Chhattisgarh
Kumba, Sambhardhasan, Bankal, Bahaur and Bokrakhachar villages
,
Jalda village
,
Bilaspur
Published :
Jan 2017
|
Updated :
Baiga Tribe Protests against Relocation from Achanakmar Tiger Reserve in Chhattisgarh
Reported by
Eleonora Fanari
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
249
Households affected
1195
People affected
2009
Year started
0
Land area affected
249
Households affected
1195
People Affected
2009
Year started
0
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Achanakmar Tiger Reserve (ATR) is home to the Baigas, a forest-dwelling tribal community classified as a “Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group”. In 626 hectares of the core area of the reserve, there are 25 forest villages, with approximately 75 per cent of the population belonging to the Baiga tribe and the remaining consisting of the Gond and Yadav communities. 
Since 2009, the Baiga families have been facing the threat of displacement from their ancestral forestland. In February 2009, ATR was notified under Project Tiger, following which the administration decided to relocate the forest villages from the core area to make it an "inviolate space" for tigers.  
Subsequently, in December 2009, the administration launched Phase I of its relocation plan. It relocated six out of the 25 villages from the core area, namely, Kumba, Sambhardhasan, Bankal, Jalda, Bahaur and Bokrakhachar. 
Reportedly, this affected 249 families, of which 238 families belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, and the remaining were from Other Backward Castes. The families were reportedly forced out in a frenzy and had to live at the periphery of the forest without proper rehabilitation. They were also strictly prohibited from collecting forest produce and fuelwood, which affected their livelihood. A 2010 fact-finding report noted that civil society organisations and local political parties had to intervene to persuade the administration to actualise the rehabilitation plan. The fact-finding report also cited the controversial relocation as a failure to recognise the community claims to rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
As per news reports, the relocation colonies were completed only a year after displacement while the families resided in temporary housingReportedly, the displaced families also received a meagre compensation of INR 50,000 though they were entitled to INR 10 lakh under Project Tiger. 
In 2012, the forest department claimed to have used INR 9.5 lakh to develop facilities and houses for every compensatory. However, the communities alleged that the administration misused the relocation funds and did not provide them with the promised facilities for rehabilitation concerning healthcare, education and livelihood practices. Moreover, much of the land allocated was uncultivable and lacked irrigation support for farmland.
According to a 2013 news report, the tribespeople claimed that they have no alternative livelihood options outside forests. Instead, they have had to work as contract labourers or migrate to urban areas. The field director of the tiger reserve, meanwhile, claimed that all the facilities and basic amenities were provided to the affected families. He also stated that they were being given training to adapt to new lifestyles and adopt new livelihood practices. Another report said that the administration explained the division of expenditure in local newspapers. 
Meanwhile, the administration also continued to plan the relocation of the remaining 19 villages. An attempt at this was made in 2015 when the forest advisory committee approved relocating five more villages from ATR. The proposal was to relocate 365 households out of the core area, but the administration did not undertake the rehabilitation then. 
In some of these villages, the tribespeople also reported harassment from the forest staff and increased difficulty in accessing the forests.
Since 2018, many of these villages have lived in the fear of displacement due to the proposed tiger corridor between the Kanha and Achanakmar Tiger Reserves. In March, the tribespeople from over 20 villages came together to march against the project. They also demanded recognition of their rights under the FRA. 
Earlier in 2018, a newspaper reported that the Union government had released funds for relocating the remaining 19 villages. 
In November 2019, the state forest department submitted a proposal to get a forest clearance permit for 255 hectares of forestland for relocating three villages, namely, Tilaidabra, Birarpani and Chhirhattha from ATR to the Mungeli forest division. The proposal is currently under consideration.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for promised compensation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

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

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Religious/Sacred/Cultural value

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?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Forest Department (Bilaspur Forest Division), National Tiger Conservatory Authority, Baiga Panchayat

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Baiga tribe

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
Eleonora Fanari
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 rehabilitation

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for promised compensation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

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

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Religious/Sacred/Cultural value

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