Kerala
Mulavukad, Kothad, Cheranallor, Vaduthala, Kalamassery, Eloor, Manjummal and Edappally
,
Moolampilly
,
Ernakulam
Published :
Sep 2016
|
Updated :
Vallarpadam ICTT evictees awaiting rehabilitation under Moolampilly Package since 2008
Reported by
Dr. K.H. Amitha Bachan
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
1565
People affected
2008
Year started
51
Land area affected
Households affected
1565
People Affected
2008
Year started
51
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In 2019, more than a decade after the Vallarpadam eviction for the port, around 280 out of the 326 families still await rehabilitation under the Moolampilly rehabilitation package. According to a report, the rehabilitation sites lack construction permission as the municipal administration cites Coastal Regulation Zone violation. In 2005, the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh laid the foundation stone of the Vallarpadam International Container Transshipment Terminal, India's first such cargo hub. Around 326 residents of Moolampilly, Mulavukad, Kothad, Cheranallor, Vaduthala, Kalamassery, Eloor, Manjummal and Edappally were asked to forfeit their land for the rail road connectivity to the port. The land was to be acquired under the Land acquisition act, 1894, a colonial legislation which had no rehabilitation clause. Furthermore, the families were promised meagre compensation, due to which they refused to part with their land. Despite their refusal, the government in Febrary 2008 went ahead and forcefully evicted 10 families, without assuring any compensation. The residents protested against the government move which led to formation of the Moolampilly coordination committee. The committee tasked to come up with a rehabilitation package, announced in 2008, about the Moolampilly rehabilitation package. The package included a promise of a job for 1 member of each family and 4.5 to 5.5 cents of land to each evicted family. The package also included a rental allowance of Rs. 5,000 per month for those evicted. The state government had also agreed to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000 for piling work required at the construction site. A Kerala High Court order issued by Justice Pius C Kuriakos dated 2 July, 2008 extended these benefits to all 326 families. In the same year, the Kerala high court commissioned a people's inquiry commission headed by Justice K Sukumaran. In its first visit to Moolampilly on 6 May 2009, the 5member commission found that the displaced families where left to deal with the cruel limitation of living space and lack of basic amenities including a protective roof or privacy. In 2011, when the commission visited again, it observed that the families, have lost hope in the goodness of civil society and that only four families were rehabilitated out of the 326. It has been reported that the nonrehabilitation of the families have reduced them to a subhuman existence, as the promised land still eludes several beneficiaries. Even those who have been rehabilitated are living in miserable conditions. Six out of the seven rehabilitation sites are marshy and requires landfilling. A Public Works Department (PWD) report dated 28 October, 2018 had claimed that the plots allotted to 169 families in two localities in Thuthiyoor village are water logged and that landfilling in these sites was done by dumping debris. In October 2019, the evicted families marched to the Public works department resthouse to voice their grievances. The people's inquiry commission headed by Justice K Sukumaran held a sitting with 60 families and have promised to "complaints and recommend actions to be taken to see a proper rehabilitation."

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for promised compensation

Demand for rehabilitation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Private

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):

3500

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:

District Collector, Ernakulam

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

National Highway Authority of India, Vallarpadam International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT)

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Vallarpadam International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT) , DP World

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Solidarity Youth movement, KCYM, Kerala State People Protection Forum, Moolampilly Coordination Commitee

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
Dr. K.H. Amitha Bachan
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 promised compensation

Demand for rehabilitation

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