{"id":1312,"date":"2020-05-04T17:59:06","date_gmt":"2020-05-04T17:59:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/2020\/05\/04\/land-conflicts-in-india\/"},"modified":"2025-07-15T08:24:23","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T08:24:23","slug":"land-conflicts-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/?p=1312","title":{"rendered":"Nature of Land Conflicts in India"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Review of the Report \u2018Locating
\nthe Breach: Land Conflicts in India\u2019\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
Laura Begu<\/span><\/b>
\n
\n<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
Land is central to India\u2019s development
\ntrajectory, and conflicts over land have critical social, economic, cultural
\nand political impacts, that jeopardize the well-being and the very identity of
\noften already marginalized communities.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Conflicts over land in India account for the
\nlargest set of cases, in absolute number and in judicial pendency. 25% of all
\nSupreme Court cases involve land disputes, and\u00a0 66% of all civil cases in
\nIndia are related to land conflicts[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
These conflicts are linked to multiple factors.
\nFirst, different historical and political narratives about property rights
\ncoexist: as a legacy of the colonial rule, common land is seen by the
\nauthorities as the property of the State, whereas the people, and notably the
\nfarmers and forest dwellers, have claimed social, economic and cultural rights
\nto land. Another factor is the complexity of the legal framework and the
\nrelated administrative failure to implement laws related to land rights. Recent
\nlaws such as the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the Right to Fair Compensation and
\nTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2013,
\nprotect the rights of the people over land. Nevertheless, those laws are not
\nimplemented and officials at different levels of governance keep on applying
\nthe provisions of previous, conflicting laws such as the Land Acquisition Act,
\n1894 or the Forest Act, 1927. Barriers equally exist within the judicial
\nsystem, that prevent the courts from efficiently and timely settling the land
\ndisputes.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In February 2020 Land Conflicts Watch (LCW)
\nreleased a report entitled \u201cLocating the Breach: Mapping the Nature of Land
\nConflicts in India\u201d[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>.
\nThis report relates the findings of a 3-year study that analyzed 703 ongoing
\nland conflicts in the country. The data is available publicly on LCW website[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>. The main findings of the
\nreport are summarized below.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The land conflicts studied affected 6.5 million
\n(65 lakh people, with an average of 10,688 people affected per conflict) and
\ncaused 2.1 million (21 lakhs) of land to be locked. Rs. 13.7 trillion (13.7
\nlakh crore) worth investments have been embroiled in 335 out of these 703
\nconflicts. This represents 7.2% of the revised estimate of the country\u2019s GDP
\nfor 2018-19.\u00a0 In 95% of the cases, the state comprised the second party in
\nthe conflict (70% of conflicts involved the state as the main second party and
\n25% involved the state and private actors).\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Land conflicts per sector\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Infrastructure development (townships, real
\nestate, roads, irrigation) has caused the most conflicts, accounting for 43% of
\nthe total disputes,\u00a0affecting 3.1 million (31 lakh) people and causing Rs.
\n7 trillion (7 lakh crore) to be embroiled. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The state\u2019s conservation and forestry
\ninitiatives, notably under the compensatory afforestation plantation and
\nwildlife conservation schemes, was the second most important sector,
\nresponsible for 15 % of the conflicts, but representing less investments locked
\nthan any other sectors (Rs. 2.01 billion). Land-use related conflicts
\n(non-developmental, linked to natural disasters, inter-caste and communal
\nconflicts, creation of land banks) then accounted for 14% of the conflicts, but
\nonly represented Rs. 165.3 billion embroiled.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Industry was responsible for 12% of the
\nconflicts, yet accounted for Rs. 2.7 trillion investments, followed by\u00a0power
\n(10% of the conflicts, 2.8 trillion) and mining (6%, 10.8 trillion). Mining
\nrelated conflicts, even though accounting for the least cases, were the most
\nintense conflicts after land use, as they affected a total of around 852,488
\npeople (8.5 lakh) and around 21,312 people per conflict.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Land conflicts, tenurial
\nsystems and related laws<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
68% of all the conflicts and 79% of the people
\naffected were related to common lands. In most of the cases, the citizens did
\nnot own individual private titles to these lands, which had been defined by the
\nstate as \u2018wastelands\u2019.\u00a0 Nevertheless, these communities were found to
\noften have state-recognized and\/or traditional rights over these commons (under
\nthe Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the Panchayats Extensions to Scheduled Areas
\nAct, 1996). The majority of the conflicts involving common lands were around
\nnon-forested commons (38%) as opposed to forest land (25%). It has been found
\nthat the levels of legal protection available for traditional rights in non-forested
\ncommons tend to be lower than those available in forest lands.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
18.6 % of all documented cases, including 75% of
\nall conservation and forestry related conflicts and 51.4% of mining-related conflicts
\nimplied violation or non-implementation of the Forests Rights Act, 2006.
\nNevertheless, in 52% of conflicts related to forest lands, there was no mention
\nof FRA.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The FRA states that no forest land can be
\nconverted without setting the rights of the forest dwellers and taking their
\nconsent. This provision has been violated by project developers and local
\nauthorities, which made false claims of\u00a0settlement of rights and obtention
\nof consent and acted to counter the dissent of village assemblies. The FRA
\nprovisions have also been violated in the context of the government\u2019s efforts
\nto increase forest cover under the Compensatory Afforestation Act. The
\nplantation drives have been mismanaged, have had a low environmental impact
\nand\u00a0 have led to forced dispossession of forest land. For 80% of the cases
\nstudied, the state forest department did not obtain consent. Land conflicts
\nhave equally arose around protected areas, where the exclusionary model of
\nwildlife conservation has led to mass relocations and evictions, further
\nviolating the law.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Acquisition of private lands was a reason for
\nconflicts in 37.8% of cases. Such cases impact over three million (30 lakh)
\npeople and contribute to 71.4% of all investments locked in such conflicts. For
\nprivate and revenue lands, in 62% of the cases, there was no reference to land
\nacquisition laws, including the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
\nLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR), 2013.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Land banks have been used by different states as
\na bypass mechanism to deny such laws and the rights of the communities. As per
\nthe data available, 2.68 million (26 lakhs) ha of land are currently set aside
\nin land banks in 8 states, and this constitutes an underestimation, as most
\nstates have land banks or intent to create them. States have\u00a0been able to
\nviolate laws protecting private lands, by diverting land from opposed and
\ncancelled projects into their land banks instead of giving it back to their
\nprevious holders.\u00a0 Under RFCTLARR, if a land is not used for a period of 5
\nyears, the states have the choice to either put it in their land bank or to
\ngive it back to their legal heirs.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Land conflicts and
\nmarginalized populations<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
There were more instances of conflicts in
\ndistricts officially declared as affected by Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) and in
\nFifth Schedule areas (the study doesn\u2019t present findings for Sixth Schedule
\nareas). Indeed, if 12% of India\u2019s districts are said to be affected by LWE, the
\nconflicts in these districts represented 17% of all conflicts and accounted for
\n31% of the land and 15% of the people affected. The study also pointed out that
\nthose districts accounted for 43 % of all conservation and forestry, 36% of
\nmining conflicts and represented 41% of cases of violation of FRA.
\nSimilarly, if Fifth Schedule districts represent 13,6% of India\u2019s districts,
\nthey account for 26% of the total conflicts and most importantly, for 60% of
\nmining-related conflicts.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
LCW further studied 31 ongoing conflicts
\ninvolving at least 92,000 dalits over 39,400 ha of land. It appears that the
\ndisputes are linked to the poor implementation of land reforms, where the land
\nwas either not distributed to landless populations or where it was encroached
\nby higher caste communities and farmers. Such conflicts have also been linked
\nto instances of resistance, where\u00a0 dalits decided to occupy common lands
\nto break the cycle of landlessness.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
To conclude…<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The conclusive part of the study consists in
\nrecommendations for future research. The authors allude to the fact that, even
\nif a tremendous amount of research has been conducted on conflicts over land,
\nit failed to give visibility to those affected to the conflicts. They also
\njustify the creation of a land conflicts database by the need to have a
\nnational-level understanding of the impact of such conflicts. Finally, they
\nallude to future questions that shall be analyzed in detail, such as dispute
\nsettlement practices, economic impacts, the impact of climate change on land
\nand resource conflict, gender dimensions and the extent of the conflicts in
\nurban areas.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The report does not make policy recommendations,
\nnevertheless some key points can be made from the analysis of the report and
\nother work on land conflicts. First and foremost, the State is currently the
\nmain party to the quasi-totality of disputes, and it has been appropriating
\nland under a development paradigm based on infrastructure and industrial
\ndevelopment and environmental imperialism in the name of conservation. Several
\ncritics have been made to that paradigm, yet there is a need to keep on
\ncreating and reinforcing alternative narratives stating that land belongs to
\nthe people, through research and through giving visibility to the struggles of
\nthe people affected by land conflicts and especially forced displacement and
\nits cultural, social,\u00a0economic and political consequences.<\/span><\/div>\n

\n<\/span>These narratives can rely on the legal
\nframeworks that grants rights to land to the people, and it is clear that there
\nis a further need to strengthen the capacity and the willingness to implement
\nsuch laws. In her report on land conflicts and suggestions for reforms[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>, Namita Wahi
\nstresses\u00a0the fact that this can be achieved\u00a0by greater coordination
\nbetween government departments and ministries dealing with land and more
\ntransparency in land acquisition, along with concrete measures to update
\nadministrative manuals and train officials on the new legislative frameworks.
\nThis can go along with judicial reforms that would make the resolution of
\ndisputes easier and contribute to unclog the tribunals, as it has been
\nattempted with the creation of land tribunals in Bihar.<\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


<\/p>\n
\n

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Wahi,
\nNamita \u201cUnderstanding Land Conflicts in India and Suggestions for Reform\u201d,
\nCenter for Policy Research, June 2019, available at : https:\/\/www.cprindia.org\/policy-challenge\/7872\/regulation-and-resources<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Worsdell,
\nT. and Shrivastava, K. (2020). Locating the Breach: Mapping the Nature of Land
\nResources in India, Land Conflicts Watch<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> https:\/\/www.landconflictwatch.org\/#home<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0Wahi, Namita,<\/span> op.cited<\/i><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n