Get Adobe Flash player


 The RoFR act recognizes the dwelling site, religious places, burial grounds, village council sites along with places of MFP, water resources, biodiverisity etc and also PVT tenures. As the implementation boils down to title deeds for house sites and lands under cultivation, SAKTI engaged the Chenchu youth to document their traditional knowledge in their idiom and dialect, in encouraging them to assert as inborn foresters, capable of managing these resources as envisaged in the Act.

"Since SAKTI activities are mostly issue based and covering a large area, here we concentrate on the forest-related programmes of SAKTI for the present study."


The Tribal Struggle for Property Rights

-Arun Kumar

SAKTI: Review Report by: Mukta Srivastava, Programme Officer, Oxfam GB in India - Hyderabad . DATE : 20-25 November 2002




Bhukya Bhangya

Asst. Professor of History

Nizam College,

Osmania University,


Read full article


Report for CESS on the evolution rehabilitation policy, status of rehabilitation for the displaced tribals by Surampalem, Bhupathipalem reservoirs and Polavaram dam with recommendations for the rectification of lapses and improvement of the measures.



The recent history (2000) of  rehabilitation and resettlement around Polavaram  project; the Surampalem - Bhupathipalem- Musurumilli  reservoirs in East Godavari Dist. and Kovvada reservoir in West Godavari Dist. and ongoing rehabilitation of the displaced under Polavaram project.

In Surampalem reservoir one Sarapu Potharaju and NGO Samata filed a case in High court. The District administration agreed to rehabilitate 167 families and NGO agreed for this package.

CESS enumerated that 234 families are eligible for rehabilitation but the list of the families is not available with their report.

Annexure I - CESS Rehabilitation estimate

The report did not refer to Narmada judgment which defined the back water affected also as displaced. NGO SAKTI noticed that one Chodiveedhi hamlet having 57 houses will be affected with back waters of reservoir, which were ignored by the Dist. administration and NGO while preparing   R & R plan.

SAKTI motivated the Chodiveedhi tribals to approach the Collector and convince him that the Narmadajudgment of Supreme Court defined the back water affected people also as displaced and made it clear that the RR package is applicable to them also. The Collector agreed and instructed the Housing Corporation to take up 57 families under housing scheme.

Annexure II - Letter of the District Collector

The High Court came forward to monitor the progress of rehabilitation but unfortunately the NGO did not pursue the case and the Court has to close the case accepting the report of the Govt. that housing is complete. (167+57).

Annexure III - Court Order A & B

Though alternative land was given; the tribes are unable to cultivate these undulating lands full of stones, that too at a far place from their habitations.

Rajeev Institute of law (Law College) in consultation with SAKTI conducted a study of the rehabilitation.

Annexure IV - Report of Rajeev Law College

The precedent   of Surampalem

The definition of PAP (to include back water affected) was incorporated in G.O. 68 of AP. Govt. by defining that families above 100 meters to FRL (back water affected) are eligible for R&R package.

Bhupathipalem reservoir 

In 1990 a reservoir was proposed on Sitapalli vagu at Sitapalli village of Rampachodavaram Mandal. But tribes objected that since a reservoir site shall benefit more lands outside the agency area, the site should be shifted to bring more tribal lands under irrigation. So Bhupathipalem village, seven kms. above Sitapalli village was identified as appropriate site. The reservoir submerges four villages.

SAKTI found that there are many irrigation tanks in the command area, irrigated by Rampa water fall etc. Renovation of these tanks and excavation of some more tanks shall be more appropriate.

At the request of SAKTI, APFRO prepared   feasibility report. SPWD (Society for promotion of Waste Lands Development) supported renovation 10 tanks.

In 2000 the then Govt. wanted to harness all the streams in tribal area for irrigation. The Bhupathipalem reservoir was approved in 2004.

 The Mandal Praja parishad of Rampachodavaram resolved welcoming the construction of the reservoir. Since the villagers to be displaced are strongly opposing the reservoir, an all party forum was formed with Dist. Collector as chair person. Annexure V - Multi stake holders forum

Annexure VI - News, Photo, Map

Sakti enabled the tribes of submergible area in reading the contour maps.

The determined villagers threatened by submergence forced to Govt. to reduce the land acquisition estimates above 210 FRL. As a result one village above FRL, Chinagaddada was excluded.

The Gandhinagaram village which was initially treated as partially submerged, was later included in R&R package as it is back water affected. Annexure VII (Brief note on Bhupathipalem project by P.O., I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram)

Sakti trained the villagers to prepare family wise property estimates which became a bench mark to bargain the compensation with the government. Annexure VIII in a separate file Gandhinagaram

The Collector entered in to an agreement with the villagers of Gandhinagaram 1) to provide housing colony, 2) compensation for the properties and 3) land to land along with 4) fishing rights.

Annexure IX - MOU with Dist. Collector 06 -2005

The villagers of Gandhinagaram constructed housing colony on their own next to the dam site with a view to take up fishing in reservoir. They were allotted 5 cents of house site though the 3 cents was the norm at that point of time. They were given compensation for all their assets and one acre of land in Rampachodavaram which is in the command area.

 This package became a trend setter for future to the R& R policy of AP. Govt. through G.O. MS. No. 76 dated 13-4-2006 revised the house site from 3.5 cents to 5 cents. Land to land rehabilitation is provided through Go, Ms No 119 dated 26-6-2006.GO Ms No 76 dated 13-4-2006 treats "Each major son residing with such person will be treated as a separate family.

Annexure X - G.O.  table with comments

Bhupathipalem village of 15 families were rehabilitated at a distance of 15 KMs with housing colony and 2 acres of land for family, whereas Kothapakalu village of 30 houses, a housing colony was constructed in RCV. The house owners are still in the old village and giving the houses for Rs 400 rent. SO far land was not given to them.

Seven villagers were displaced by Musurumilli reservoir. Since the Govt. is offering land in far off places, they opted for cash compensation and housing colonies on road side around RampaChodavaram. Training in preparing property estimates enabled them to get due compensation. Annexure XI (Property Estimates) in a separate file

Meanwhile State Govt. agreed to the proposal of National Commission of Scheduled Tribes   to provide land to land to the PAPs.


Indira Sagar The Polavaram Project (map)

Responding to the petition of SAKTI, CEC, (constituted by Supreme Court) recommended to the Govt. to prepare the rehabilitation plan survey number wise, family wise, and constitute a committee to involving two NGOs to monitor the process of rehabilitation. The NGOs, if situation demands, can propose to stop the construction of the project, in case the rehabilitation is not satisfactory.

Annexure XII - CEC recommendations

In colobration with WWF Sakti brought out a report "Perspectives on Polavaram A major irrigation project on Godavari" published by Academic Foundation (2006)

Thus Sakti supported the tribes in opposing the construction of reservoirs and dams which displace them and helped them in renovating the tanks as alternative. When the construction of the dam started, Sakti enabled the displaced people to get better rehabilitation. Taken up campaign with local, national and international agencies. The interventions of Sakti for improvement in rehabilitation were at every stage have been integrated into the rehabilitation policy of the government.

Annexure XIII - Case study of a Rehabilitated family

Meetings with the Community (Photos)  




1.    The compensation should be paid as soon as the land is acquired in a single installment.

2.    Cultivable lands to be given to be displaced subject to their satisfaction.

3.    All the displaced family members of all age groups should be covered under one or other social security scheme. Pensions, PDS, Apadbandhu, NREGS Rajeswary Girl Child Scheme, etc.

4.    Exclusive ITI's should be opened of the eligible youth among the displaced.

5.    Updating of land records in consultation with gram sabha should be a pre requisite for land acquisition as many cultivators name are not regularly recorded.

6.    All the displaced members of a habitation should be paid compensation as single batch. They should not be split in to batches which divide their unity.

7.    7 to 800 families are rehabilitated in one place. Wage labour or employment for such large number of people is difficult till the economy under irrigation absorbs them. Only 50, 60 families should be rehabilitated in one place.

8.    Government should be made responsible for ensuring employment, education, social security etc., for the displaced before they are displaced.

9.    Needless to say that there should not be gender discrimination. But it is reported that unmarried male adults are getting compensation where as unmarried adult daughters are getting the same.

10.                       Women have to settle home stead in new places. A special package should be offered to them to develop the home stead with stand stress and loss during the rehabilitation and resettlement.

11.                       Ousters should be rehabilitated close to the dam site enabling them to take up fishing as a livelihood.



Annexure I - CESS Rehabilitation estimate


BUDGET ESTIMATES for R & R Implementation in SURAMPALEM village




(Rs.in lakhs)


Compensation for Agriculture land (Private patta and Government land D form patta) 606 acres (406 private patta & 200 acres 'D' form patta & 250 acres canal land (@Rs.30,000 per acre)



Solatium at the rate of 30 percent of total compensation



Compensation payable to Productive trees



Sub Total



Compensation for 243 PAF hhds @ Rs. 300 per household



Housing assistance under WSHS @ Rs. 22,000



Transport to 243 PAF hhds @ Rs.300 per household



Subsistence allowance for 269 hhds for 6 months @ Rs. 600



Cattle maintenance allowance for 6 months @ Rs.300 pm



Provision of civic Amenities at their new locations such as roads drainage

lighting water supply. School, temple etc



Implementation of Economic Rehabilitation programs



Compensation to the wells and other structures



Sub total



Cost for NGO  services including their establishment and travel



Engaging ouside agency to carry out mid-term and impact evaluation



Cost of transportation for supervising the implementation works



Sub total



Total 1-14



Contingency @ 10 percent of the total amount



Grand Total for R & R Plan Implementation



Proportion to the total project cost to rehabilitation



Annexure II - Letter of the District Collector

Ref: G1 2071/2001 dated 21-06-2003                     Collectorate, Kakinada


From                                                         To

Dr. K.S. Jawahar Reddy, IAS.                         The District Manager,

East Godavari District,                                 Housing department,

Kakinada.                                                   Kakinada.



Sub:  Land acquisition - Surampalem Project - Rampachodavaram Division - Gangavaram Mandal-Kothada village - construction of houses to the likely to be displaced - proposals for IAY scheme - reg.

Ref:  R.c. No. T8/106/2002 date: 22-5-2003 of Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram.


I invite attention to the reference cited (copy marked to you).  In the reference cited the Project Officer. I.T.D.A. Rampachodavaram has reported that 57 families residing at Chodiveedhi, Tekulaveedhi villages of Agency Gangavaram Mandal have represented for providing Pucca houses including all other rehabilitation measures as was done to the actual displaced families under Surampalem Reservoir Project in Gangavaram Mandal.  The Project Officer, ITDA further reported that their residential houses are likely to be effected under submersion of Surampalem Reservoir Project.  Since two villages are being hamlets of Kothada village which is submergible village under Surampalem Project, the Project Officer ITDA also reported that they are all belong to "KOYA" S.T. community and they are also filed W.P.2527/03 before Hon'ble High Court seeking grant of R&R package and their request is considerable in nature and requested to sanction I.A.Y. housing scheme to the said 57 persons of Chodiveedhi, Tekulaveedhi villages.

In the above circumstances reported by the Project Officer ITDA, R.Chodavaram, I request you to take necessary steps to construct house under I.A.Y. Scheme to the said 57 persons of Chodiveedhi and Tekulaveedhi villages i.e. hamlets of Kothada village which are likely to be effected under submersion of Surampalem Reservoir Project.

Yours faithfully,


For Collector


Copy to the Project Officer ITDA, Rampachodavaram

Copy to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram

Copy to the Project administrator & Superintending Engineering SACB Division, Dowleswaram.

Copy to the Mandal Revenue Officer Gangavaram.


Annexure III - Court Order A & B

Order - A


2002 (2) ALD 218

A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 242-F - The provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled areas) Act, 1996 (Central Act), Section 4 (I) - G.O.Ms.No. 64, Social Welfare (T) Department, dated 18-04-1990 - Acquisiton of lands in tribal areas for the construction of dam - Neither the provisions of Section 242-F of Panchayat Raj Act nor the instructions issued in G.O. Ms. No. 64 followed - Neither the Mandal Parishad nor Gram Sabha consulted in this regard - However, the project had already started and substantial amount invested - In the circumstances, it is not just to quash the acquisition - Only certain directions issued.

44. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to forthwith:

(a)      Place the proposals of the land acquisition for construction of the reservoir in question before each of the Gram Sabhas for its consent, receive the objections, if any, and suitably deal with the same in accordance with the instructions on the subject referred to herein above.  However, the consent or otherwise of the Gram Sabha shall be in the form of resolution.

(b)      Place the proposals before trhe Mandal Parishad as is required under Section 242-F of Panchayat Raj Act.

(c)       The scheme of resettlement and rehabilitation of the persons affected shall be co-ordinated at the State level.

(d)      Necessary steps shall be taken to have a rehabilitation cell, which will work under the direct supervision of ITDA.  The task of identification of the persons who are to be treated as dispossessed persons shall be entrusted to the cell to be so created.  The progress of rehabilitation of dispossessed and displaced families will be monitored by the ITDA concerned and the Tribal Welfare Department.

(e)      The rehabilitation plan shall be executed under the direct supervision of ITDA concerned. Necessary logistic support to the ITDA for implementation of the rehabilitation plan shall be provided before the actual dispossession and displacement of tribals.

(f)        The rehabilitation measures shall be completed on or before 30th June, 2002 as undertaken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit.  No tribal shall be displace from his house till he is provided with and alternative house in the rehabilitation colony.

45.  The respondents shall submit detailed periodical reports about the resettlement and rehabilitation measures taken by them to this Court, at every two months.

Order - B





WRIT PETITION No. 8476 of 2001


Order:                                                                               2nd April, 2004


        This Court vide its order dated 12-02-2002 directed the respondents herein to execute the Rehabilitation plan for dispossessed, displaced families in Surampalem Reservoir Project under the direct supervision of ITDA and the progress of rehabilitation of dispossessed and displaced families should be monitored by the ITDA.


        That pursuant; to the directions of this Court, the respondents have identified 166 + 57 families as displaced under the submersion of the Reservoir from Kothada and Donelapalli villages respectively for which two Rehabilitation Colonies have been constructed at Chinagarlapadu and Donelapalli villages tinder the personal participation of the displaced. That each house was constructed at the cost of Rs.47,000/- while the actual Housing Scheme sponsored by the Government was for only Rs.22,000/-, the remaining funds were provided as stated in the affidavit.


That apart from the amounts already released for construction of houses, further amounts are released to the displaced for fixing doors, windows to their houses on 27-01-2004. The said amount was given from ITDA Funds on request made by the displaced for arranging the fixtures to each of the houses and the said work is required to be attended by the concerned displaced beneficiary only in accordance with I AY scheme.


Thus the respondents have complied with the directions issued by this Court. The whole of the project undertaken by them itself has come to an end. The requisite amounts have already been released for the purpose of fixing the doors and windows etc in favour of the displaced persons.


In such view of the matter, no further directions are required to be issued. No further monitoring of the case is necessary.


The proceedings are accordingly closed.



Annexure IV - Report of Rajeev Law College

Surampalem reservoir displaced peoples Rehabilitation

R&R package implementation

A report by Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Law, Kakinada

The study team of Rajiv Gandhi Law College Kakinada on implementation of Surampalem Rehabilitation felt that   the R& R package was not implemented fully.  The law college students with the cooperation of Sakti voluntary organization conducted detailed survey in project affected   villages of Kothada, Donelapalli, Surampalem; ChinaGarlapadu villages the under the guidance of principal Sri P.V.Trinath.

The finding of the Survey:

In Donelapalli, Kothada, Surampalem, ChinaGarlapadu villages from 163 farmers about 461.08 acres of agriculture land houses belonging to 129 families was acquired by government for this project.

The people who lost everything in the project are tribals.

The Compensation for the people who got D'patta per acre Rs.10, 000/- and settlement patta Rs.35000 was decided by govt.

Revenue Divisional Officer has powers to raise the compensation amount up 20%, compensation for D'pattas up to Rs.12, 000/- and for the settlement pattas Rs.42,000 can be paid by government.  But in the study it was revealed that it did not take place.

Compensation for the trees was not paid.  Moreover the tribals who lost lands in canal excavation were not paid compensation.

Though the government in its counter in High Court committed to pay land-to-land compensation, but only in Donelapalli village for 21 farmers were issued D'Pattas for 43.47 acres of land but the   land was not shown to them and rest of the people were not given land-to-land compensation

In villages of Pothamdorapalem, China Garlapadu, Surampalem, Kottada, Gangavaram, Neladonelapadu, 352.44 acres of land is under the control of government (government land).  Government could have given this land to displaced people.

For the displaced tribals of Kottada village 99 houses were constructed in Kothada, Purnavarasacolony, out of this only 15 houses are completed.  In second phase 67 houses proposed for Chodiveedhi and Tekulaveedhi villagers but these houses construction is not completed.

In this village (Kothada) house construction was given to Pragathi voluntary organisation and allotted Rs.50,000/- towards construction cost and in addition to this the displaced people also contributed from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- toward cost of houses construction and contributed their labour.  The road formation is not complete.  The colony is not suitable for living.

The sustenance allowance for all displaced tribals was not paid.   Rs.600/-per month x 6 months total Rs.3600 should be paid to every displaced. People say they did not receive it.

For cattle feed allowance Rs.300/per month x 6 months - Total Rs.1800/- to be paid but in our survey we came to know, this is not paid.

Transport charge Rs.300/- this was not paid, this was revealed in on survey.

Donelapalli village is fully submerged under Surampalem reservoir.  Villagers were rehabilitated near Kondalapalem for 59 families 59 houses were built, community hall, dispensary, Ramalayam, School building etc was also built .The displaced people themselves have taken up the work made the colony suitable for their stay.

Village health worker runs dispensary.  The villagers who were shifted from Donelapalli to Kondalapalem were not able to adjust to the new atmosphere.

14 tribals died after coming to Kondalamplem unable to adjust to the area.

Roads are not laid out in this village connecting to other villages.  People are requesting government to construct road to Rajavaram village, which is 8 kms distance.

The transport charges, sustenance allowance cattle feed allowance, which are due to the displaced, are not paid to tribals of this village.

In Surampalem village though their houses are not submerged 17 tribals lost their lands in this project. Villagers Chodi Bapannadora, Chodi Nagannadora lost 5.00 acres of lands in the main canal formation but they got compensation for only 1.26 acres land.  Pucca houses also were promised, but not implemented.

Tekulaveedhi village 4 tribals lands are taken for reservoir but they did not get full package amount, due to them.

Chodiveedhi tribals with the support of Sakti got housing.  Though government agreed to construct 67 houses.  The tribals are constricting houses but the government officials are delaying the payments.

The Project Officer ITDA in Gramasabha   stated that   govt is taking steps to provide land-to-land compensation to the displaced tribals under Surampalem project and he also promised to construct houses in Kothada Punaravasa (rehabilitation) colony with all facilities. 

Before Chief Minister Visit for opening of Surampalem project, the PO ITDA conducted meeting and promised tribals that for land to land compensation and 104 acres of land is identified in villages of Gangavaram, Loakkonda, Chinagarlapadu, pedagarlapadu, Goragommi and this will be distributed to the tribals within 3 days. So far this is not materialized.


Based on the facts identified in the survey conducted by of Rajiv Gandhi Law College students, the legal research cell made the following recommendations to the government.

For the implementation of the R&R plan for displaced people, special officer should be appointed and package should be made public and this should be implemented under guidance of that officer.

The Compensation to the displaced people should be credited in their bank account only.

The government should review the implementation of R&R package periodically with help of voluntary organization, law colleges etc, which are working in the area and work towards implementation with commitment.

The tribals who lost their lands under Surampalem reservoir should be allotted the government land in Gangavaram mandal.

In case govt. acquired lands in tribal areas for irrigation or any other projects the ITDA should provide funding for the college teams to study the implementation R & R plan.

The R & R package implemented for the displaced people under Surampalem project should be made public.

The nominal compensation given to the tribals in Schedule areas to the displaced people should be raised up to minimum of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.

The discrimination between D'Pattas & settlement pattas for paying compensation should be removed.


Annexure V - Multi stake holders forum

Multi Stake Holders  Forum Meeting on Bhupathipalem

Held on 27-08-2004.

At Revenue Divisional Office, Rampachodavaram 2-30 p.m.

The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari, Joint Collector, East Godavari and Project Officer; I.T.D.A.Rampachodavaram had a meeting with the Representatives of Political parties, Sarpanches of submerging villages, Mandal Presidents of Rampachodavaram & Gangavaram Mandal Parishads, displaced families, NGOs working in the area and Press on 27-8-2004 at Revenue Divisional Office, Rampachodavaram. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, the Executive Engineer, Musururmilli Project Division, Rajahmundry, attended the meeting. The List of Officers, Representatives of political parties, Mandal Presidents, Sarpanchas & Press etc., attended the meeting is appended.


Annexure VI - News, Photo, Map



Rampachodavaram: Tribals of Bhupathipalem, Gandhinagaram, Kothapakalu and Chinna Geddada had decided to boycott elections to be held on Saturday in protest against the move to construct a reservoir across Sitapalli drain at Bhupatipalem, stating that their farmland would get submerged under it.  About 1100 acres of farmland is here in the four villages.  In a statement the affected farmers alleged that the Government had taken unilateral decision in regard to construction of the reservoir at Bhupathipalem without taking their opinion into consideration.  Cashewnut. Orchards, palm grounds and tamarind trees would be submerged with the execution of the project. A proposal for the reservoir was made eight years ago.  But, it has not materialised so far.  However, the District administration had showed little attention for the development of the villages on the pretext that they would be submerged, the tribals alleged. They were reluctant to leave the place even if they were rehabilitated at Pundrapattapalem, 30 km away from the reservoir.

Deccan Chronicle, June 14, 1991



Contour Map of Bhupatipalem reservoir


Annexure VII

Brief note on Bhupathipalem project by P.O., I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram

The submerged area of the Project covers an extent of 998-36 Acres of which private land is 158.93 Acres, D. Patta Land is 193.39, Government Land is Rs. 82.04 and the Forest Land is 544-00 Acres.

The D. Patta and the Government Lands covered under the Project were already handed over to the Irrigation Department.  Regarding Private Land of 158.93 Acres, an extent of 29.55 Acres situated in Bhupathipalem Village was acquired and 80% land compensation was paid to the affected ryots and the possession of the lands was also handed over to the Requisition Department.  The balance extent of 129.38 Acres situated in Gandhinagaram Village has to be acquired.  The problem here is that the Villagers of Gandhinagaram represented that some portion of their Patta Lands for an extent of 73-40 Acres.  (Which is also under submerged area was not covered officially in submerged area as per the records of the Irrigation Department and finally requested to conduct survey and include these lands also in the submerged area.  It requires the presence of Irrigation personnel for conduct of Joint inspection.  The survey work is under progress. Similarly some of the D. Patta lands for an extent of 30-60 Acres was also not covered in the submerged area prepared by the Irrigation Department and requested to include these lands also in the list of submerged lands.  The matter is already placed before the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram who in turn directed to conduct joint survey and later on to decide whether to include the proposed private and D. Patta lands in the list of area under submersion.


Annexure VIII in a separate file - Gandhinagaram


Annexure IX - (MOU with Dist. Collector 06 -2005)


Andhra Pradesh State Government proposed to construct a Reservoir across Sitapalli vagu, a tributary of Godavari near Bhupathipalem village in Rampachodavaram agency of East Godavari district for the benefit of tribal development and programme for people's benefit like irrigation facility.  As part of the Resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) benefits for the submerged oustees under the said reservoir, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is agreed between the State represented by the District Collector, East Godavari district and tribal villagers of Gandhinagaram on      -06-2005.


As per the agreement agreed between the Andhra Pradesh State represented by East Godavari District Collector and their representatives (I party) and the villagers of Gandhinagaram village, Rampachodavaram mandal, East Godavari district (II party), the I party, East Godavari district Collector and their representatives agreed upon the following compensations, Resettlement and rehabilitation benefits to the II party, the villagers of Gandhinagaram, oustees under Bhupathipalem reservoir.

It is agreed that -

1.    2 acres of more government land in addition to the submerged patta land should be issued to the Gandhinagaram villagers.


2.    2 acres of government land would be allotted to those whose D-patta lands are acquired and landless poor of Gandhinagaram village.


3.    All married persons would be sanctioned 5 cents of land and a house of value Rs. 50000/- by government reservoir oustees.


4.    50 cents of land should be kept as village base (grama kantham) for future needs.


5.    An amount equal to the income per acre per year would be paid as compensation for those who lose their crops under reservoir.


6.    For the MFP (fruitful) trees that are to be submerged, the compensations to be paid per tree are as follows


A category          B category          C category

—         Mango           Rs. 695/-   Rs. 556/-   Rs. 420/-

—         Cashew          Rs. 250/-   Rs. 216/-   Rs. 162/-

—         Tamarind               Rs. 2825/-  Rs. 2260/-  Rs. 1695/-

—         Jack              Rs. 2595/-  Rs. 2076/-  Rs. 1557/-

—         Neredu          Rs. 420/-   Rs.336/-    Rs. 252/-

—         Sapota           Rs.            Rs. 1239/-  Rs. 929/-

—         Coconut         Rs. 250/-

—         Soapnut         Rs. 200/-

—         Palmyrah                Rs. 250/-

—         Teak              Rs.

—         Lime family    Rs. 304/-


7.    Employment as Security guard/ Home guard/ Reservoir works would be provided for all the eligible as per their eligibility.


8.    Those who do not get employed under above provision, they would be granted self employment under Rajiv yuva shakti/ Tricor/ NFDC or any other programme.


9.    In the resettlement zone, one school building and a temple would be constructed.


10.                       Fishing rights shall be given in the reservoir area to the tribal co-operative society formed by tribal oustees.


11.                       Each PAF shall get Rs. 2000/- as transportation charges and one side travel facility by I.T.D.A. trucks to move to the newly constructed colonies.


12.                       Every PAF should be given Rs. 6000/- under productive P.V.G. grant.


13.                       If land is allotted to the land acquired, land development charge of Rs. 7000/- per acre would be given or otherwise, land should be developed by I.T.D.A.


14.                       Each PAF should be issued Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card.


15.                       PAF having cattle shall get financial assistance of Rs. 1200/- for cattle rearing.


16.                       Each PAF shall get Rs. 600/- towards non smoke ovens (chullas).


17.                       Each women headed family shall be paid Rs. 1000/- as thrift grant.


18.                       All the eligible for occupational training should be sanctioned Rs. 3000/- to get such trainings.


19.                       Every major female and male should be paid Rs. 8000/- as productivity grant.


20.                       Each PAF should be paid Rs. 4500/- for family maintenance.


21.                       The wages for the tribal labourers engaged in the reservoir works shall get their wages as per minimum wages act.


The II party, Gandhinagaram tribal villagers would not obstruct the works of construction of reservoir and rehabilitation works and offers complete cooperation to the government.  It is decided that the above mentioned rehabilitation programmes should be carried out by the District Collector represented by Project Officer, I.T.D.A.   As per the pleas of the villages of submerged under Bhupathipalem project construction, the negotiations between the tribals and District administration authorities, the outstanding circumstances that tribals going to face problems, and the benefits to tribals by construction of this reservoir, some extra facilities are provided and they should be implemented by the district authorities.  This rehabilitation package is applicable only for the Gandhinagaram village, which is going to be submerged under Bhupathipalem reservoir.

Both parties should obey the agreement.

I Party


II Party

1.    District Joint Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari on behalf of District Collector, East Godavari


Gandhinagaram villagers

1.    Thurram Jagganna dora

2.    Thurram Papa rao



2.    Representative to the District Collect (implementation ofrehabilitation package) Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram.


3.    K.Pedavenkateswara rao

4.    Kunjam Ammanna dora

5.    Thurram Rajjanna dora

6.    Belam Lakshmi

7.    Parasa Mani

8.    Kurasam Nalini

9.    Kurasam Ganganna dora

10.         Kurasam Appanna dora

11.         Kurasam Urmila

12.         Maddikonda Istheramma

13.         Parada Lakshmi

14.         Madakam Lakshmi

15.         Madaka Bhadranna dora

16.         Kurasam Swamy dora

17.         Madakam Mallu dora

18.         Kurasam Bulli dora

19.         Kurasam Chellamma

20.         Kurasam Buchanna dora

21.         Kurasam Veerabbai dora

22.         Madakam Bujjamma

23.         Parada Bapanna dora

24.         Kurasam Swamy dora

25.         Kunjam Venkanna dora

26.         Kunjam China Venkateswarlu

27.         Madi Rajya lakshmi

28.         Kurasam Balu dora

29.         Kurasam Abbulu dora

30.         Kunjam Chantamma

31.         Subha lakshmi

32.         Parada Venkata lakshmi

33.         Pusam Balu dora

34.         Madakam Ramanna dora

35.         Aidiredla Veera swamy

36.         Venkateswarlu reddy

37.         Madakam Thammanna dora

38.         Madakam Sankuru dora

39.         Kurasam Sankuru dora

40.         Kurasam Venkanna dora

41.         Karam Chellayya

42.         Thurram Rajamma

43.         Kunjam Abbai dora

44.         Madakam Thathabbai dora

45.         Madakam Thammanna dora

46.         Madakam Chinnaalu dora

47.         Madakam Swamy dora

48.         M. Murali Krishna

49.         Kunjam Buchamma

50.         Belam Satyanarayana

51.         Madakam Veerayamma

52.         M.Venkanna dora

53.         Madakam Ramanna dora

54.         Parada Rajanna dora

55.         T. Venkateswarlu dora

56.         Thurram Rajamanai

57.         Thurram Chellayamma

58.         Thurram China balu dora

59.         Thurram Papanna dora

60.         Thurram Ganganna dora

61.         M.Achanna dora

62.         Parada Pentamma

63.         Madakam Chinnaalu dora

64.         Madakam Suranna dora

65.         Madakam Venkata rao

66.         Madakam Papa rao

67.         Parada Abbulu dora

68.         Parada Sathi babu

69.         Madakam Chellanna dora

70.         Madakam Venkanna dora

71.         Thammanna

72.         Madakam Chinna kuru dora

73.         Madakam Kannayya dora

74.         Valala Chellanna dora

75.         Madakam Subba rao dora

76.         Valala Rajanna dora

77.         Kosi Butchamma

78.         Kurasam Ramanna dora

79.         Kunjam Pottamma

80.         Madakam Venkateswarlu

81.         Kurasam Pentanna dora

82.         Pothuri Bulli dora

83.         Veeka Narsanna dora

84.         Karam Nageswara rao

85.         Chavalam Nuka raju

86.         Ranga mana raju

87.         Karam Thammanna dora

88.         Karam Ramanna dora

89.         Pusam Appanna dora

90.         Thurram Swamy dora

91.         Kalum Bullamma

92.         Veeka Abbai dora

93.         Kalum Rajanna dora

94.         Kalum Panjamma

95.         Kalum Krishna

96.         Kurasam Peda lakshmi

97.         B. Sitarathnam

98.         Adabala Sheshayamma

99.         Thurram Rajamma

100.    M. Nagamani

101.    Madakam Venkateswarlu

102.    Madakam Sankuramma

103.    Madakam Satyavathi

104.    Madakam Ram chellamma







Annexure X - G.O.  Table with comments


Annexure XI (Property Estimates) in a separate file


Indira Sagar The Polavaram Project (map) in a separate file

Demographic profile of people facing displacement under Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Village wise



Annexure XII - CEC recommendations




IN WRIT PETITION NO. 202/95 AND 171/96


Gate_No. 3Mawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi - 110003 Tel: 30944904-5-7


F. No. 1-19/CEC/SC/2006-Pt. XII    Dated : 15.11.2006


Sub :  Application Nos. 839, 875 and 944 filed before the CEC regarding construction of Indira Sagar Project (Polavaram Project)


The Application No. 839 filed by Sh. Jayaramachandra Rao, Advocate and Sh. T. Srikanth Rao, Advocate, Application No. 875 filed by Sh. R.Vidyasagar Rao, Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission and Application No. 944 filed by Dr. P. Sivarama Krishna, Director, SAKTI stand disposed of in terms of the CEC's Report dated 9.11.2006 in I.A. No. 1572 & 1578 regarding construction of Indira Sagar Project {Polavaram Project).






Member Secretary


1. Sh. Siddhartha Chowdhary, Supreme Court Advocate and Amicus Curiae.

2. Sh. A.D.N. Rao, Advocate on Record for MoEF.

3. Standing   Counsel   for the   State   of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Chattisgarh

4. Sh. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate, Applicant in Application No. 839 (Copy of Report Dated 9.11.2006 in I.A. No. 1572 & 1578 is enclosed)

5. Sh. R. Vidyasagar Rao, Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission (Copy of Report Dated 9.11.2006 in I .A. No. 1572 & 1578 is enclosed)

6. Dr. P.  Sivaramakrishna,   Director,   SAKTI   (Copy of Report Dated 9.11.2006 in I.A. No. 1572 & 1578 is enclosed)

7. All Respondents / Respondents in above applications.

Dr. Anmol Kumar, DIG (WL) Sh. A.K. Joshi, Advocate Ms. Neelam, Advocate Ms. Shewta, Advocate Sh. Prathibha Raj, IPS, AIG (EAP) & NE CEIl

For the State of Andhra Pradesh:

Sh. Mohan Reddy, Advocate General

Sh. K.S. Rao, IPS, PCCF (WL)

Sh. Satish Chandra, Secretary (Irrigation)

Sh. M. Venkateshwara Rao, Chief Engineer, Indira Sagar Project

Sh. M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, G.P. for Irrigation

Sri K D R Jayakumar, Special Secretary (Forests)

Sh. E.V.Raghavulu, I & CAD Deptt.

Sh. N. Jaganmohan, Executive Engineer

Sh. B. Sata Ramavl, SE/DPM

Sh. M. Nagi Reddy, Dy. Ex. Engineer

Sh. S.K. Azam Ali, AEE

Sh. A. Umesh Kumar, AEE

Sh. S. Nageshwara Rao, Dy. Executive Engineer

Sh. P.V.S. Bhaskar, Dy. Executive Engineer

Sh.V. K.Yadav, Forester


For the State of Orissa:

Sh. P.M. Padhi, CCF (Nodal)

Sh. J. P. Agarwal,   Addl. Secretary, Water Resources

Sh. H. Ch. Behera, EIC, Water Resources

Sh. S.K. Parida, Liason Officer, Water Resources

Sh. S.K. Sehrawat, Addl. Resident Commissioner


For the State of Chattisgarh:

Ms. Suparana Srivastava, Advocate

Ms. Pooja Mathani, Advocate


For the applicant:

Sh. J. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate in Application No. 839, 875 and

Sh. T.Srikantha Rao, Advocate 944 filed before

Sh. J.P.Rao, Professor the CEC

Sh. R. V. Rao, Advocate

Sh. C. Balaji Sh. G.P.Nehru

Sh. K. Krishna Reddy

Sh. Sravan Kumar, Journalist





54.  The Polavaram Multipurpose Project being constructed at an estimated cost of Rs. 12,590.70 cores involves the use of 3833.39 ha. of forest area out of which 3,731.07 ha. forest area falls in Andhra Pradesh, 102.16 ha. in the State of Orissa and the balance 0.16 ha. in Chhattisgarh. The project involves use of 187.29 ha. of forest area falling in Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary in Andhra Pradesh. It also involves use of 1,553 ha. of non-forest area within the said sanctuary. The forest area required for the project in the State of Andhra Pradesh is virgin mixed deciduous forest of Eastern Ghats which is most important from the ecological point of view. The area contains endangered species such as Tiger, Panther, Gaur, Wild Dog, Sloth Bear, Barking Deer and other fauna. Many important species of flora are found in the area. It is a unique and rich wilderness of this country.

55.  The project is designed to provide irrigation facility to the extent of 2.91 lakh ha., generation of 960 MW of hydro power, diversion of 80 TMC of water to Krishna River, providing 23.44 TMC of drinking water supply to Vizag city and enroot 540 villages and development of pisciculture and tourism. 1,95,357 persons will be affected by the project. The R&R Scheme is yet to be approved by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Environmental clearance to the project has been accorded. The use of forest land falling within the sanctuary has been recommended by the Standing Committee of the NBWL.

56.  An equivalent area of non-forest land for compensatory Afforestation has been identified. The State of Andhra Pradesh is willing to add adjoining reserve forest area in East Godavari District to the sanctuary, relocate isolated villages from the sanctuary and upgrade its status to that of a National Park.

57.  The project has been opposed by the State of Orissa, State of Chhattisgarh and a number of applications have been filed before the CEC on various grounds such as validity of environmental clearance, pendency of F.C. Act clearance, importance of area from wildlife point of view, large number of Project Affected Persons, non-approval of the R&R Plan by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, safety of dam, alternatives available, lack of study on back water effect, alleged violation of the provisions of PESA, requirement of joint survey, dam design and operation schedule not approved by CWC, displaced persons being in Schedule V area, improper cost benefit analysis etc. These issues have been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs under appropriate headings. Many of these issues are beyond the technical competence of the CEC and therefore no observation has been made by the CEC.

58.  The proposal for seeking approval under the F.C. Act for the use of forest land falling in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been forwarded by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department to the MoEF. The proposals in respect of use of forest land falling in Orissa and Chhattisgarh have not been filed by the respective States. As stated earlier, they are opposed to the implementation of the project in the present form.

59.  In addition to the permission of this Hon'ble Court, the following approvals are pending:

i)   approval under the F.C. Act;

ii)  techno-economic clearance from the CWC;

iii) approval of the designs of the dam and operation schedule by the CWC as per the Bachawat Award;

iv)  approval of the R&R Plan by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs; and

v)  Investment Clearance from the Planning Commission.


60.  As far as the specific issue of using 187.29 ha. of forest land and 1,553 ha. of non forest land falling within the Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary, the CEC is of the view that this Hon'ble Court may consider the same subject to compliance of the following essential pre-conditions :

i.   approval for the use of forest land will be obtained under the F.C. Act;

ii.  the NPV at the present rate shall be deposited in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund along with an undertaking to deposit the additional amount, if any, as per this Hon'ble Court's directions;

iii.  the isolated villages falling within the sanctuary will be shifted and the sanctuary will be notified as a National Park;

iv.  as agreed to by the State of Andhra Pradesh during the site visit of the CEC, about 500 sq. kms. of the reserved forest area with minimum habitation adjoining the sanctuary in the East Godavari District will be added to the existing Sanctuary which will be notified as National Park. Out of the above, 4,539 ha. of reserve forest area has already been identified by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The identification of the balance area will be completed within a period of two months and finalized in consultation with the CEC. The tract of land besides protecting the flora and fauna will also be a well preserved water catchment area for the region;

v.   the project has been recommended by the Standing Committee of the NBWL after considering the site inspection report of the team deputed by it. The Conditions on which the project has been recommended by the site inspection team will be fully complied with. The conditions include depositing 5% of the project cost in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund for conservation and protection of the National Parks and Sanctuaries in the State of Andhra Pradesh; and

vi.  a detailed study at the project cost will be got done by the Wildlife Institute of India, (Wll) Dehra Dun to assess the effect of the project on the flora and fauna and the mitigative measures required to be taken including in respect of fragmentation of the habitat because of construction of canals. The mitigative measures recommended by the Institute shall be implemented at the cost of the project in a time bound manner.

61.  It is also recommended that an independent Monitoring Committee consisting of the representatives of the MoEF, Wildlife Institute of India, A.P. Forest Department and reputed NGOs/experts may be constituted to monitor and supervise the implementation of the above conditions.

62.  Though it does not strictly fall within the purview of the CEC to examine the effectiveness of the R&R Plan, we are of the view that the present project is comparable with Sardar Sarovar Project in terms of the magnitude of the displacement of persons and that a proper rehabilitation plan, adherence to the time schedule for its implementation, a strong mechanism for monitoring its implementation including involvement of independent agencies and linkage of the implementation schedule with the progress made in the rehabilitation of the project affected persons is a pre-requisite. The lessons learnt from the earlier projects such as Sardar Sarovar Project and the other major projects should be taken into consideration while finalizing the R&R Plan. The following specific suggestions are therefore made:

i)    the precise details of the land identified for the rehabilitation of the project displaced persons including the site for the construction of house and agriculture land should be made public. This would also imply that the particulars of the land proposed to be allotted to each of the displaced person should be decided in advance;

ii)   The monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the R&R should be done by an independent Monitoring Committee consisting of eminent experts and NGOs with adequate powers to effectively perform its function;

iii)  Concurrent monitoring and evaluation of the progress made in the implementation of the R&R should be carried out under the directions and supervision of the Monitoring Committee. If the R&R is found to be lagging with reference to the fixed bench marks, the construction should accordingly be deferred/stopped;

iv)   the R&R should be implemented in such a way that minimum disturbance is caused to the PAP and the compensation for land is in the form of land. Concurrent audit of the R&R works should be carried out. The Monitoring Committee should be capable of taking rational decisions and making recommendations independently uninfluenced by the Government.

63.  We are also making the following observations in respect of some of the other issues which may be considered by this Hon'ble Court:

a) While approving the project designs, the CWC should take into consideration the operating in the ayacut, various alternatives proposed in lieu of the present proposal, technical and financial feasibility of the project, dam safety aspect and the other relevant technical issues, the actual additional ayacut area which gets added on account of this projects;

b) The project implementation shall be strictly in accordance with the dam design and the operation schedule finalized by the CWC;

c)  While examining the R&R plan the Ministry of Tribal Affairs should also examine the connected relevant issues such as the Constitutional provisions, applicability of PESA and the other legal provisions;

d) The Ministry of Water Resources should examine the various issues raised by the States of Orissa and Chhattisgarh in the context of Bachawat Award; and

e) Forest land shall be used for the project only after obtaining the requisite approvals under the F.C. Act.

64.  It is submitted that the above observations are illustrative only and do not necessarily cover all the issues raised during the hearing before the CEC. It is reiterated that many of the issues raised are either beyond the technical competence or beyond the terms of reference of the CEC.

      This Hon'ble Court may please consider the above recommendations and may please pass appropriate orders in the matter.


(M.K, Jiwrajka)

       Member Secretary

Dated: 9-11-2006



Annexure XIII - Case study of a Rehabilitated family

Case study of Karam Ramanna Dora of Gandhinagaram village

I am Ramanna Dora. I am from Gandhinagaram village which is going to be submerged by Bhupathipalem reservoir. I was very much worried here in Gandhinagaram I have got 29 acres of land with settlement is there and we tribal live on NTFP collection.

Now with Sakti's support we fought with govt. got good compensation.

I got compensation for 29.57 acres - Rs.10,34,750 compensation paid to me by govt. This Rs.35000 per acre in addition to that for

1)   6 Tamarind trees Rs.10170

2)   210 Palm trees   Rs.54,000

3)   20 Neam trees    Rs.4000

4)   8 Soap nut         Rs.1000

5)   Custard Apple     Rs.1000

6)   Jamoon              Rs.400

7)   Mango               Rs.420

8)   Cashew              Rs.20000

9)   Nallamaddi         Rs.8000

Total                    Rs.98,990

House construction Rs.65000 and other compensation transportation sustenance allowance etc Rs.74000 and old house compensation Rs.7500

Total I have received Rs.12,06,440 with this I have constructed good house deposited money back. I am happy now.

Ramanna Dora


Case Study of Madakam Mallu Dora of Gandhinagaram village


My self Mallu Dora is from Gandhinagaram village of Rampachodavaram Mandal of East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh.

In Bhupathipalem reservoir   our village is going to be submerged. I along with other villagers agitated against the dam. I was arrested for this I have to spend two months in central jail in Rajhamundry SAKTI arranged bail.

SAKTI explained about GO 68 in our village with the awareness we have understood how much compensation.

We have demanded govt for better rehabilitation. I got compensation


For 194 Tamarind trees        Rs. 2,13,525

3200 Tadi Trees        Rs. 8,00,000

45 Coconut Trees      Rs. 40,800

86 Mango trees         Rs. 39,856

29 Custard Apple       Rs. 3,306

12 Jama                   Rs. 1,368

10 Jack fruit             Rs. 2,520

8 Soap nut               Rs. 1,600

23 Lemons               Rs. 6,992

Cashew nut              Rs. 6,91,600

I got for Total trees Rs. 18,21,567


In addition to this I got compensation   Rs. 1,75,000 for 5 acres of land.

And transport charges Rs. 5,000

Cattle Shed Rs. 3,000

Sustenance allowance Rs. 20,400

Total Compensation received Rs 20, 24,967 Twenty Lakhs Twenty four thousand Nine hundred and sixty seven only.

In addition to this I will be getting 2 acres of land .and got house.

With the amount I received I have purchased 5 acres of land. I have spent money towards Paralysis treatment before this rehabilitation I was having lot of problems. I was not getting much from fields. With AKTI support only I got better rehabilitation and I we got fishing rights I can fish and get in come. I happy now


Madakam Mallu Dora


Property estimate and compensation calculated by Land acquisition officer






Meetings with the Community (Photos)



W.P. No. 5515/87 M.P.No.7398/87 Date:May 1987

W.P. No. 6175/87 M.P.No.8273/87 Date:May 1987

 "Managing Director Godavari plywoods ltd. Rampachodavaram E.G.Dt. be and hereby is directed not to cut any mango trees, jamun and jack trees and cutting the forests of Maredumilli mandal, E.G.Dt."

 Only matured or dying trees were to be felled. Jeelugu (Caryota urens) palm, trees yielding minor forest produce like tamarind or cane brakes, creepers were not to be touched. A gap of 20 meters from a stream.)         --Times of India, April 30, 1991.


The candidate has chosen a topical subject, very relevant to our thinking on culture, cognition and language. He has red widely and is familiar with the literature that matters. His linguistic and anthropological reasoning is sound. His language is clear and simple.

...evidence of the investigator's ability as a linguist by special training and as a linguistic anthropologist by self - cultivated interest.

Prof. A.Munirathnam Reddy, Head, Department of Social Anthropology,S.V.University, Tirupati - 517502


Enabling the Community to Gain Command Over the Administrative Process is Empowerment.


"Today the development is manaement without governance and governanace is without proper participation."



A.P.Cabinet Sub - Committee Report on Left Wing Extrremists. - P.Sivaramakrishna.

The only information the government or media always compile carefully is on Naxalite encounters, never the violations of the instruments of rule of law such as minimum wages, fifth schedule, mismanagement of forests, equity in the distribution of welfare benefits, displacement, fragmentation of Socio-economic entities etc. 



if the R & R is found to be lagging with reference to the fixed bench marks, the construction should accordingly be deferred / stopped;



Click here to Bauxite Case: Read full article.