Tamil Nadu
Nellikarai, Mandakarai, Nagampalli, Pulliyalam, Mudugulli and Gundital
,
Bennai
,
The Nilgiris
Published :
|
Updated :
Forest Dwellers Relocated From Tamil Nadu's Mudumalai Tiger Reserve Await Compensation
Reported by
Neerajha
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
3365
People affected
2007
Year started
289
Land area affected
Households affected
3365
People Affected
2007
Year started
289
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 Mudumalai Tiger Reserve spans an area of 321 square kilometres and is located in the Nilgiris district. In an attempt to conserve the diminishing tiger population, in April 2007, the state government declared Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary a tiger reserve as per the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. Subsequently, in December 2007, it was notified as a Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH). The demarcated area for the tiger reserve subsumed seven villages (28 hamlets) that consisted of nearly 449 families. These villages include Bennai, Nellikarai, Mandakarai, Nagampalli, Pulliyalam, Mudugulli and Gundital and are mainly inhabited by the Mountadan Chetty communities and landless members of the Kattunayakar and Paniya communities. After the declaration of the CTH in 2007, the Madras High Court directed the state to relocate the families from the seven villages. Meanwhile, the movement of people within the core area of the reserve became restricted, which hindered the normal lives and livelihoods of the forest dwellers. Seeing this, other communities reconsidered the relocation plan. While some of them wanted to relocate, many tribal communities who had lived around these forest areas and depended on its resources wanted to continue living in the reserve. In 2008, nearly 15,000 people gathered together to protest against the declaration of the tiger reserve, citing nonimplementation of the Forest Rights Act. In 2015, a parliamentary committee asked the Centre to look into the implementation of the relocation programme, pointing out that it had been delayed for years. As part of the relocation process, families have the option of choosing appropriate monetary compensation for land or land for land. But tribal people without land titles asking for land in place of the land they are giving up was not considered; the relocation did not take place according to the Critical Wildlife Habitat Provisions under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. According to a media report, relocation of the families happened in three phases. In 201617, the first phase of relocation involved 58 tribal and 177 nontribal families from Bennai and Nellikarai villages. In 201718, this was followed by the relocation of 55 tribal and 200 nontribal families from Mandakarai, Nagampalli and Pulliyalam village. The last phase involves 25 tribal and 186 nontribal families from Mudugulli and Gundital villages. The tribal families were promised a compensation of INR 10 lakh in 3 instalments. As registered by the Adivasi Munetra Kazhagam (a triballed nonprofit) to the National Commission of Scheduled Castes, around 93 families have not been given INR 6.7 lakh each of the promised compensation. The report also states that some families have been duped by the authorities by misguiding them to buy illegal land. A case had been registered against forest department officials on September 3, 2019, under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As per reports dated November 2019, a section of the tribespeople living in the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve are still unwilling to move out of the park.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for promised compensation

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Refusal to give up land for the project

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Provide compensation (Monetary or land) as promised

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Both

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):

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

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, National Commission of Schedules Castes, National Tiger Conversation Authority

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:

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
Neerajha

Neerajha has completed a post graduate programme in Development Leadership and is currently working as a development researcher. She is based out of Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Her major interest areas include participatory development and human rights.

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 promised compensation

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

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