Uttarakhand
,
Helong
,
Chamoli
Published :
May 2017
|
Updated :
March 21, 2024
Villages in Uttarakhand Refuse to Give Up Van Panchayat for Hydro Project
Reported by
Rakesh Agrwal
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
300
Households affected
1440
People affected
2007
Year started
5
Land area affected
300
Households affected
1440
People Affected
2007
Year started
5
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

Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd, a subsidiary of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), started constructing the 400-megawatt Vishnuprayag Hydro Electricity Project in partnership with state-owned NTPC Limited and was the first public-private partnership venture in the state.

The people affected by the project are fighting to protect their van panchayat rights as the company has acquired 5.08 hectares of their van panchayat.

Van Panchayat, or village forest council, is a system of autonomous village forest, unique to Uttarakhand. The idea of establishing van panchayats originated as a conflict between the people and British authorities for control over natural resources. The system worked in a way where the villagers could elect a council of five to nine members whose head was the Sarpanch. The van panchayat was empowered to regulate grazing, cutting of branches, collection of fuel and distribution of forest produce.

The residents of 13 villages spread across five village panchayats -- Urgam, Lyari, Thainga, Bhenta and Devgram -- have refused to give up their van panchayat for the hydro project and are fighting to protect the common forestland from where they get their biomass like fuel and fodder and home-building wood logs. They have organised several dharnas (sit-in protests) at the offices of the company, district magistrate and sub-divisional commissioner. They have also submitted letter, memorandums and applications to the authorities, detailing facts and figures and appealing them to take appropriate action and compensate for the loss.

Although the district administration has written to the concerned authorities, more than six letters have been ignored since 2016. But the people are determined to fight as the van panchayat is the fruit of their hard work and money, which they contributed from the MNREGA fund in 2015-16. "This forest is crucial for our survival and we will fight to conserve it," Raj Rajeshwari Devi, former village head of Bhenta village in Chamoli district, told LCW. "Now, women don't have to walk long distances in search of fuel and fodder, and we will not let the company take this privilege away from us," Laxmi Devi, a resident of Urgam village, told LCW.

The project was mired in controversies after the 2013 Kedarnath floods. It was stopped for a while, but work resumed in 2015. A public interest litigation filed in 2015 sought the decommissioning of the project. In 2018, Jaiprakash Power was declared bankrupt, following which Sajjan Jindal-led JSW Energy Limited was in talks for a stake in the project, as per a news report.

Meanwhile, the local people are still struggling to get van panchayat rights in Urgam village while on paper, their van panchayat is shown to be located in Salna village, which is outside the project-affected zone.

On 15 July 2022, four persons, accompanied by a toddler, were detained by CISF and police personnel. Mandodari Devi and her companions were returning to Helang after collecting bundles of grass when they noticed that some trees in the Van Panchayat had been cut down. While the land in question was a part of the village commons, Tehri Hydro Power Development Corporation (THDC) had been given permission to dump their debris there with the understanding that they would then construct a playground on the site. This had been resisted by the villagers since the order had been passed.

When she remonstrated, the CISF and police personnel at the site acted aggressively. They snatched away her load of grass and detained three women and one man. The group, along with a toddler who accompanied them, was kept confined in a government vehicle for 1.5 hours and then in a police station for 6 hours before being released on a personal bond.

The video of the altercation when the women’s bundles of grass were snatched away went viral, and the incident became a rallying point for meetings and protests around access to natural resources.

The 'Chalo Helang' movement organised on 24 July was well attended by leaders of several political parties, and culminated in a ban on the dumping of debris on pasture land in that village.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Complaint against procedural violations

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Van panchayat rights

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

4

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

Released from detention

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Don't know

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

Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007

Section 81 [This section criminalizes being a nuisance or causing annoyance to the public. Fines for this act range between Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000]

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?

The four persons were released within 24 hours with a fine. Under this section, the police can levy a fine between Rs 500 and Rs 1000.

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

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Grazing, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

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:

Nanda Devi National Parks sub-divisional commissioner

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

NTPC Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Urgam Van Panchayat

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

4

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

Released from detention

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Don't know

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

Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007

Section 81 [This section criminalizes being a nuisance or causing annoyance to the public. Fines for this act range between Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000]

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?

The four persons were released within 24 hours with a fine. Under this section, the police can levy a fine between Rs 500 and Rs 1000.

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
Rakesh Agrwal


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 to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Complaint against procedural violations

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?

The four persons were released within 24 hours with a fine. Under this section, the police can levy a fine between Rs 500 and Rs 1000.

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

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Grazing, 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