Many of those who were to be compensated, have become destitute
Mukesh Rajwar (wearing hat), Ravindra Kumar (centre) and his wife Chhaya (in brown saree), of Ichakdih village await employment in lieu of their land that the government acquired tor coal mining a decade ago (Photographs: Sukriti Vats) Brij Mahto from Jharkhand’s Ramgarh district is tired of running from pillar to post to get compensation for his farmland acquired by Central Coalfields Limited 22 years ago. Mahto’s family had held posseManyssion of over 6 hectares (ha) for more than 100 years before the Central government subsidiary acquired it. The piece of land had lasted and sustained at least four generations. Today, 35-year-old Mahto, who was once a proud farmer, is forced to seek out daily wage work to fend for his family.
Much before the state of Jharkhand was formed, Mahto’s village Kedla had come in the grasp of the Central government under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (CBA), 1957. CBA allows the Union Ministry of Coal’s public sector undertaking Coal India Limited (CIL) and its subsidiaries like the Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) to acquire as much land as needed for exploration. The “economic interests” of the country justify mining without limitations, not even requiring consultation with the communities facing displacement.
CBA declares that the compensation is always secondary. The result is cases where the compensation is denied, delayed, inadequate and often gets decided after land acquisition, like those seen in Jharkhand.
The government has not released any consolidated data on land acquired for coal mining, people affected or compensation awarded in nearly a decade. The last major official estimates were in the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ 2014 “Report of the High Level Committee on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational Status of Tribal Communities of India”, which said that CIL and its subsidiary companies have displaced nearly 87,000 people since 1973, including more than 14,000 people from the Scheduled Tribes.
Jharkhand, where CIL and its subsidiaries have acquired more land than in any other state (74,756 ha, as per a Press Information Bureau report of April 5, 2023), has seen many pending cases for compensation. Just this year in July, the Union Ministry of Coal admitted delaying compensation for the land acquired in Kedla village for over two decades because the state government had been unresponsive. Down to Earth (DTE) visited Kedla, Ichakdih and Laiyo villages in Ramgarh to find large-scale discrepancies caused by CCL’s bureaucratic lethargy, violation of CBA provisions and tussle with the state government.
“Politicians and officials have made victims out of us. They have taken so much land and not given one rupee in return. It would be just better if the mining stopped and we got our land back,” Mahto alleges.
The coal ministry stated in the Rajya Sabha on July 31 that “In spite of several correspondence with the state government authorities, the tenant-wise land schedule (details of properties acquired in Kedla village) has not been provided to CCL. Due to this, payment of compensation is held up.” Jay Kumar Sharma, circle officer of Mandu town in Ramgarh, accepts that they received multiple requests from the CCL general manager’s office to verify the tenant-wise land schedule, but have not received documents to carry out verification from CCL.
Land acquisition in the Kedla village happened in three phases, starting in the 1980s. Notices for land acquisition were published in 1984, 1996 and 2004 for Kedla underground and open cast mining projects. The ministry’s parliamentary response addresses 17.47 acres (1 acre equals 0.4 ha) of raiyat land, which was part of 192.46 ha procured for coal mining in 2004 under CBA. Raiyats are legal arrangements recognised by the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 that allow people to live and cultivate on land in exchange for rent. This land was earlier owned by zamindars, but was transferred to the state after the land reforms in 1950.
CCL’s Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2000, sets compensation for tenancy land at R1 lakh per acre, for acquisitions till 2008. This amount does not include interest or compensation for the massive amount of gair marzua land (common land, deemed forest) that CCL also acquired. Even those having settled possession on the gair marzua land would be eligible for compensation, but the amount could not be determined.
“Without every family’s possession documents, we cannot do verification. Since we already have a lot of work, we have not been chasing CCL officials to provide the documents. It is their responsibility to do so,” circle officer Sharma says in response to CCL’s accusation. When asked to elaborate on their grievances concerning the delay of verification by the state, an official from CCL’s general manager office pinned the blame on the displaced tenants for not submitting the paperwork, whereas the tenants claimed they had been providing paperwork for years. The official further added that a notice had just been posted recently in that regard.
The notice in question was the same letter sent to the circle officer by CCL for authentication of ownership regarding payment of land compensation in 2022, with a list of land tenants and the area they covered. According to Naresh Mahto, a Kedla resident who has been waiting to get compensation for his over 2.4 ha, the notice was not posted anywhere but circulated in the WhatsApp group that many village residents did not have access to. CCL says they had sent a physical copy.
CCL’s guidelines require the revenue department to verify the village, khata number, area indicated on the land-use plan, name and genuineness of the tenants. After publishing the primary notice, CCL officials crosscheck the tenants’ documents and claims against the revenue records. However, tenants’ lawyers allege that CCL officials put unnecessary burden in asking for documents like genealogical trees, which could be avoided if both sides simply refer to revenue records.
Only a few kilometers north of Kedla village, broken roads take one to a small hamlet, Ichakdih. Here, 86 families await jobs in lieu of their land acquired by CCL since the 1980s, despite possession documents verified by the revenue department. “The company sometimes acquired the land without any intention of starting work in the next five years. Even if the work started within five years, there isn’t need of a large amount of unskilled labour because most work can be done by machinery,” says M L K Chitra, lawyer and Jharkhand Bar Association member. As per the April 1984 notification, over 335 ha, including cultivable plots in Ichakdih village, was acquired for mining, including both the Kedla underground mining project and Jharkhand collieries. Ichakdih residents claim that the affected families kept on collecting documents such as rent receipts, only to be denied jobs by CCL.
“Our family owned over 10 ha that was acquired by CCL for which only two jobs were given at that time to eligible family members. Since I have come of age, I have been fighting to get a job,” says 28-year-old Mukesh Rajwar.
While reviewing the documents, DTE found that CCL has given out 62 jobs to Kedla residents since the 1990s. In Ichakdih village, however, only about seven jobs were offered. Under the CCL Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy, the tenants are eligible for one job in exchange for every two acres.
Unlike Ichakdih, residents of Laiyo village were offered inadequate compensation in 1984, when over 360 ha were acquired for mining and 20 raiyats refused the money. “I was not eligible for a job since I had land measuring only 1/10th of an acre. But I was supposed to get the compensation offered to me at a rate of Rs 100 per decimal instead of the market rate of Rs 1,000 per decimal. I refused,” say Gauri Shankar Prasad, a Laiyo resident.
CBA requires the government and land losers to agree on compensation payments. The land losers could negotiate payments and approach a tribunal if unhappy. However, in most cases, the government determined the compensation unilaterally, leaving land losers with a take-it-or-leave-it option. Due to a lack of awareness, many did not voice their grievance. Experts say CBA 1957 has been contentious for this very reason. Once the government notified its intention to acquire land, it was deemed to be vested with it. The village residents could only object later by negotiating or approaching a tribunal, which undermined their autonomy.
Sukriti Vats is a writing fellow at the Land Conflict Watch, an independent network of researchers studying land conflicts, climate change and natural resource governance in India
This was first published in the 16-30 November, 2023 print edition of Down To Earth
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.