‘Public Purpose’

The growing agitation by civil society groups against land acquisition for various projects now mainly questions the privilege of the State to acquire lands or properties of people under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the name of “public cause”. They also question the “public purpose” of many projects, proposed or executed by the private sector or even by the public sector. In fact, the sanctioned SEZs have become the main target of civil society’s anger against the wisdom of the government in “delivering” the public cause. The affected people, who are accustomed to traditional ways of earning their livelihoods (cultivating their agricultural lands) are left high and dry as also those who d epend on such lands through customary rights, like share-croppers, a gricultural labourers, artisans, and so on. Extensive literature has emerged over the years on the hardships of the displaced persons and inadequacy of resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) e fforts on the part of the implementing agencies or concerned governments (see for instance: Cernia 1988 and 2000; Srinivasan 1988; Fernandes 1989; Reddy 1994; Parasuraman 1999; Jain and Bala 2006; and World Commission on Dams 2000). In addition to the above major studies or edited volumes, several reports have emerged, focusing on various aspects of R&R, like guidelines to manage and plan relocation, indices of distress due to displacement, and sourcebooks (see World Bank 1993; Davidson et al 1993; Asian Development Bank 2006; and World Bank Discussion Papers No 152, 1s993). Several articles also highlight the issues of R&R, reviewing state or national policies and questioning specific projects or the paradigm of development which induce involuntary displacement and adversely affect natural environment (see EPW 1996; Chris de Wet 2001; Sharma 2003) and reviews of the National R&R Policy (Sahaee 2003; Iyer 2007; and Vaswani et al 1990).

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

the fact that several heavy industry, mining and irrigation projects were located in (or close to) forest areas. Thus, those a lready marginalised became further vulnerable due to the loss of sources of their livelihoods.

Early Phase

The displacement for the Gobind Reservoir and Rihand Dam started suddenly in 1960 (without adequate notice). This resulted in immense problems for the affected villagers. However, the population in the region was not very high and the government owned large tracts of deforested lands there. Accordingly, each displaced family was allotted five acres of land. However, almost 20% of the displaced families, a majority of them tribals, left the region, and their whereabouts remain unknown (Jan Lok Hit Samiti report; Kothari 1988). In the absence of a rehabilitation policy, people accepted the meagre amount of compensation which was not adequate even to construct a new house. Over 60% of these displaced families settled close to the reservoir site (mainly towards the northern stretch), only to be displaced again during the setting up of the super thermal power projects by the NTPC.

According to Hardikar (un-dated), over 2,00,000 people have been displaced due to the dam/reservoir, mining and thermal power projects in Singrauli. He quotes Dana Clark, a US attorney with the Centre for International Law who has closely monitored developments in Singrauli, especially the role of the World Bank. “…The story of the suffering of the villagers in Singrauli is shocking and should lead to a comprehensive review of people whose lives have been destroyed in the name of development” (ibid). In contrast, in recent years (in the last 10 years or so) due to spirited protests by the affected people and civil society groups like the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the National Alliance for Peoples Movement (NAPM), the situation has changed considerably and no project, whether in the public or private sector, can escape its responsibilities towards the affected people. Also, the comprehensive national policy on R&R and several other policies protect the rights of the displaced people.

1 Second Phase of Development and Displacement

The abundance of water in the Gobind Sagar Reservoir and a long stretch of open coal fields – spread over 200 kms – were f avourable for setting up super thermal power projects in the r egion. It turned out to be a curse, however, for the people who had not even recovered from the earlier shock of losing lands and homesteads to the dam/reservoir project. The NTPC proposed several super thermal power projects in the area and initiated the process, in the early 1980s, for setting up the Singrauli Super Thermal Power Project (SSTPP), to be followed by the Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Project (VSTPP) and the Rihand S uper Thermal Power Project (RSTPP). Also, the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) set up its own plant at Anpara (part of Singrauli area). These projects, in turn, initiated the coal mining projects in nine open coal mines, owned by the NCL.

In the next decade, 20,504 landowners lost their lands, and 4,563 families were displaced (many of them losing their lands as well) from their homesteads. Several were facing displacement for the second time. The first author of this paper was associated with a World Bank-appointed group, the GHK/MRM International, in preparing a comprehensive R&R plan for the oustees under the above projects, along with a development plan for the Singrauli region (then under the Singrauli Area Development Authority (SADA)). The detailed break-up of families/landowners affected under the thermal power and mining projects is given in (Table 1).

Table 1: Distribution of Land Oustees and Displaced Families in Singrauli Region by Project (during 1980s)

Project	No of Land	No of Affected	No of Families Allotted	No of Families Still
	Oustees1	Families2	Plots in the Resettlement	Requiring Plots in the
			Colonies	Resettlement Colonies
NCL	6,175	3,244	1,031 (32%)	2,213 (68%)
NTPC	10,160	3,947	2,790 (71%)	1,157 (29%)
UPSEB	1,536	1,152	752 (65%)	400 (35%)
MGR	2,633	161*	0	0
(Merry-Go-Round Rail Track for Coal)
Total	20,504	8,504	4,563 (55%)	3,770* (45%)

It does not include data on displacement caused due to the setting up of Anpara Power Project of the UPSEB. 1 Families which lost all or part of their lands. 2 Families which lost their houses.

* 161 families displaced by MGR Projects have been excluded since they do not have resettlement benefit. Source: GHK/MRM International 1994.

Though the World Bank insisted on proper R&R for the NTPC project-affected people and the coal mining projects provided at least one job per affected family (due to the extensive labouroriented mining work), the people organised themselves under the banner of the Jan Lok Hit Samiti and protested against the projects.

The Samiti’s report says:

On February 5, 1988, in a massive expression of collective protest, over 15,000 people – mostly tribals – marched through the streets and roads of Singrauli…They were protesting against the continuing

december 19, 2009 vol xliv no 51

t rauma and insecurity that repeated displacement had created for them and their families over the last three decades. Tens of thousands in this area have been forcibly uprooted from their sources of sustenance and livelihood. For many of them, this has happened more than once. This is the other side of Singrauli. Of people moved about like counters on a chequer board, of families uprooted and destroyed, of acres of forest wantonly denuded. It is the people’s side, and is thus i llustrative of the inhuman price they are made to pay for what, these days, poses as progress.

The observations (ibid) continue: Singrauli, in the country today, this name, more than any other, represents large-scale energy development. Characteristically, it is increasingly being referred to as the ‘energy’ capital of India. Nearly a dozen super thermal power plants, a labyrinth of huge coal mines, dozens of smoke spewing industries and a whole new synthetic township are in various stages of completion. Inaugurating the Rihand Dam which

was to herald all this ‘development’ in 1964, Nehru Promised the S ingrauli would become the ‘Switzerland of India’. Today, that incongruous promise lives grossly distorted in a

continually unfolding story of unprecedented suffering, misfortune and environmental damage. Yes, the power plants are being built, the coal seams exploited, the urban areas spread, but even to an uninitiated observer Singrauli looks more like the devastated zone in Tarkovsky’s film The Stalker or like a scene out of the lower circles of Dante’s Inferno. And, typically, “prestigious” national and international organisations like NTPC and the World Bank are p rimarily res ponsible for this continuing record of deliberate n eglect and apathy.

Following this, the World Bank put pressure on the NTPC to chalk out a more comprehensive and pragmatic “rehabilitation action plan” for the affected people. It also commissioned the above stated study (by the GHK/MRM) for preparing a detailed development plan not only for the affected people but for the r egion as a whole (then under the jurisdiction of SADA), including eight towns and over 100 villages. The idea was that only a twopronged strategy of developing the region and the affected people would make it a sustainable approach. The above study brought out the status of jobs (regular or contractual) offered by various projects (by 1993) to the PAPs (Table 2).

Table 2: Details of Employment Opportunities Provided to Land Oustees

Project	Total Number of	Permanent	Contract Labour	Shops Allotted	Total
	Land Oustees	Employment			Employment
NCL	6,175	3,360	*	*	3,360
SSTPP	1,457	400	527	29	947
VSTPP	7,014	244	658	21	923
RSTPP	1,689	125	350	22	497
UPSEB (Anpara)	1,307	233	300	7	540
UPSEB (Obra)	229	161	*	*	161
MGR	2,633	**	**	**	-
Total	13,865	4,523	1,831	74	6,428
		(34)	(13)	(1)	(48)

* No provision to offer contract labour jobs or allot shops to oustees. ** Invariably these oustees are not entitled to jobs due to loss of a small amount of land. Figures in parentheses indicate percentages. Source: GHK/MRM Study (1994).

As evident from the data, only the coal mines, the SSTPP and the Anpara Super Thermal Power Project of the UPSEB performed better in offering total employment to the affected people. However, as far as offering regular jobs was concerned, their record was poor (the NCL was an exception). Thus, out of some 11,500

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

december 19, 2009 vol xliv no 51

oustees under all the mega power projects, only about 1,050 got regular jobs in those projects. Repeatedly, the PAPs represented their case to the World Bank, and the above quoted study was one of the several efforts on the part of World Bank to improve the lot of the land oustees. The idea of developing the whole region, along with the PAPs, did not take off due to the lack of cooperation by the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh state governments. A few programmes were finally initiated by the respective power project’s managements for the oustees, like offering loans, giving labour contracts to cooperatives of the oustees, p roviding opportunities for skill upgradation and environmental improvement in resettlement colonies. However, all these fell short of creating a sustainable source of livelihood for a majority of the PAPs.

The syndrome of “regular jobs in the project and nothing less” gripped the PAPs in Singrauli area, as elsewhere. That is, those PAPs who did not get regular jobs in these projects continued agitating for years. The hope of a regular job in these projects prevented them from searching for other means of livelihood.

Empowered Bargaining

In this “third” phase of displacement in the region, a significant change is visible. The affected people are no longer “taken for granted” either by the projects’ managements or the government. On the contrary, their entitlements and R&R have become crucial not only for mitigating the adverse impact of these projects on their lives, but also for the very success of these projects. This is made possible through sustained agitation, across the country, by civil society groups and the affected people. Those business groups who ignore this changing environment are, in fact, struggling to see their projects take shape. The overall impact of such movements is that the central and state governments have come

Table 3: Recent Mega Power/Mining Projects in Singrauli Region and Possible Displacement of Families

* The projects are at different stages of Land Acquisition. The number of displaced families (homestead/land oustees) mentioned in the table is tentative, and at various stages of displacement.

Favourable R&R Policy in Madhya Pradesh

As stated earlier, the R&R policies of central and state governments are quite forward looking. A case in point is the R&R policy of Madhya Pradesh (see R&R Policy of MP State 2002). It gives due emphasis not only to those affected by the projects set up in rural areas but also in urban areas and special emphasis to the affected scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (SC/ST) and vulnerable groups. Also, for those displaced from their homestead (irrespective of whether they have lost agricultural lands or not), it recommends large size plots in the resettlement colonies (with all the necessary infrastructure) to be given to all adult male members. It also provides incentives for rehabilitation of those who are indirectly affected and special emphasis to the rehabilitation of families a ffected under the irrigation projects (dams and reservoirs). It recommends that those whose lands are submerged due to the irrigation projects should get plots which are half the size of that they have lost and in the “command” areas of irrigation. Projectaffected tribals (and other families) living in forest areas and

A general package towards compensations (for lands or homestead) by the power projects is being offered which has several benefits for the affected families (see Annexure, p 68). This package is especially devised by the Sasan Power Project, but is emerging as a “model” to be followed by other projects with minor variations here and there. The highlights of the package are: compensation for farming lands at about Rs 1,80,000 per acre (irrigated); a one time rehabilitation grant which also includes the land difference amount under Section 4 of the year of notification, and the land rate declared under Section 11 of the land acquisition award year; the solatium (30% as per legal norms), interest (12%) on land and other immovable assets, a spacious plot/house (90 × 60 sq ft) in the resettlement, with necessary infrastructure, and a “rehabilitation action plan” (RAP) for upgrading/restoring living conditions of the affected families.

Interestingly, the Mahan Super Thermal Power Project, being set up by Essar Global, has signed an R&R package (with the district magistrate and rehabilitation officer) for the affected people under the project. It has offered current market rates for the acquired lands, and spacious plots for every adult in each affected family. More significantly, it has offered “unemployment allowance” to all the displaced persons (between 18 and 50 years of age) who are not being given jobs in the Mahan Power Plant. This unemployment allowance of Rs 4,000 a month shall be paid till the project succeeds in offering a regular job to the person or until

december 19, 2009 vol xliv no 51

he/she attains the age of 58 years, whichever is earlier. The first author of this paper has been associated with several R&R projects across the country but has not come across such a generous offer to the PAPs. Why are the other super thermal power projects like the Reliance ADAG not offering similar rehabilitation packages? Their answer is that their agreements with the state governments (or central government as the case may be) require them to supply produced power at a low price. Therefore, such a generous “unemployment allowance” may not be viable for keeping the project in production.

‘Who Is Displaced?’

The second author of this paper has, for the last one year, been working extensively in the area, as a part of his association with the R&R work of the Sasan Power Project. While interacting with the “displaced” persons under this and other projects underimplementation in the area, government officials and projectfunctionaries, the issues that came up are highlighted below:

Definition of ‘Displaced Person’: As per the Policy of MP State, any person residing in the area is “displaced” whose land is getting submerged permanently or temporarily by an irrigation project or being acquired for other industrial/infrastructure projects. The person is expected normally residing in the area at least one year prior to the Section 4 notification of the Land A cquisition Act 1894, and earning his livelihood by doing some business or tilling his land for at least three years prior to Section 4 notification (MP R&R 2002).

The policy is not clear on the entitlements guaranteed under R&R for a “displaced” family, “affected” as a homestead and land oustee (a family losing homestead as well as the land) or the land oustee (a family losing only the land but not the homestead). It is critical to understand the case of land tenure vis-à-vis the magnitude of impact of land acquisition on the people. The displaced person should be classified into the following (A, B, and C) categories of people:

The beneficiaries’ list should be prepared in accordance with the revenue records. It is important to note the name under “ Kafiat-12” of the Khasra records to gather information about the Kaashtkaar and also the Gardwari records prepared by the patwari to know the cropping pattern, quality of land – irrigated/ unirrigated, etc. This information can help in understanding the actual economic loss to the farming communities under the land acquisition process.

Evaluation of Entitlements Should Be Participatory: It has been observed that at the time of Section 4 notification, there is

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

sudden influx of encroachers, squatters, etc, to claim the benefits of R&R. Since land acquisition is a complicated process and valuation of assets is a vital and complex issue, a “land verification team” with representation of all the stakeholders (government, the project management, the area representatives and PAPs) should be constituted for smooth verification of entitlements. The patwari is primarily responsible for the valuation of assets – both movable as well as immovable – through the process of sthal panchnama. To make the process democratic and participatory in the true sense, it is critical to actively involve the concerned stakeholders in the process for a larger political and social a cceptance, and avoid of corrupt practices.

A survey team with multi-stakeholder representation should be constituted to verify the genuinely affected persons. The person must produce documents like proof of name in the voter list three years prior to the Section 4 notification, ration card of the project-village, residence with cooking stove, spouse enrolment in an aanganwadi or a school, job card, proof of being a pension holder, etc. The indigenous families in the project notified area should be surveyed separately on a case to case basis. It has been observed that most of the tribal families lack these records even though they are genuine residents of the area. Special care should be taken in identifying such families so that they receive all the R&R benefits. The “homestead” should not be seen as a parameter of “affectedness”, because the relation of livelihood is with the land. For a land oustee, the loss of 100% or 75% of the agricultural land means that the rest of the agricultural field also becomes economically unviable, and he is even worse off than a homestead oustee. The land oustees must be considered for R&R benefits. Thus, landownership and the severity of impact should be a determining factor of eligibility for rehabilitation.

Conclusions

This paper, based mainly on the field experiences of the a uthors, focuses on the unabated and recurring displacement of thousands of families in the Singrauli area spread over five decades.

The affected people (hundreds of them repeatedly), due to the acquisition of their lands and/or homestead in the past suffered untold miseries due to lack of adequate R&R programmes, and conflicts between various projects and the people. In fact, a major agitation by people against “involuntary” displacement due to the mega industrial/infrastructure projects took place in the S ingrauli region. Such agitations have now culminated in a civil society movement all across the country due to such mega projects emerging all over India, more so under the present paradigm of market driven economy. This has brought distinct awareness among the people against such projects where the sovereign right of the State to acquire properties of people for setting up such projects in “public interest” is being challenged by people and civil society groups.

The earlier two phases of displacement in the Singrauli region tell a story of misery and hardships, including the disruption of sources of sustenance for a majority of the affected people. Those few families (around 4,523 against the total displaced families of

about 14,000) who got regular jobs, in the 1980s and 1990s, in bargaining for sources of livelihood. Favourable packages the mega thermal power and mining projects, were lucky ones ( towards land compensation and R&R) are being offered by against the above majority who suffered for decades due to losing i ndustrial groups so that their projects do not fizzle out, as is their lands, the main sources of their sustenance. happening in several cases in other parts of the country. How-

The recent displacement of some 4,600 families who are in ever, the R&R policy of Madhya Pradesh raises certain contenprocess of losing their lands or homestead for the thermal tious issues about “entitlements” and the very definition of “dispower projects – to be joined by those families to be affected placed” person/people under various projects. The experience under the new coal mining projects – comes under a changing of “involuntary” displacement in the Singrauli region in the last environment. One where the affected people are “empowered” five decades or so and its consequences for the affected people through fairly comprehensive R&R policies (like that of Madhya bring out relevant lessons for future projects and for the rights Pradesh), and protests by civil society groups resulting in better of the affected peoples.

Sarkar, Abhirup (2007): “Development and Displacement: Land Acquisition in West Bengal”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLII, No 16, 21 April, pp 1435-42.

Sharma, R N (2003): “Involuntary Displacement: A Few Encounters”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XXXVII, No 9, 1-7 March, pp 907-12.

Srinivasan, N R (1988): Ripples, Bilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd, Bhilai.

Vaswani, Kalpane, V Dhagamwar and Enakshi G Thukral (1990): The Land Acquisition Act and You (New Delhi: Multiple Action Research Group).

Wet, Chris de (2001): “Economic Development and Population Displacement: Can Everybody Win?” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XXXVI, No 50, 15 December.

World Bank Discussion Papers (152) (1993): The Urban Environment and Population Relocation by Michael M Cernia, World Bank.

World Commission on Dams (2000): Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making, the Report of the World Commission on Dams (London: Earth Scan Publications).

time of Section 4 and released by collector’s

o ffice during the year 2008-09 will be given as rehabilitation grant. This amount will be due after giving the possession of the land.

The rate per hectare village-wise is as f ollows, as per collector’s office

Rate at the Time of Present Rate Year Section 4 Year 2006-07 (Rs) 2009-09 (Rs) Village Irrigated Non-Irrigated Non-Irrigated Irrigated

Sidhdhi khurd 450500 300000 650000 450000

Sidhdhi kala 357000 250000 650000 450000

Harhawa 492000 332000 650000 450000

Tiyara 450500 300000 650000 450000

Jaanjhitola 450500 300000 650000 420000

(iii) Rehabilitation Grant: Following rehabilitation grant will be given to the displaced family through appropriate instalments during one year.

A Land less agriculture labour family 15000/-B SC/ST landowners or any other family 15000/-C Small and marginalised farmers’ families 15000/-D Other landowner or non-landowner

(half of A) 7500/