Search

Begin New Search Topic Land Rights Publishing Institution Centre for Policy Research, India

1. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Slum Upgradation and Delisting in Odisha

Author:
Scaling City Institutions for India (SCI-FI)
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
In continuation to the Government of Odisha’s landmark initiative of the Odisha Liveable Habitat Mission (OLHM), also known as the JAGA Mission, launched in 2018, and the successful implementation of the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act 2017, basic infrastructure upgradation and delisting of slums emerge as the next critical steps towards transforming these informal settlements into liveable habitats, integrated with the urban area. Towards this end the Scaling City Institutions for India (SCI-FI) initiative at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) as knowledge partner supported Housing and Urban Development Department, GoO to prepare a 'Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Participatory Slum Upgradation and Delisting’. The SOP intends to benefit the key stakeholders by laying down the procedure and benchmarks for undertaking participatory integrated slum level infrastructure upgradation and establishing procedure and documentation for delisting of the slum, to integrate it to the rest of the urban area. This SOP will act as an enabler for ULBs partnering with the Slum Dwellers’ Associations to ensure the availability of adequate basic services to mainstream the slums into the city fabric. This SOP lays down the integral steps to realise community-level benefits building on land rights distribution towards achieving the broader vision of a Liveable Habitat for all.
Topic:
Development, Poverty, Urban, Land Rights, and Slums
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

2. Historical injustice and “Bogus” claims: Large infrastructure, conservation and forest rights in India

Author:
Kanchi Kohli
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
This essay examines the role of India’s 2006 Forest Rights Act in the procedures that regulate transfer of forest land to large infrastructure projects. Specifically, it shows the gap between the legally mandated requirements and how these are implemented in project approval processes. This is illustrated through a case study of the coal mining approvals in the Hasdeo Arand forest region in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. The essay also outlines the different actors who have influenced the discourses on forest rights of Adivasi and other forest dwelling communities and what they identify as factors that challenge the implementation of this law on the ground. It juxtaposes this analysis in the context of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of India on eviction of forest dwellers and examines whether that would bring in any structural change in the way the law is implemented.
Topic:
Environment, Human Rights, Infrastructure, Courts, Conservation, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, and Asia

3. Midcourse Manoeuvres:Community strategies and remedies for natural resource conflicts in Myanmar

Author:
Meenakshi Kapoor, Nwe Ni Soe, and Vidya Viswanathan
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Land transformation has been at the centre of economic growth of post-colonial, Asian nation-states. While their political reforms and economic policies have focused on land governance, the outcomes have resulted in promoting privatisation and speculative business interest in ecologically sensitive landscapes that are also under diverse forms of common use by resource-dependent communities. A three-year study undertaken to understand community-level responses to land use transformation in India, Indonesia and Myanmar shows that the current scale and approach of land–intensive development in these large democracies is facilitated by fast-paced, top down policy changes. These policies are ‘stacked’ (when multiple layers of current and revoked laws are simultaneously in use) rather than integrated and their implementation is the responsibility of various authorities and agencies that overlap. Growing private investments in land that has remained within varying degrees of state control have changed the way land is managed. Land has become increasingly securitised and ‘out of bounds’ for small farmers and other land-users with or without recognised forms of ownership and use rights. Land conflicts are caused due to coercive acquisition processes or land grabs, unlawful operations of projects and long pending remedies to social and environmental impacts. In many instances, these conflicts begin even before the final decisions on projects are taken and persist for years. Highly capitalised land use change brings powerful investors and corporations, governments and local communities in unequal and precarious arrangements of negotiation and confrontation. Citizens and communities affected by land use change, use varied strategies such as administrative complaints, protests, litigation, media campaigns and political advocacy, and engage in improving project design and implementation, increase compensations, restore community access to resources and get a review on the operations of harmful projects. These are done under conditions of political intransigence and criminalisation of those who speak up. While all three countries have recognised land conflicts and their impact on development plans and proposals, they are yet to give affected people a formal and effective role in land and natural resource governance. This is the study report on Myanmar.
Topic:
Privatization, Natural Resources, Governance, Economic growth, Land Law, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, Asia, and Myanmar

4. Midcourse Manoeuvres: An overview of community strategies and remedies for natural resource conflicts in India, Indonesia & Myanmar

Author:
Manju Menon
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Land transformation has been at the centre of economic growth of post-colonial, Asian nation-states. While their political reforms and economic policies have focused on land governance, the outcomes have resulted in promoting privatisation and speculative business interest in ecologically sensitive landscapes that are also under diverse forms of common use by resource-dependent communities. A three-year study undertaken to understand community-level responses to land use transformation in India, Indonesia and Myanmar shows that the current scale and approach of land–intensive development in these large democracies is facilitated by fast-paced, top down policy changes. These policies are ‘stacked’ (when multiple layers of current and revoked laws are simultaneously in use) rather than integrated and their implementation is the responsibility of various authorities and agencies that overlap. Growing private investments in land that has remained within varying degrees of state control have changed the way land is managed. Land has become increasingly securitised and ‘out of bounds’ for small farmers and other land-users with or without recognised forms of ownership and use rights. Land conflicts are caused due to coercive acquisition processes or land grabs, unlawful operations of projects and long pending remedies to social and environmental impacts. In many instances, these conflicts begin even before the final decisions on projects are taken and persist for years. Highly capitalised land use change brings powerful investors and corporations, governments and local communities in unequal and precarious arrangements of negotiation and confrontation. Citizens and communities affected by land use change, use varied strategies such as administrative complaints, protests, litigation, media campaigns and political advocacy, and engage in improving project design and implementation, increase compensations, restore community access to resources and get a review on the operations of harmful projects. These are done under conditions of political intransigence and criminalisation of those who speak up. While all three countries have recognised land conflicts and their impact on development plans and proposals, they are yet to give affected people a formal and effective role in land and natural resource governance. This is the overview of the study's methodology and findings.
Topic:
Development, Privatization, Natural Resources, Business, Economic growth, Land Law, Conflict, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
Indonesia, India, Asia, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar

5. Midcourse Manoeuvres: Community strategies and remedies for natural resource conflicts in Indonesia

Author:
Meenakshi Kapoor, Manju Menon, and Vidya Viswanathan
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Land transformation has been at the centre of economic growth of post-colonial, Asian nation-states. While their political reforms and economic policies have focused on land governance, the outcomes have resulted in promoting privatisation and speculative business interest in ecologically sensitive landscapes that are also under diverse forms of common use by resource-dependent communities. A three-year study undertaken to understand community-level responses to land use transformation in India, Indonesia and Myanmar shows that the current scale and approach of land–intensive development in these large democracies is facilitated by fast-paced, top down policy changes. These policies are ‘stacked’ (when multiple layers of current and revoked laws are simultaneously in use) rather than integrated and their implementation is the responsibility of various authorities and agencies that overlap. Growing private investments in land that has remained within varying degrees of state control have changed the way land is managed. Land has become increasingly securitised and ‘out of bounds’ for small farmers and other land-users with or without recognised forms of ownership and use rights. Land conflicts are caused due to coercive acquisition processes or land grabs, unlawful operations of projects and long pending remedies to social and environmental impacts. In many instances, these conflicts begin even before the final decisions on projects are taken and persist for years. Highly capitalised land use change brings powerful investors and corporations, governments and local communities in unequal and precarious arrangements of negotiation and confrontation. Citizens and communities affected by land use change, use varied strategies such as administrative complaints, protests, litigation, media campaigns and political advocacy, and engage in improving project design and implementation, increase compensations, restore community access to resources and get a review on the operations of harmful projects. These are done under conditions of political intransigence and criminalisation of those who speak up. While all three countries have recognised land conflicts and their impact on development plans and proposals, they are yet to give affected people a formal and effective role in land and natural resource governance. This is the study report on Indonesia.
Topic:
Development, Privatization, Natural Resources, Business, Land Law, Conflict, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
Indonesia, Asia, and Southeast Asia

6. Midcourse Manoeuvres: Community strategies and remedies for natural resource conflicts in India

Author:
Kanchi Kohli, Meenakshi Kapoor, Manju Menon, and Vidya Viswanathan
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Land transformation has been at the centre of economic growth of post-colonial, Asian nation-states. While their political reforms and economic policies have focused on land governance, the outcomes have resulted in promoting privatisation and speculative business interest in ecologically sensitive landscapes that are also under diverse forms of common use by resource-dependent communities. A three-year study undertaken to understand community-level responses to land use transformation in India, Indonesia and Myanmar shows that the current scale and approach of land–intensive development in these large democracies is facilitated by fast-paced, top down policy changes. These policies are ‘stacked’ (when multiple layers of current and revoked laws are simultaneously in use) rather than integrated and their implementation is the responsibility of various authorities and agencies that overlap. Growing private investments in land that has remained within varying degrees of state control have changed the way land is managed. Land has become increasingly securitised and ‘out of bounds’ for small farmers and other land-users with or without recognised forms of ownership and use rights. Land conflicts are caused due to coercive acquisition processes or land grabs, unlawful operations of projects and long pending remedies to social and environmental impacts. In many instances, these conflicts begin even before the final decisions on projects are taken and persist for years. Highly capitalised land use change brings powerful investors and corporations, governments and local communities in unequal and precarious arrangements of negotiation and confrontation. Citizens and communities affected by land use change, use varied strategies such as administrative complaints, protests, litigation, media campaigns and political advocacy, and engage in improving project design and implementation, increase compensations, restore community access to resources and get a review on the operations of harmful projects. These are done under conditions of political intransigence and criminalisation of those who speak up. While all three countries have recognised land conflicts and their impact on development plans and proposals, they are yet to give affected people a formal and effective role in land and natural resource governance. This is the study report on India.
Topic:
Development, Privatization, Natural Resources, Business, Economic growth, Land Law, Conflict, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, and Asia

7. The Legal Regime and Political Economy of Land Rights Of Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled Areas of India

Author:
Namita Wahi and Ankit Bhatia
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Context: India holds the unique distinction of being both the world's largest constitutional democracy and also one of its fastest growing economies. Critical to the process of India's economic development is state acquisition of land for infrastructure and industrial development. Creating a legal framework that ensures equitable and efficient acquisition of land by the state, through processes that are socially inclusive and politically feasible, has proved challenging. While the Indian Constitution guarantees property rights to all, it enshrines special protections for land rights of ‘Scheduled Tribes’, vis-a-vis the state and other communities, in geographically demarcated tribal majority areas known as ‘Scheduled Areas’ under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution. The currently designated Fifth Scheduled areas are in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, and Rajasthan. The currently designated Sixth Schedule areas are in the north-eastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. The Scheduled Tribes (STs) or adivasis consist of a number of heterogeneous tribal groups that have historically self-identified and been identified by the British colonial and independent Indian states, as lying outside the mainstream of Hindu society, partly because of their ’distinctive culture and way of life as a group’, and partly because of their ‘geographical isolation’. Currently, there are 750 tribes in 26 states and 6 union territories of India. The Constitution guarantees special protections for land rights of Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled areas because land is not only the most important source of tribal livelihoods, but it is also central to their community identity, history and culture. Many non-Scheduled area states have also created legal protections for protecting land rights of tribals. However, CPR Land Rights Initiative research shows that despite these special protections, Scheduled Tribes remain one of the most vulnerable, most impoverished, and most displaced of all groups in India. 47.1% of all STs in rural areas are below the poverty line as compared to 33.8% for the national average, whereas 28.8% of all STs in urban areas are below the poverty line as compared to 20.9% for the national average. Inspite of being the only group with constitutional protections for their land rights, 9.4 % of STs are landless compared to 7.4% for the national average. While STs constitute only 8.6% of the total population, it is estimated that they constitute 40% of all people who have been displaced during the period 1951 to 1990, some more than once, due to the construction of dams, mines, industrial development, and the creation of wildlife parks and sanctuaries. Only 24.7% of ST population that was displaced during this period was rehabilitated. Therefore, it is clear that these groups have disproportionately borne the burden of economic development. Why is this so? The CPR Land Rights Initiative report on ‘The legal and political economy of land rights of Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled Areas of India’, offers some preliminary answers to these questions. Through a review of constitutional provisions, laws, and policies, governing the rights of Scheduled Tribes and the administration of Scheduled Areas, and the financial and administrative structures that effectuate these protections, the Report delineates a conflicting regime of protective and displacing laws, as well as conflicting policy narratives underlying these laws which facilitate the displacement of Scheduled Tribes and their corresponding landlessness. The Report also contains extensive primary data on the current mapping of Scheduled areas, and the current distribution of dams, forests, and mining activity, in the Scheduled areas. Key findings: Extent of geographical area, and distribution of forests, dams, and mining activity in Scheduled Areas: The Report establishes for the first time that as much as 13% of India’s geographical area is in the Scheduled Areas. Further, the Report finds that both the concentration of forest cover, and the concentration of dams, is significantly higher in Scheduled area districts (a little over two and a half times) as compared to non-Scheduled area districts. Finally, we find that 90% of all mineral wealth generated in India comes from states that have Scheduled Areas. Fragmented constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes: The Report concludes that despite the centrality of land to the identity, economy, and culture of the Scheduled Tribes, the constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas are fragmented and contradictory. The creation of these fragmented protections was in turn a product of two factors. First, even at the time of drafting of the Constitution, many tribal communities were no longer located within the geographically isolated scheduled areas, while many non-tribal communities were resident there, some for several generations. The Constitution makers created safeguards both for tribal people resident in Scheduled areas and those that were residing outside Scheduled Areas, but these fragmented protections failed to fully safeguard the rights of STs. Second, they arose from an inherent contradiction in creating geographically protected areas for Scheduled Tribes, while at the same time imposing no restrictions on the movement of tribals outside those areas, or on the movement of non tribals to those areas. This enabled more dominant non-tribal communities to settle in scheduled areas and in practice displace STs. Special constitutional and legal protections for ST land rights negated by contrary laws: The Report concludes that special constitutional and legal protections for land rights of STs have been diluted by a contrary legal framework comprised of forests, mining, and land acquisition laws. While state land alienation prohibition laws prohibit transfer of land from tribals to non tribals, there is no prohibition on the state acquiring land in Scheduled Areas for its own purposes in the exercise of its power of eminent domain or assertion of its rights over forestland. State led lawfully sanctioned development in the form of dams, mines, industrial development, and wildlife parks and sanctuaries, has historically been the biggest displacer of STs. This is corroborated by data on the intensity of dams and mining activity in the Scheduled Areas as outlined in the Report. Fundamental contradictions between ‘identity based isolation’ and ‘development through integration’ policy narratives of the British and Indian states: The Report finds a fundamental contradiction between two narratives that have characterised the policies of the British colonial state and the independent Indian state. The first narrative, that the Report calls the ‘identity based isolation’ narrative, identifies the tribals as a ‘distinctive group outside mainstream Hindu society’ both in terms of their ‘cultural traits’ and ‘geographical isolation’, and argues that they are keen to preserve their distinctiveness and their isolation. The second narrative called the ‘development through integration’ narrative identifies the tribal way of life as backward, compared to mainstream Indian population and seeks to improve their economic and social indicators to ‘integrate’ or ‘assimilate’ them with the mainstream population. The Report concludes that while both the ‘identity based isolation’ and ‘development through integration’ narratives, characterised the drafting of constitutional protections for STs, post-independence policy making was guided primarily by the latter. STs have however, rejected the ‘development through integration’ narrative as paternalistic and patronising, alleging that it fails to capture their aspirations to ‘develop according to their own genius.’ Meagre financial allocations for ST welfare: Translating policy and legal protections into reality needs financial resources. Even though the Constitution envisages a centralised framework for the administration of tribal areas under the aegis of the President and Governors of states, the responsibility of financing the costs of progressive change increasingly vests with the states. The Report computes significant shortfalls in Planning Commission recommended financial allocations made by both central and state governments in Scheduled area states under the tribal sub plan. Misguided expenditure of allocated funds compounds the problem of shortfall of funds for tribal development.
Topic:
Political Economy, Law, Economies, Constitution, Ethnicity, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, and Asia

8. Land Acquisition in India: A Review of Supreme Court Cases (1950-2016)

Author:
Namita Wahi, Ankit Bhatia, Pallav Shukla, Dhruva Gandhi, Shubham Jain, and Upasana Chauhan
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Context: India faces serious challenges in creating development processes that generate economic growth while being socially inclusive, ecologically sustainable, politically feasible, and in accordance with the Rule of Law. Equitable and efficient acquisition of land by the state for economic development projects, including infrastructure and industry, lies at the heart of these challenges. Simultaneously, securing constitutionally guaranteed land rights to the poorest and most vulnerable communities in India against the state and other dominant communities, has been considered crucial to their economic and social empowerment. Land is not only an important economic resource and source of livelihoods, it is also central to community identity, history and culture. Unsurprisingly then, throughout India, dispute over state acquisition of land that deprives people of their land rights spans various dimensions of economic, social, and political life. How do we mitigate this conflict? The CPR Land Rights Initiative report on ‘Land Acquisition in India: A Review of Supreme Court cases from 1950-2016’, offers some preliminary answers to this question. Not only is this report the first comprehensive country-wide study of land acquisition disputes since India's independence, but also for the first time ever analyses these disputes along various metrics, such as i) public purpose, ii) procedure for acquisition, iii) compensation, iv) invocation of the urgency clause, v) pendency of claims, and vi) tracks trends with respect to distribution of disputes across geography and time, and central and state laws. The Report also analyses litigation under the newly enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) for the three year period, 2014 to 2016. A detailed presentation of the findings from the report can be accessed here. Key findings: Reasons for inequity between state and land losers: The Report concludes that the political and social contestation over land acquisition stems from the inherently coercive nature of the land acquisition process, which creates a severe imbalance of power between the state and land losers. While much of this imbalance was created by the text of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a considerable part of it could also be attributed to executive non-compliance with the rule of law. The result is a situation of great inequity for the land losers. Legal reform under the LARR Act should be implemented by government, not subverted to redress these inequities: The Report finds that specific provisions of the LARR Act are steps in the right direction to redress the imbalance of power that was built into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in so far as: i) they empower livelihood losers along with title-holders to bring claims for compensation and rehabilitation, ii) bring compensation requirements in accordance with existing reality, and iii) introduce requirements of consent and social impact assessment. The Report shows that litigation helps channelise political contestation of state action into legal as opposed to extra legal disputes. Therefore, by empowering hitherto disempowered land losers to bring claims under the LARR Act, the Act will help preempt extra-legal conflict. Since conflict inevitably stalls or derails legitimate development projects, it is in the interest of the government to comply with, and not subvert the LARR Act. Legal reforms must be supplemented by administrative and bureaucratic reforms: The Report highlights that legal reform is a necessary but not a sufficient precondition for ensuring greater equity and efficiency within the land acquisition process. In the absence of administrative and bureaucratic reforms, the introduction of the LARR Act will not succeed in eliminating inequities and inefficiencies embedded within the implementation of existing land acquisition procedures. In fact, the increase in procedural requirements under the LARR Act implies an even greater need for securing executive compliance with the rule of law, in order to translate the equities intended by these additional procedures into reality for land losers. Types of administrative reforms required: Such administrative reforms include building of state capacity to meaningfully comply with the increased procedural requirements stipulated by the LARR Act, and designing institutional structures that incentivise such compliance with the rule of law. This, in turn, requires a serious mind-set shift within the government toward accepting the reform enshrined in the LARR Act, and not subverting it as we have seen in both the LARR Ordinance, and the state amendments to the LARR Act, as also the rules adopted to implement the LARR Act in the states.
Topic:
History, Reform, Economic growth, Land Law, Courts, Supreme Court, Rule of Law, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, and Asia