in 2019 to assemble villagers, environmental activists, lawyers and civil society members to fight for the issue. According to the villagers, they did not give their consent for the project, which is mandatory as per the Forest Rights Act, 2006. At the same time, "in-principal" approval was issued without taking the process into consideration (see the court case attached).

The company reportedly has two more projects in the pipeline, slated to come up on Bandu and Kanthaljola rivers. The villager's lawyer, Santanu Chakraborty, said that while they may have won this case, the state is likely to counter appeal and, therefore, they need to be prepared for what's coming next.

In July 2019, the state government challenged the high court order before a division bench. On 23 December 2021, a division bench of Calcutta High Court pronounced its final judgment in M.A.T 1156 of 2019 and M.A.T 1396 of 2019. The court held that the writ petition was premature as the issue of consent of Gram Sabhas is still open for scrutiny by the Central government before grant of final clearance and should be examined at the appropriate level. That on the above ground among others, the bench set aside the decision of the Single Bench dated 2 July 2019.

On 13 October 2022, the MoEFCC granted final clearance based on the compliance report filed by state government in 12 April 2018 but on 19 conditions, which were forwarded by the Governor of West Bengal stating that stage II clearance is subject to fulfilment of these conditions. The recognition of forest rights as per the FRA was among the 19 conditions.

Two Gram Sabhas - Baruajara Badhghutu Dulgubera and Ranga Barelhor - filed their claims for IFR and CFR titles on 24 May 2023 and 22 August 23, respectively. Between May and June of 2023, the DFO released tenders for works related to the Turga project, thus violating the order for completion of FRA process before embarking on any work. Meanwhile, the villagers did not received any information and the District Administration, Forest Department or the state electricity department officials held no Gram Sabha meetings.

Meanwhile, the villages passed a unanimous resolution that they do not want the Turga PSP to be constructed in the forest and non-forest land managed by the community during a Gram Sabha held in Baruajara, Bandhghutu, Dulgubera of Baghmundi Panchayat on 26 May 2023.

In July 2023, the Gram Sabhas in a letter requested MoEFCC to take necessary action against the non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the forest clearance and place on hold all 24 proceedings related to issue of tenders and other project activity on the ground as long as such irregularities are not resolved.

The grievances of the Gram Sabhas were forwarded by authorities—such as Special Secretary to Secretary, Department of Power (West Bengal) and letter from Assistant Commissioner for Reservation to Special Secretary, Tribal Development Department (West Bengal) and a letter from the Under Secretary, MoTA, FRA Division to Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal—clearly stating that it was the responsibility of the state government to implement FRA and requesting the state government to take necessary action and send an action taken report to the Ministry. However, no communication or action took place from the concerned authorities.

On 4 April 2024, a villager from one of the Gram Sabhas, Barelhor-Ranga, filed a case at the NGT flagging the non-compliance of the FRA condition. Following which, the NGT passed a ruling on 31 May 2024 asking the concerned respondents to file affidavits. As of January 2025, the WBSEDCL had filed the affidavit and the Tribal Development Department, Government of West Bengal, stated that the affidavit has been prepared. The next hearing is on 7 April 2025.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Refusal to give up land for the project

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

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2028

Whether the Project has been Delayed

No

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

6922

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2017

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:

District Magistrate, Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Ayodhya Buru Bachao Andolon Sanghati 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
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

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

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2028

Whether the Project has been Delayed

No

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

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