DAMMED FUTURE? Tribunal Headed by: Justice Rambhushan Mehrotra (Retired Judge, Allahabad High Court)

DAMMED FUTURE? Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Status of Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families (PAFs) of the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) in Maharashtra Tribunal Headed by: Justice Rambhushan Mehrotra (Retired Judge, Allahabad High Court) The Indian People s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights March 2000

Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the Status of Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families (PAFs) of the Sardar Sarovar Project in Maharashtra With Special Reference To The Sites Within The Akkalkuwan & Akrani Talukas, namely Somawal, Rozwa, Amlibari, Amoni & Dekhati. MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL Justice Rambhushan Mehrotra was born on 3rd July, 1934 in the small town of Kalpi in UP. After completing his post graduation in law from the University of Lucknow, he practised as a lawyer from 1956-1967 in the District Court of Jalaun at Orai. He was elected as the Councillor of the Municipal Board at Kalpi from 1962-67. He practised at the Allahabad High Court as a lawyer from 1967-80 and at the Supreme Court from 1980-90. He was appointed judge at the Allahabad High Court from 1990-96. After reaching the age of superannuation he has been practising in the Supreme Court as a Senior Advocate. Since 1997 he has been serving as President of PUCL (Peoples Union for Civil Liberties), Delhi unit. Mr. Vijay Paranjpye has an M.A. and M.Phil degree in Economics and an M.A. in Politics. He has authored six books including: Evaluating the Tehri Dam, INTACH, New Delhi (1988), High Dams on Narmada, INTACH, New Delhi (1990) and Rehabilitation Policy and Law in India: A Right to Livelihood ; (Edited 1997). He has done a number of studies and has contributed a number of research papers on environmental. The following are a few among his various assignments as an expert with various associations. - Member, Expert Committee on Environmental Science (UGC). Framing of Syllabus for Environmental Science - University Grants Commission, New Delhi from 1982-1984. - Member, Executive Committee, International Rivers Network, USA. - Subject Expert in Economics of Dams, International Water Tribunal (IWT), Amsterdam, Holland. - Member, Environmental Sub Group Committee and Forest Sub Group Committee Ninth Five Year Plan, Government of Maharashtra. IPT Secretariat Apoorva Kaiwar, Preeti Verma, Deepika D souza, Sarbani Sarkar, Amarjit Singh The Publishers do not hold any copyright in respect of the material printed in this report. However, if any part of this material is reproduced, acknowledgements should be given to the publishers and a copy sent to the publishers. Published by : Indian People s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights, India Suggested Contribution : Rs.30/-

EXTRACTS FROM Master Plan for Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons of Maharashtra State The Most comprehensive statement of policy for Sardar Sarovar by the Government ogf Maharashtra was published in its 1991 Master Plan. General policy objectives were set out. The resettlement policy of Sardar Sarovar Project PAPs in Maharashtra attempts to substantially improve their living conditions while causing minimum disturbance to their social and ethnic conditions PAPs must: 1. Improve or at least regain the standard of living they were enjoying prior to their displacement 2. Be relocated as village units, village sections or families in accordance with the PAPs preference as far as possible. 3. Be fully integrated in the community in which they are resettled. 4. Be provided with the appropriate compensation and adequate social and physical rehabilitation infrastructure including the community services and other facilities which are normally available under the various development schemes.

CONTENTS Preface Introduction 1. Procedure of the Enquiry Summary Of Findings 2. Observations of the Tribunal Somaval Amblibari Amoni Dekhati Rozwa 3. Occupied Land Allotted for Resettlement & Rehabilitation 4. Availability of Land for Future Oustees 5. Response by Government Authorities 6. Conclusion 7. Recommendations I II III IV Annexures Some Relevant Provisions of the NWDTA Resettlement And Rehabilitation: Site-Wise Land Availability in Maharashtra An Account of the Meeting at Nandurbar between the District Collector, Other Officials and Oustees of the SSP Sardar Sarovar Project: Major Social Impacts

THE NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 30 Large Dams, 135 Medium Dams and 3000 Small Dams on the river and its tributaries. 2 dams out of these are the gigantic ones - Sardar Sarovar and Narmada Sagar (Indira Sagar). All of these except Sardar Sarovar are in Madhya Pradesh. Sardar Sarovar is in Gujarat, with impacts and benefits in four states namely Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. Four of the large dams already completed - Bargi, Tawa, Barna and Sukta. Ongoing ones includes Sardar Sarovar, Indira Sagar, Maheshwar, Maan, Hobat and Kolar. Maheshwar is the first privatised Hydropower project in the country. Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award of 1979 decided allocation of Narmada waters between various states, fixed height of SSP, Indira Sagar gave orders for R&R. Water Yield of River Fixed at 20 Million Acre Feet (MAF) Allocation of Water Madhya Pradesh 18.25 MAF Gujarat 9.00 MAF Maharashtra 0.25 MAF Rajasthan 0.50 MAF Sharing of Power Benefits (From Sardar Sarovar Only) Madhya Pradesh 57% Maharashtra 27% Gujarat 16%

PREFACE Adivasi people comprise 7% of the population of India but make up 70% of the displaced population. These figures are indicative of the Indian Government s attitude and apathy towards adivasis. Neither is their culture nor is their attachment towards their ancestral land respected. People who were evicted due to the first large dams in the 1960s have till date neither been given proper rehabilitation nor cash compensation. In most cases rehabilitation has meant tearing apart an otherwise closely-knit adivasi community and dumping them in inhabitable tin sheds. Rehabilitation has usually meant living in deplorable conditions without even basic amenities like water, food and medical aid. In the long struggle against the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) one of the main grievances has been that of the conditions of rehabilitation and the manner in which people are being displaced from their ancestral land and community. It was because of the people s opposition to the rehabilitation process that the World Bank under pressure in September 1991 set up an independent review committee the Morse Committee as it came to be known to review the process of rehabilitation. The Morse Committee through its findings found the state of rehabilitation so pathetic that it advised the World Bank to pull out of the project and stop funding. This created history and the people who were to be affected by the Project hoped that the Government of India would learn a lesson. The Government unfortunately intends to proceed with the project notwithstanding people s concerns and despite sustained protest. Numerous reports and studies have raised questions about the viability of the dam. The government has been unable to answer them. During the last six years the Indian People s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (IPT) has conducted two other investigations on the Status of Rehabilitation and the Condition of the Oustees of the SSP. These were conducted in Manibeli, Kevadia and in districts of Baroda and Bharuch in Gujarat by two independent judges. The situation there was very similar to what the IPT team saw in Maharashtra i.e. rehabilitation has been grossly inadequate, the government has failed to meet its own criteria for rehabilitation and the country s most vulnerable citizens have been cheated. It is not surprising therefore that most adivasis feel the Indian government has been repressive and exploitative and that the government does not represent the best interests of the adivasi people. IPT Secretariat

INTRODUCTION The Indian People s Tribunal (IPT) was approached by the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti (PSS) to conduct an investigation into the Status of the Tribals who have voluntarily accepted government rehabilitation in the Nandurbar District of Maharashtra. The tribal people had been relocated here eight years ago from their ancestral lands in the Narmada Valley, as the dam had submerged their villages. On shifting to the new site they were promised, land for land, separate plots for adult sons, cash compensation for shifting to the new site, housing material as well as water supplies, schools, medical facilities and other facilities like parks and playgrounds. However, even after almost a decade of residing in the new area they find they have been cheated and most of what they had been promised remains a dream. In 1999 the Supreme Court that had earlier stayed construction on the dam pending the final hearing of the case changed its decision and allowed for the dam height to be raised by 5 metres. Fearing further displacement of people and having experienced the complete failure of the government s rehabilitation scheme the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti approached the IPT to conduct an investigation. The Tribunal comprised of Justice Rambhushan Mehrotra, (Retd. Judge, Allahabad High Court)and Professor Vijay Paranjpye, an economist and expert on the impact of large dams. Advocate Apoorva Kaiwar of the IPT accompanied them. The team visited the rehabilitation sites in Maharashtra from 19 th 21 st March 1999. A series of public hearings were held where Project Affected Families (PAFs), Government officials in charge of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R & R) process in Maharashtra and representatives of the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Taloda, deposed before the Tribunal. Other citizens and prominent people s representatives were also invited to present their views before the Tribunal. The process of public hearing was carried out in a remarkably cordial and transparent manner, and the Tribunal members noted the forthright manner in which the Government officials as well as the oustees and their representatives made representations. On previous occasions when the IPT has conducted investigations, government officials have chosen to maintain a bureaucratic silence, hence their presence at this hearing was appreciated. Terms Of Reference 1. To enquire into the process and status of the Project Affected Families of SSP being settled in Maharashtra since 1992, in the light of the provisions of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award (NWDTA). 2. To hear the depositions made by the adivasi people amongst the PAFs who are being resettled in Taloda Tehsil of Nadurbar in Maharashtra, at Rozwa, Somaval, Amlibari- Akkalkuwa and Akrani Tehsils, and to record their statements. 3. To assess the preparations and the readiness of the Government of Maharashtra in terms of providing adequate land and associated infrastructure for rehabilitating all the oustees likely to be displaced by SSP in Maharashtra. 4. To make appropriate recommendations with regard to the above-mentioned terms. Background Sardar Sarovar Project on Narmada has remained controversial due to the various issues raised by people s organisations during the last fourteen years. A major reason for

controversy and the people s struggle has been the large-scale displacement and status of rehabilitation of the Project Affected Families. However, the Central Government and the Governments of the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat have made claims of comprehensive plans and the best possible, legally perfect rehabilitation policy. The affected people and their organisation on the other hand have protested against human rights violations of the project-affected people as well as violation of their Constitutional Rights. They allege that the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal Award (NWDTA) has been very poorly implemented. The parties have presented their views to the Supreme Court as well as at various forums in the civil society. For almost 4 years i.e. between 5th May 1995 and 18th February 1999, the Supreme Court had stayed all work related to the height of the dam which had been stopped at a reservoir level (height) of 80.3 metres. However on 18th February 1999, in the case Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. the Union of India and others 1, the Supreme Court passed an interim order, to the effect that the height of the dam could be raised by 5 metres from 80.3 + humps to 85 + humps 2. The operative clause of this order states that, At this stage, however, we permit the State of Gujarat to raise the level of the dam to RL 85 metres, excluding the humps necessary for the maintenance of the safety of the dam. As a result of the order issued on 18th February 1999, approximately 220 additional Project Affected Families (PAF) would be displaced in Maharashtra and would need to be resettled before the reservoir level rose in June 1999. This order will have a serious impact on a few thousand families especially in the tribal villages in the Satpuras and Vindhya falling in the three riparian states affecting their fields and houses. The Court s order stipulates full and fair rehabilitation of all those to be affected at 88 metres as per NWDTA provisions. Many people s organisations have raised allegations that the governments of Maharashtra, Gujarat and India have made false claims concerning land availability in their affidavits, which led to the said interim order. These organisations claim that the rehabilitation of SSP oustees is not as per the policy and stipulations in the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award (NWDTA) and is rather incomplete even in the case of the families already affected upto 80 metres and that there is no master plan for rehabilitation of all categories of the oustees. As Smitu Kothari puts it so aptly Beyond a point, it makes sense to reiterate what has been said dozens of times before. For over ten years (and longer if one takes into account the evolution of the project in the aftermath of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award that adjudicated on the sharing of the waters in the region and also gave consent to the SSP), the state and central governments have had time and enough resources to define a detailed, workable plan to comprehensively rehabilitate those who will be displaced or adversely affected by the project. And though extremely detailed plans exist for the physical structure of the dam and its infrastructure, even today this rehabilitation plan does not exist. If the location of every inch of the dam and its infrastructure can be defined in great detail prior to digging the first shovel of earth, why isn t such a plan equally integral to the planning process? 1 Writ Petition No. 345/94, SLP No. 3608/85, CA 6014/94, Writ Petition No. 104/97 and transferred case No. 35/95. 2 Humps means a speed breaker construction strip which could break / limit the speed of the waters gushing in to save the stilling basin of the dam from any damage which is now completed upto (85+3) 88 metres

Today, even project officials unofficially concede that the land to adequately rehabilitate those to be displaced by the project has not been found - and even if some of it is brought from landlords, the price will be exorbitant and the communities will be broken up and dispersed over a wide area. Besides, how justified is it that communities are not only broken up, not only dispersed but also relocated in geographical and linguistic areas significantly different from their own? And even when lands have been found, what about those who were dependent on it earlier? And this is true of large projects all over the country. Particularly when the social and environmental costs are so enormous and, in many ways, so irreversible. I am not even going to into the continuing violations of basic civic rights by the state - the number of people falsely implicated, the continuing harassment, the use of repressive measures to break-up peaceful protest. 3 3 Lokayan Bulletin, May August 1991, Editorial, Pg. 5, Published by Macro Graphics, New Delhi

Chapter 1 PROCEDURE OF THE ENQUIRY 19 th March 1999: Public Hearing at Somaval Resettlement site. The IPT team left Baroda at 9.00 a.m and travelled by car to Taloda, reaching at about 4.00 p.m. After a brief halt, the team proceeded to the first resettlement site, namely Somaval, located about 10-12 kms to the northwest of Taloda town. The team was accompanied by ShrI Devendra Borse, journalist from Nandurbar and Smt. Pratibha Shinde of Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti (PSS) 20 th March 1999: Public hearing at Rozwa Resettlement site. The hearing was conducted from 9.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. The Government of Maharashtra made elaborate arrangements, consisting of a large pandal for 200 villagers and seating arrangements for officials, local MLAs and concerned citizens who wished to participate. Among the officials present were B.J. Padvi, Tehsildar, Taloda; G.M. Bhavsar, Resettlement Officer, Rozwa; B.D. Thakre, Circle Officer Rozwa and Amoni; G.W. Kotkar, Circle Officer, Somaval; Shri S.R. Valvi, Ex RSO, Somaval Shri Bhoi, Ex RSO, Amoni Others present included, Narendra Padvi, local MLA, BJP, Kantilal Talia, Narayan Patil, President of the Taloda Taluka Unit of the BJP, Vidya Bargal, Ex-Municipal Corporator, Taloda and a member of Vasundhara Bachao, K.L. Jadhav, Devendra Borse, Yogendra Dorkar, Ranjit Rajput, a team of journalists. Approximately 250 oustees attended the meeting and twelve PAF heads made detailed oral presentations along with written submissions. Smt. Pratibha Shinde also gave a detailed testimony alongwith a written submission containing individual cases, specific problems and complaints regarding the process of rehabilitation. Each submission was duly dated and thumb impressions or signatures were inscribed. 20 th March 1999: Public hearing at Amlibari Resettlement site. During the post-lunch session, from 3.30 to 7.00 p.m., the team heard the depositions by oustees residing at the site. Here too similar arrangements had been made by the government authorities of Maharashtra. Besides the officials mentioned above, the meeting was attended by Shri Bipin Shrimali, Upper Ayukta and Collector, Nandurbar and the District Resettlement Officer. Senior officials of the District Police Department were also present. Approximately 20 PAPs submitted their cases / complaints. 21 st March 1999: Visit to the resettlement site at Amoni. The PAFs, Government officials and the SSP officials were present. Some PAFs made presentations, however, the officials did not make any submissions. The officials present were: D.P Shelar, Deputy Collector, SSP, Akrani S.T Babul, Naib Tahsildar (Rep/DRO) Nandurbar G.M Bhausar, RSO, Rozwa

R.S Bhoi, Ex. RSO, Amoni EGS Tahsildar, Collector s Office, Nandurbar S.R Valvi, Ex.RSO, Dekhati & Somaval Additional District Supply Officer, Nandurbar 21 st March 1999: Visit to Dekhati. In the afternoon, the team visited Dekhati, the fifth resettlement site in Maharashtra. At this site also the PAFs made written submissions. Summary Of Findings A detailed study of the documents available with the organisations and an analysis of the oral and written presentations of the PAFs and officials brought out the following points. The history of the adivasis indicates that the tribal economy was essentially dependent on forest lands and other such common property resources. Tribal families belonging to Bhil Bhilala communities have been the inhabitants of the Satpura region since generations. Their livelihood, cultural beliefs and practices are all rooted in the forest and the natural resources. The adivasis, since many generations have been collecting a variety of forest produce, mahua, chironji, temru leaves, apta leaves, etc. which were used at home or sold in the market. A variety of medicinal herbs and materials for making and repairing houses were also collected. They are settled agriculturists and have been cultivating land and growing a variety of crops. The written submissions of two oustees Jordar and Jehangir Pawra list the crops - jowar, maize (cereals), tur, charu, udad, (all pulses) banti, bhadi, mor (hilly millets) ground nuts and sesame. Regarding the decision-making process, the oustees say that they were at no time consulted about their own resettlement. They were forced to move out due to the pressure tactics of the government and because their lands were being submerged. The Tribunal was informed of the Manibeli Satyagraha and the use of police force by the government due to which they were compelled to move out. A large number of oustees have not yet been declared as PAFs even though their houses have been dismantled and they have been moved along with their belongings including material like bamboo (dismantled houses) from villages which were submerged. Consequently, the Government of Maharashtra has not provided them with land or titles, even though they have been living at Rozwa for many years. The process of measuring and distributing began before the number of people who were to be ousted was final. The result was that finally there was no land left to distribute among several oustees. These oustees have been landless for as long as 5-7 years and it now appears that the government does not have adequate land to give them. The oustees said that when they were moved out, government officials told them that they would be given irrigated land, ready for cultivation. They were told that the land was ready and available for their occupation and therefore, they should move out. Today after more than seven years, many of them are still without any land. Government officials were to resettle the ousted villagers as one unit in the same place, fulfilling the requirement of Community Resettlement. But, in reality, many families have been forced to split as land for two adults of the same family has been given at two different resettlement sites. As one of the villagers remarked, The Govt. may say that the

people will be taken to Gujarat, this is unacceptable as we want to be in Maharashtra and if our community is here, then some people cannot go elsewhere. There have been several cases where major sons were not declared as adults. Many of these adults were in fact married, had children and were cultivating land in their villages. They were denied benefits available to major sons. In several cases names of major sons were declared by the government but were not given land.

Chapter 2 OBSERVARTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL SOMAVAL The hearing at Somaval took place at Narmada Nagar: Somaval Punarvasan. People from Mukdi, Gaman, Dhanel, Sindhuri, Mandwa, Bamni came to give their depositions before the Tribunal. 81 submissions were made. These mainly concerned the non-declaration of a large number of people as PAFs despite them fulfilling the criteria for being thus declared, non availability of land, lack of irrigation facilities and other basic amenities Many project-affected people from Akkalkuwa Taluka are resettled at the Somaval rehabilitation site. Project affected persons had started coming to this site in 1992 when the height of the dam was 60m. Fearing submergence of their lands and houses these people decided to accept the government package of rehabilitation. As per the Award the government had promised to make all arrangements one year before resettlement. They had also been assured that people would be resettled 6 months before the submergence would begin. However none of this happened. People s houses had begun to get submerged before they were brought here. Those who had moved believing in the assurances given by the government now question the point of part rehabilitation. Vadgia Gardhnia Vasave told the Tribunal, the government told us that you first move there (to the resettlement site) and then you will be given everything. But till now, we have not got anything no land has been given. What is the use of us getting only tiles and a bullock cart, when there is no land? Non-declaration Several people complained of not being declared as PAFs. When asked what proof they had Smt. Pratibha Shinde of the PSS told the Tribunal that the people have documents pertaining to the shifting of their property and other relevant papers. The Government had also issued them notices saying their houses and families would be affected. Yet the Government has not declared them as affected. The Government has paid them a subsistence allowance, given them tiles for the roofs but is yet to declare them as PAFs. Bajia Metia Padvi mentioned that his father was a khatedar (separate family) in the old village. The father and two brothers had been declared as project affected. Bajia at age 35 for some reason is yet to be declared. The people mentioned that no proper surveys were done in the original villages, people above 18 in 1987 who had to be declared as PAF have not been declared. 35 families from Sindhuri and Mukdi who are affected and have been brought here have also not been declared. No land or facilities have been given to them. Housing Under the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) all the displaced people were entitled to a complete housing package. This included building material like tiles and bamboo. Now the government was offering them these materials for a price. Only around 50 PAFs have been given Rs. 6000/- in addition to the tiles and bamboo instead of giving them the amount of Rs.18,000 or Rs.28,000 to which they are entitled.

Agriculture In his deposition before the Tribunal, Jerma Jalpa Vasane of village Gaman said, In our old village we used to cultivate rice, toor, bhatti etc., but here because there is no water we can only grow dadar. The government had promised us that land would be irrigated but they have done nothing in 7 years. The land, which has been given to my sons is very bad, there is a stream running across it and it is a rocky terrain. Nothing can be grown there. During the monsoon, the land gets filled with water. Compensation for my house has not been given. In his deposition, Bana Ponda Padvi of Mukdi, said, There is a well in my field for the last 3 years, but no water comes out of it. I had struggled to cultivate land and had managed to make one piece of land cultivable. There was a survey again after four years, this piece of land was taken away from me and I was given another piece of land, which is bad. What happens to the money I had spent on my land? Dadma Damha Padvi another oustee stated that since he had no land he was forced to work as a coolie on land belonging to other people. They barely have work for 15-20 days. When they have no work they collect wood from the forest the but if they are caught then everything is confiscated. Another case was that of Themnia Dolvia Padvi from Mukdi village. He has been declared as a project-affected person and has been given some land. However he said he was unable to get anything from the land since it is full of stones and there are 2 streams running through it. Despite making several applications to the Deputy Collector and to the Additional Commissioner nothing has been done. Other Facilities School Bana Ponda Padvi of Mukdi described the condition of the school at the resettlement site. In the Ashram School, classes are up to 10 th Std, but there is only one teacher since 2 years. In their school initially, the children used to get milk, oil for their hair and green vegetables but now nothing is available in the school. Civic Amenities The Tribunal observed that the villagers at the resettlement sites were also deprived of basic facilities such as water Other facilities such as the grazing land and a bus stand which were promised have still to be provided 8 years after the first batch of people were brought here to be resettled. The drainage system is also non-existent and during the monsoons the water enters their houses. It is evident from these depositions that complete land settlement has not been done. In December 1992 an order was passed for land settlement, but in January 1993 this was discontinued. There was no more place for displaced people. Much of the land had been encroached upon. Despite this, further notices were sent out and people were directed to come to Somaval.

AMBLIBARI 258 submissions were given to the Tribunal mainly regarding the non-declaration of many displaced persons as PAFs, allotment of land and the non-availability of basic amenities. Most of the oustees claimed that in Gat Nos. 414, 413, 409, 410 and 412 there are no water facilities available. They also stated that for landless PAFs, the Government of Gujarat provides five acres of land, while the landless oustees in Maharashtra get only two and a half acres. This was very discriminatory and unfair. The Government of Maharashtra officials could not give any reason for this. The people demanded that the land that the government claims is available for further resettlement should first be given to these families. AMONI 89 submissions mainly regarding the non-declaration as PAFs were made. The presentations made at the public hearing brought out the following: Several people have not been given 7/12 land extract papers giving them possession of land. In several houses electrical meters were fitted but there was no electric supply. However, ectricity bills have been received. 23 oustee families at Rozwa and Amoni have not been given roof tiles for the past four years, forcing them to face the monsoons literally without a roof over their heads. The desperation of the displaced people came across clearly in a deposition by Hajia Gansia Pawra from Bhusia village; we never knew that the dam would be built, the Government must have decided that it is easy to remove us from the valley. We were with the NBA, but later due to pressure from Government we accepted resettlement. People were brought here but were not declared. There is no land available here, then why did the Government say in the Supreme Court that there is land. My land was submerged, my house was dismantled and brought here, but here no land has been given to us. We feel like running into the Narmada and jumping in. People in the old villages will be submerged and we will die fighting with the encroachers. We will go back and die in the valley. DEKHATI During the team s visit to Dekhati 22 submissions were made regarding the non-declaration as PAFs, non-availability of housing material and other basic facilities. ROZWA 102 submissions regarding the non-declaration as PAFs were given to the Tribunal. These included submissions made by those declared as PAFs but allotted encroached lands or uncultivable land or allotted land less than that entitled to. Some of the complaints concerned non-payment of compensation for the property and houses that were not shifted.

A number of oustees made very articulate presentations regarding their life in the villages, experience with authorities and life in resettled villages. They submitted specific documents to the Tribunal showing that they had given a number of memoranda to the government and had at several opportunities demanded : - Land - Declaration of adult sons as PAFs - Removal of encroachers from land allotted to oustees - Some of the oustees showed occupation slips for land, which they have never seen. E.g. Sega Rusha Bhil and 7 others from Bharad village and Jirya Phulji Vasave and others from Domkhedi have occupation slips for land in Somaval but they have never seen the land. They have not been provided with land since 1993-94. The land exists only on paper. Unfulfilled promises - False Assurances: Smt. Pratibha Shinde of the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti (PSS) Dist. Nandurbar gave a detailed account of their interaction with government authorities. The following are the main points raised by her: In 1998, the Deputy Secretary, (Rehabilitation) at Mumbai had assured that 14 oustees would be given land immediately. Even after a year this land was not given. In February 1999 at a public meeting opposite the District Collectorate, Nandurbar the PSS presented a list of 169 oustees who had not been provided land. This list was accepted and signed by the Minister, Shri Vijay Kumar Gavit and by other officials and was given to the PSS along with time-bound promises. - The assurances given included completion of land allotment by March 1999. - The officials also admitted that more land is required for resettlement as the 4200 ha of forestland made available had already been distributed. However the situation remains unchanged. No land has been allotted. Oustees in their presentations and written submissions complained that they have been allotted land which has not been transferred from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department e.g. Coop no. 437. 22 families were given the same land at Rozwa, which led to disputes among them. Mr. Jehangir Ranjya an oustee complained that boundaries of land allotted were not demarcated with the result that some oustees have remained without land and several disputes have arisen among oustees. Many villagers had been asked to shift their houses but were unable to do so because there are no proper roads for transferring their belongings. Villagers who shifted more than 3 years ago were still unable to move things. Jania Mahan Vasave stated, 3 years ago the Government told us to shift and so we dismantled the house. Now my house is lying dismantled there and is getting spoilt in the monsoons. We are asked to make our own roads for which the Government said they would pay later, but nothing has been paid till now, though we struggled and made our roads. R.S Bhoi the Ex-RSO of Amoni agreed that shifting was not possible, as there were no roads from the old villages to the resettlement sites and that an application had been made to the Narmada Vikas Agency.

Irrigation facilities have not been provided. In one place three out of the four existing bore wells did not have water and the oustees were unable to irrigate their land. The deplorable living conditions of the people are apparent from the lack of basic facilities. Jenia Pulzi Vasava, from Dhomkhedi mentioned that in case of illness they had no money for medicines. We have been living in tin transit shelters for 3 years. Our children fall ill in the summer. If we don t have land, why are they bringing is more people; they are our people, why is the Government fooling them also? Ms. Vidya Bargal of Vasundhara Bachao and ex- Corporator of Taloda, in her presentation raised the matter of the only forest in Taloda taluka having been cut down for the purpose of rehabilitation. This move she stated was of grave concern from the environmental point of view. Ms. Bargal also strongly criticized the callousness and bureaucratic delays of the government machinery in the process of rehabilitation of oustees. At the end of the hearing at the Rozwa R&R site, it became clear that at least 72 PAFs originally displaced from Bharad and Junane in 1994, from Domkhedi in 1993 and from Shalakda in 1995, have still not received any land, and nor do they have any title deeds for land. EXTENT OF REHABILITATION AT SITES VISITED Somaval Amblivari Amoni Dekhati Rozwa Total No. of PAFs 484 343 451 127 404 Non-declared 141 138 61 45 89 Declared as PAFs 343 205 390 79 315 No land allotted despite declaration as PAF 4-15 14 136 Non-cultivable land allotted 27 17 53 21 14

Chapter 3 OCCUPIED LAND ALLOTTED FOR RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION A matter of grave concern in the area is the fact that the land demarcated for rehabilitation of the SSP oustees is occupied by adivasis who claim that they have been living there prior to 1979. The Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) has tried all means of evicting these 396 households. Mr. Narayan Patil and Mr. Kantilal Tatiya gave details of a case filed in the Nandurbar District Court. It was also claimed that not 404 ha as earlier mentioned but 600 ha had been encroached upon by the original adivasis. Mr. Narendra Padvi, MLA, made a presentation regarding the situation of the original adivasis of the area who have now been declared encroachers. He mentioned that these people had been cultivating this land for several years before 1978, but the Forest Department released the land for rehabilitation without taking their claims into account. In 1978-79, the GoM had taken the decision that all adivasis who had encroached on forestlands prior to 1978 would be granted ownership and the lands would be transferred to their names. The relevant Resolution was passed in 1979. It was claimed by Shri Kunwarsing Walvi, the sitting MLA from Taloda during the hearing that the forest department harassed the tribals by destroying their crops and threatening them with eviction. Consequently they filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court (No.7339/1982). On 29 th June 1990, under pressure from the World Bank, 2759.80 ha of forestland from coop no 436, 448, 449 and 451 were declared available for rehabilitating oustees from SSP. It was precisely on this land that adivasis had earlier encroached upon. An area of approximately 600 ha has been encroached upon and this has been deemed to have been transferred to them vide the GoM Act of 1979. In 1995 the Supreme Court passed an order asking about 396 encroachers to stake their claims with the District Collector. At present, the process of settling their claims is underway. The NWDT Award does not, however appear to have made any provisions for encroachers, to this extent it ignored the customary usages of tribal people using encroached land for cultivation or grazing. The 1979 Award did not take these social and economic factors into account when it made its provisions for Maharashtra oustees. 4 Jahangir Pawra in his deposition at Rozwa said, on 26.8.91 we accepted resettlement. Government brought people here, gave them possession of land on paper, but in reality there is no land. People who are here already are asking for this land, so where is the place for new people coming after the increase in the dam height? Where will these brothers of mine go? There are many instances where the plot of land has been given to 2 people. Government has made a major mistake. The people here, in the old village and the encroachers are all adivasis. By creating a rift the Government has created social and cultural problems. 4 Sardar Sarovar, The Report of the Independent Review (Morse Committee Report)

Everybody who has come here should be given land and later the Government should think of new people. The Government told us that there is no land and even journalists heard this. But in the Supreme Court the Government has lied. Now, it is the moral responsibility of the Government that people who come should be shown land immediately, but the officials are not doing anything. Kisan Malisingh Pawra of Junnim spoke of the seriousness of the conflicts with the encroachers, We were given land which was encroached. When we approached the Government they said it is your land, you will have to clear them (encroachers). Due to this there were major fights and one person was killed. Ranja Munshi Pawra, from Shalagda expressed similar concerns and stated that the land given to him had also been given to others. The Government is creating fights due to land; the question is whether the Government has brought us here for living or for killing us. The NWDT Award clearly mentions that within two years of the declaration of the Award, the lands necessary for rehabilitation should be acquired. It is a matter of grave concern and surprise that the GoM has been unable to acquire adequate land in 20 years, i.e. since 1979. The relevant portion of the NWDT Award is at Annexure 1.

Chapter 4 AVAILABILITY OF LAND FOR FUTURE OUSTEES The Government of Maharashtra has claimed that a total of 4200 ha. of forestland has been made available for resettlement of the PAFs. This land was released in two instalments viz. 2700 ha in 1990 and 1500 ha in 1994. However, the GoM has also admitted that out of this area, 741 ha. are not fit for R & R as they include riverbeds, streambeds and land unfit for cultivation. Some land still has a standing forest cover. In addition, some land is covered by gaothans or village settlements and consequently this land will also not be available for resettlement of the oustees. Of the remaining land approximately 400 acres was already being cultivated by adivasis living there for generations.* The Government officials submitted a detailed note with the following figures regarding availability of land for R & R: Total land (forest land) made available 4191.86 ha for R & R Of this Land not fit for cultivation = 836.56 ha Encroached cultivation = 404.50 ha* Land for gaothans = 209.60 ha Land land not available for R & R = 1450.66 ha Total Land available with Government of Maharashtra for R & R (4191.86-1450.66) = 2741.20 ha Of this land already allotted = 2292.56.ha Thus land now left with GOM for R & R (Even on paper) = 448.64 ha This land i.e., 448.64 ha is the only quantum of land available for both present and all future resettlements. This figure, is as per the Government statistics. The Tribunal further notes that the Government of Maharashtra officials have accepted the fact that there are 555 applications of oustees still pending to be declared PAFs. These in addition to the 72 PAFs, who have not been given land as yet at Rozwa site, brings the total to 627 PAFs, whose claims have not even been considered despite them having been displaced over 7 years ago. *Non-government sources claim that land occupied by the earlier adivasis is not 404 ha but 600 ha., thus leaving only 253.24 ha. with the GoM for R&R. A further investigation should be done to ascertain the exact extent of land occupied by the adivasis

Chapter 5 RESPONSE BY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES In most cases brought before the team the officials were unable to refute the following claims: A large number of oustees have not been declared PAFs even though they have been moved with their belongings and material (dismantled houses) from villages which were submerged. Consequently GoM has not provided them with land or titles even though they have been living at resettlement sites. About 95% of the oustees have not been given money for resettlement. (Those resettled prior to 1994 were to receive Rs. 18, 000/- while those resettled after 1994 were to receive Rs. 28,550/- each). Indira Awas Yojana All the project-affected persons have been made beneficiaries of the Indira Awas Yojana and money was withdrawn in their name to purchase roof tiles and bamboos. According to the Award housing material is to be provided free and the remaining money after purchasing tiles and bamboos is to be given for constructing the plinth. In most cases, the money was not paid. Officials agreed that there has been a violation of the guiding principles of IAY and that the cases would be investigated. Storehouses for seeds though made, lie useless as agriculture lands have not been allotted. There is also no grazing land Dispensaries have been constructed but serve no purpose as the doctors do not visit the clinic more than once in 2 weeks. Civic amenities are practically non-existent and the system of drainage is useless because water from the drains enters the houses during monsoons About 65% oustees at Rozwa have not been given monetary compensation. Oustees made applications but no cognizance was taken.

Chapter 6 CONCLUSION 1) The Government of Maharashtra has not yet been able to satisfactorily resettle and rehabilitate even the oustees displaced by the partial completion of the dam at a height of 80.3 meters. 2) The land available for R & R is totally inadequate. The raising of the dam height to RL 85 metres will lead to displacement which completely contravenes the provisions of the NWDTA (1979), because the GoM simply does not have enough land to adequately resettle the oustees. 3) Zamin Dikhao Abhiyan - The Tribunal also took cognizance of the statement made by Smt. Pratibha Shinde, claiming that when the PAFs took a delegation to the GoM officials in March 1999, the officials were unable to show them the land. 4) As per the Maharashtra Government R & R Policy (1991-92), one ha. land has to be provided to the landless PAFs. Further, major sons (completing 18 years in 1987) are to be considered as khatedar (separate family). However, all the submissions received showed that these conditions have been violated and that most of major sons have not been considered as PAFs. 5) The NWDT Award clearly mentions that within two years of the declaration of the Award, the lands necessary for rehabilitation should be acquired. It is a matter of grave concern that the Government of Maharashtra has been unable to acquire adequate land during the 20 years since 1979. In the light of the Government s failure, the IPT states that there has been a gross violation of the provisions of the NWDTA. 6) Another major issue is that oustees have been allotted forestland on which other tribal populations, referred to as encroachers by the Government officials are living. Displacing the existing population to provide land to the oustees of the SSP, will in our opinion, only give rise to more problems rather than solutions. 7) Government officials spoke of their efforts and intentio ns to rehabilitate the oustees but were unable to answer specific questions; rather they confirmed the submissions made by the people and those of the supporters, politicians, reporters, etc. 8) The committee concludes that the claims made by the oustees are genuine, since none of the government officials present at the time of the hearing could give facts or information to the contrary. The committee makes a serious note of the fact that the existence of such large numbers of oustees without any land grossly violates the provisions of the NWDTA (1979). 9) Not only has the Government not been able to provide land as per the NWDTA stipulations but it has violated every other clause such as providing cash compensation, housing material, medical facilities, schools and other benefits. 10) In no case were the people shifted a year before submergence as the NWDTA recommends. It is clear from the depositions, site visits and the study of relevant

documents that there is a large gap between the Model Rehabilitation plan of the Government and the ground reality. Sadly it is with this reality that the project affected families of the SSP are compelled to live. NARMADA WATER DISPUTE TRIBUNAL AWARD Work on the Narmada Valley Development Project was stalled because of conflicts between Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. The three states could not agree on sharing of the Narmada waters. In 1969, the dispute was referred to the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal. Its decision the NWDT Award was handed down in 1979. Besides other things the Award is also the main legal basis for the rehabilitation and resettlement of those who would be displaced by submergence. Some provisions of the NWDT Award specifically establish the following principles to be paramount in the process of rehabilitation: 1. Land for land 2. Community resettlement - The Award mentions the establishment of rehabilitation villages, with the process of shifting from submergence area to rehabilitation villages to be completed in 2 years 3. Land for resettlement must be given in the irrigated area of Gujarat 4. If oustees do not wish to go to Gujarat, land for resettlement must be provided to them in Maharashtra or Madhya Pradesh 5. Facility for irrigation of such lands is to be provided by the government 6. Gujarat shall acquire and make available a year in advance of submergence before each successive stage irrigable lands and house sites for rehabilitation of the oustees families from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra who are willing to migrate to Gujarat. Gujarat shall in the first instance offer to rehabilitate the oustees in its own territory. (NWDT Award See IV (2) (iv)) 7. The Award envisages that rehabilitation has to be completed a year before submergence.

Chapter 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 1) A major stipulation in NWDTA was to formulate the Master Plan for Resettlement, with land details within two years i.e. by 1981. That kind of Master Plan is not yet ready. The Tribunal recommends that this Master Plan should be prepared and made available to the people before any further construction activity is undertaken. 2) An Independent Committee consisting of not just Government officials, but also representatives of project-affected persons and of organisations working in the area be constituted to identify the project-affected communities and families. The Committee should also ascertain the availability, identity and adequacy of land available for Resettlement and Rehabilitation. 3) Dereservation and clearing up of forestland is an environmentally damaging option for providing land for rehabilitation. Besides the identified forestlands are not free from claims from earlier occupants. Hence, further dereservation of forestland must be stopped. 4) All the stipulations regarding community resettlement must be adhered to strictly. 5) All the provisions of the NWDTA with respect to those already ousted due to the present height of the dam must be met with. E.g with regard to declaration of major sons as project-affected persons and allotment of land that is cultivable 6) The Rehabilitation sites have not been provided with basic amenities. All efforts and resources must be deployed to ensure that the tribals already displaced are provided with fertile land, housing material, water supply and medical, education and public transport facilities. Further displacement will only compound the present dismal situation. 7) Apart from proper rehabilitation the project affected people of Nandurbar district must be compensated in view of the tardy rehabilitation facilities they have been forced to live with. 8) Government officials in charge of rehabilitation must be held personally liable for implementation of the rehabilitation plan and should be punished in case of lapses. 9) No further construction on the dam or an increase in height should be permitted till all the aforesaid recommendations are satisfactorily complied with.