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


Women and Governance in South Asia

Edited by:

Yasmin Tambiah

Read full article





 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. Siva Rama 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).


Distribution :

  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.  Srivaramakrishna,   Director,   SAKTI   (Copy of Report Dated 9.11.2006 in I.A. No. 1572 & 1578 is enclosed)
  7. All Respondents / Respondents in above applications.
  8. 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


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, Journalis


I.A. No. 1572 of 2006 has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking permission for the use of 187.29 ha. of forest land falling within the Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary for the construction of Indira Sagar Major Irrigation Project, commonly known as Polavaram Project.

 2.      In the IA the following prayers have been made :

"a)     grant permission for diversion of the forest land which includes the Reserved Forest Area to an extent of 187.29 ha. situated in Papikonda Wild Life Sanctuary;

 b)     grant permission to carry out the Project works that result in submergence of marginal

 and   fringe   areas   of   Papikonda    Wildlife Sanctuary after impoundment of water;

 c)     to pass appropriate order directing the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) to consider the project to accord approval for diversion of 3267 hectare reserve forest land for the proposal.


 d)      to pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

 3.      This matter was heard by this Hon'ble Court on 5.5.2006 when the following order was passed:

 "Issue notice.

 Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Ministry of Environment and Forests.

 The Central Empowered Committee may look into the proposal for diversion of forest land and file its report within eight weeks."


4. This report is being filed by the CEC pursuant to the above order of the Hon'ble Court after examining the matter during the hearings held on 15.5.2006, 26.6.2006, 12.7.2006 and 8.8.2006 and site visit by Mr. P.V. Jayakrishnan, Chairman, Mr. N.K. Joshi, Member, and Mr. Mahendra Vyas, Member alongwith Mr. Siddharth Chaudhary, Amicus Curiae. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Standing Counsel for the MoEF and Mr. Pranay Waghray, Special Invitee between 28.7.2006 to 1.8.2006. This report also takes into consideration the issues raised in Application No. 839 filed before the CEC by Mr. J. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate, and Mr. T. Srikanth Rao, Advocate, Application No. 875 filed by Mr. R. Vidyasagar Rao, Chief Engineer (Retd.), Central Water Commission and Application NO. 944 filed by Dr. P. Sivaramkrishna, Director, SAKTI against the construction of the project. Since the project also involves the use of forest land falling in the State of Orissa and Chattisgarh, the concerned State Governments were also requested to give their views in the matter. These have also been considered in this report. The views of the various elected representatives and members of the public who appeared before the CEC and filed written representations on different aspects of the Polavaram Project have also been duly considered.


5.         The Indira Sagar Major Irrigation Project, commonly known as the Polavaram Project envisages :

a)     creating irrigation facilities to the extent of 2.91 lakh ha. in the four districts of Andhra Pradesh, namely, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna and Visakhapatnam Districts;

b)     generating 960 MW of hydro power;

c)      diversion of 80 TMC of water to KrishnaRiver;

d)      providing 23.44 TMC of drinking water supply to Vizag city, industries and enroute 540 villages covering a population of 25 lakh persons;

e)     develop pisciculture and tourism.

6. The main component of the project consists of 2310 mtrs. long earth rock filled dam, 897 mtr. long spillway, 12 power houses of 80 MW each, right main canal of 174 km. length having 1.29 lakh ha. ayacut and left main canal of 181.50 km. length having 1.62 lakh ha. ayacut. The hydraulic details of the project are as follows:

i)       Full reservoir level (FRL)      45.72 mtr. (150 ft.) ii)      Lower water level (MDDL)    41.15 mtr. (135ft.)

7            iii)        Gross storage at FRL              194.6 TMC

            iv)        Live storage                                        75.2 TMC

7.         The project involves the use of 52623.91 ha. of area in the State of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa as detailed below :



Area (ha.)

Forest area


Total (ha.)

Andhra Pradesh
















 Includes 464.07  ha.  of  additional  forest  land  identified  pursuant to the CEC’s visit.

8.         The break-up of the forest land and the non-forest land for the  various  items  of  works  as  furnished  by the  Applicant  State is as under : 


Forest land

(in ha.)



Land (in



Andhra Pradesh















Head Works

Andhra Pradesh




Andhra Pradesh




Andhra Pradesh








Grand Total

52,623.91 ha.


9.         Out  of  the  above  3833.39 ha.   forest land,  187.29 ha. area  falls  in  the  Papikonda  Wildlife  Sanctuary.   The  said sanctuary has been notified under Section 26 of the Wild Life

 (Protection) Act, 1972 on 17.7.1998 and covers an area of 590.68 sq. km. in East Godavari, West Godavari and Khammam Districts. The flora and fauna are rich and diverse. The important flora in the sanctuary are Pterocarpus, marsupium, Terminalia tomentosa, Adina cardifolia, Sterculia urens, Mangifera indica, Bauhinia vahlii, Butea superba etc. The important fauna found in the sanctuary are Tiger, Panther, Gaur, Wild dog, Sloth bear, Barking deer, Mouse deer, Cheetal, Sambar and wild boar.

10. It is proposed to carry out compensatory afforestation over 3280 ha. area at an estimated cost of Rs.2,329.323 lakhs. The details of the area identified for compensatory afforestation are as under: 



C A Area in ha.


Financial Projections for the scheme Rs. in lakhs


East Godavari






West Godavari


















11.    The project will affect a large number of persons.   The details of the families affected by the project are as under:

Name of the State


No. of settlement


No. of project affected families


No. of population affected


Andhra Pradesh

















12.       Out of the above, 14.94% are scheduled castes, 48.67% scheduled tribes, 17.45% backward classes and the balance 18.94% fall in other categories.

13.       The estimated cost of the project is Rs. 12,591 crores. The item-wise break-up is as under : 





(Rs. in



Project cost excluding EIA, EMP and R&R



Catchment Area Treatment including

drainage and sedimentation treatment



Command Area Treatment



Development of flora and fauna



Public Health



Archaeology, Mines and Geology



Resettlement and Rehabilitation



Total project cost :





 14.       The site clearance has been accorded by the MoEF on 19.9.2005. After holding the public hearing on 10.10.2005, the environmental clearance has been accorded by the MoEF on 25.10.2005. The proposal for seeking approval under the F.C. Act for the use of the forest land has been filed on 12.12.2005 by the State of Andhra Pradesh. As regards the forest land falling in the State of Chhattisgarh and Orrisa, the formal proposal seeking approval under the F.C. Act have not been filed by these two States. These States have also objected to their lack of involvement in the public hearing. 

15. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Andhra Pradesh Forest Department has recommended the use of the forest land falling within the Wildlife Sanctuary on the condition that the labourers working in the project area should not depend on the forest for their housing material and fire wood needs and that an equivalent reserve forest area will be included in the sanctuary.

16. The State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) in its meeting held on 9th January, 2006 under the Chairmanship of Chief Minister, Andhra Pradesh has recommended the project for clearance. The Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife in its meeting held on 6.7.2006 examined the use of the forest land falling within the sanctuary and has recommended the project for approval. Earlier, there was a site visit by Mr. Darshan Shankar of FRLHT and Dr. Anmol Kumar, DIGF (Wildlife), MoEF who recommended that the use of the forest land falling within the sanctuary may be approved subject to the following conditions: 

a)      Since project implementation would involve intensive construction activities which would directly/indirectly effect the habitat and wildlife, it would therefore be necessary that the project implementing agency/irrigation department would ensure that:

i.       No labour camps are located within the sanctuary area.

ii.      Arrangements for fuel wood and small timber required by the labour is organized by the project proponents. In no case will any damage on this count be caused to the habitat.

iii.      No domestic cattle would be permitted with the labourers in the vicinity of the reserve forest/sanctuary area.

iv.     Any other condition in this regard suggested by the Chief Wildlife Warden, has to be complied by the project proponents.

b)      In addition to the Net Present Value of the forest land, 5% of the total cost of the project has to be paid by the irrigation department/project proponents as envisaged in the decision taken by the National Board for Wildlife at its meeting. The NPV and 5% of the project cost is to be deposited under CAMPA fund.

c)      It is also necessary that before the recommendations come into effect, proper strengthening of the wildlife wing in Khammam and Rajamundry forest circles are taken up on priority because the sanctuary will be managed effectively only when the necessary infrastructure and manpower is provided to the Wildlife Wing. In this context a small action plan has been developed in consultation with the wildlife wing of the Andhra Pradesh State Government. The funds for this component shall be made available from the 5% of the project cost to be deposited with the Compensatory Afforestation Monitoring and Planning Agency (CAMPA).

 d)     the State Government would declare UdatpalliReserveForest (5103 ha.) of Eluru Forest Division as part of the Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary. The management of the river after the completion of the project would continue to remain with the State Forest Department.

A copy of the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the NBWL alongwith the Site Inspection Report is enclosed at ANNEXURE R-l to this report.

 17. The R&R Plan has been filed by the ApplicantState on 8.12.2005 for seeking the approval of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA). These plans were discussed by the Tribal Advisory Council on 27.2.2006. They are yet to be approved by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

 18. A detailed Project Report (DPR) has been filed in September, 2005 seeking techno-economic clearance from the Central Water Commission (CWC). As per the ApplicantState, out of the 17 Directorates of the CWC, clearances have so far been received from 10 Directorates. The DPR is under scrutiny in the remaining seven Directorates. Similarly, Investment Clearance from the Planning Commission is awaited.


18. During the site inspection carried out by the CEC it was observed that the total forest land required for the project is more than what has been projected because the deemed forest land has not been included. Subsequently, the following additional forest area required for the project has been identified:

Deemed forest in East Godavari:                                         63.00 ha.

Deemed forest in West Godavari:                                        109.56 ha.

Deemed forest in Khammam                                                85.42 ha.

Kolleru Extension reserve forest:                                          206.09 ha.

Total                                                                                      464.07 ha.

 Thus in addition to the 3,267 ha. of forest land stated to be required for the project in Andhra Pradesh, an additional 464.07 ha of forest land has to be included in the project as well as for the calculations towards the NPV, area for compensatory afforestation, etc.

 19. The State of Andhra Pradesh has informed that the additional area towards the compensatory afforestation for the above mentioned area has already been identified and a detailed compensatory afforestation scheme for the additional area is being prepared. Further the Irrigation Department is willing to pay the additional cost towards the compensatory afforestation and the NPV.


20. As per the project authorities, the project involves submergence of 187.29 ha of forest area falling within the Papikonda Sanctuary. During the site visit, it was observed by the CEC that 1,553 ha. non-forest area, which is part of the river portion falling within the sanctuary will also be required for the project. The State has taken a view that most of this area is under water even now, the physical status of such land will not vary except that the water level in that portion will rise and therefore it is not necessary to seek the diversion of this portion of the sanctuary area. The CEC is of the view that there will be material change in the land use of this area also. The total area being affected in the sanctuary is 1,740.4 ha. out of which 187.29 ha is forest land and the balance 1,553 ha. is non-forest land. While taking a decision for compensating the use of the land falling within the sanctuary area the above figure of 1,553 ha. of non-forest land also needs to be considered and not just 187.4 ha. of forest area.


21. During the site visit it was observed that the forest area coming under submergence is virgin mixed deciduous forest of Eastern Ghat which is critical from the ecological point of view. In case the use of forest land falling within the sanctuary is unavoidable it is imperative to add good quality adjoining forest area in the sanctuary, relocate the isolated villages in the sanctuary and upgrade the status of the sanctuary to that of a National Park. It has been informed by the ApplicantState that the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department has initiated the process of identification of suitable area which can be added to the Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary. In fact 4,539 ha. of reserve forest area in East Godavari District has already been identified for this purpose. The State has also agreed in principle for the relocation of the   isolated  villages  falling  within  the sanctuary

 and notifying the Sanctuary as a National Park. This notification would be a pre-condition to any clearance to use/divert sanctuary land.


22. After the reorganization of the States, the Government of India constituted the Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal (GWDT) on 10th April, 1969 for adjudication of the water disputes relating to inter-State River Godavari. Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa concluded a number of Inter-State agreements for the distribution of waters of River Godavari and its tributaries. On 7th August, 1978, the State of Andhra Pradesh entered into an agreement with the then State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) which permitted submergence of their land, including because of back water affect of the Polavaram Project, up to RL + 150 ft. A similar agreement was entered into by the State of Andhra Pradesh with the State of Orissa on 15th December, 1978. A revised agreement was entered into on 2nd April, 1980 by the States of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa regarding the submergence aspects of Polavaram Project. The agreement provides for the construction and maintenance of the protective embankments with adequate drainage sluices at the cost of the State of Andhra Pradesh to protect the land and property above

 RL + 150 ft. in the State of Orissa and Chhattisgarh. It also provides that alternatively these States may exercise an option for compensation for land and property likely to be affected above RL + 150ft. The said agreement was filed before the Tribunal on 3rd April, 1980 and has been made a part of the final order of the Tribunal commonly known as 'Bachawat Award'. A copy of the relevant portion of the Award along with the above said agreement is enclosed at ANNEXURE R-ll.

 23. Clause VI of the Award which deals with the construction of the Polavaram Project is reproduced below :

"Clause VI

(1) In accordance with the statement dated the 3rd April, 1980 submitted on behalf of the Government of India, annexed hereto and marked Annexure "H", we direct that -

(I)      the Polavaram Project shall be cleared by the Central Water Commission as expeditiously as possible for F.R.L./M.W.L+150feet;

(ii)     the matter of design of the dam and its operation schedule is left to the Central Water Commission which it shall decide

 keeping in view all the Agreements between the parties, including the Agreement dated the 2nd April, 1980 as far as practicable; and

(Hi)    if there is to be any change in the operation schedule as indicated in the Agreement dated the 2nd April, 1980 it shall be made only after consultation with the States of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. The design aspects shall, however, be left entirely to the Central Water Commission.

(2) The State of Andhra Pradesh shall observe all safeguards, including the safeguards mentioned in sub-clause (1) above, regarding the Polavaram Project, as directed by the Central Water Commission."


24. The State or Orissa has strongly objected against undertaking of the project. The main submissions made are summarized as under:

 i)       as per the environmental clearance order dated 25.10.2005 of the MoEF 6316 persons from Orissa are likely to be affected by the project. Since no joint verification of the project affected area by officers of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa has taken place till date, the above figures are totally incorrect and based on wild imagination;

 ii)      as per the forest diversion proposal prepared by the Government of Andhra Pradesh the project will involve diversion of 102.16 ha. of forest land falling in Orissa whereas the project may actually involve submergence of more than 1000 ha. of forest land in Malkangiri District of Orissa involving a large chunk of dense and rich forest cover;

 iii)     bona fide residents, environmental groups and others located at the project site and sites of displacement should be given an opportunity to participate in the public hearing held for the purpose of seeking environmental clearance. To enable such participation, the public hearing should have been conducted in Malkangiri District of Orissa through Orissa Pollution Control Board. No such public hearing has taken place. The issue of environmental clearance by the MoEF in the absence of such public hearing in Orissa is a latant violation of their own Notification. The environmental clearance needs to be revoked;

 iv)     the proposal filed by the Andhra Pradesh for seeking approval under the F.C. Act is faulty because;

a)      R&R plan for the 1002 Project Affected Families in Orissa has not been filed as per Government of Orissa R&R Policy, 2006 which is a statutory requirement under the F.C. Rules;

b)     the proposal is silent about submergence of other government non-forest land, deemed forest and tenanted land;

c)     copy of the resolution passed by the gram panchayat/local body and public hearing has not been furnished; and

d)     compensatory afforestation land has been provided in Andhra Pradesh instead of Orissa.

In view of above, the diversion proposal received by the Orissa Forest Department has been returned for compliance to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 23.6.2006;

 v)      the Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal Report (Bachawat Award) deals with agreement between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa signed during 1978 and 1980. As per the above, maximum submergence in Orissa territory was not to exceed RL+150 ft. due to all effects including back water effects. With a change of the project design due to a change in reservoir level, the present project is factually a different project and does not correlate with the original agreement. Therefore the Polavaram project is required to be reformulated without any submergence in Orissa's territory;

 vi)     as per the F.C. Act Guidelines, projects involving forest land are deemed to have been cleared only after the approvals are accorded under the F.C. Act as well as the environmental clearance though separate communication of sanctions may be issued. In the present case, the F.C. clearance has not been accorded and therefore the environmental clearance is not presently effective. The Hon'ble High court of Andhra Pradesh has also directed the project proponents to stop the construction work. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by order dated 22.3.2006 in miscellaneous case No. 3117 of 2006 has also directed that the project should be constructed after complying with the requirement of all applicable laws in such a manner that no area situated in the territory of Orissa is submerged;

 vii)    in view of the above the ongoing construction activities of the project should be stopped;

 viii)   the present project cannot be executed without submergence of forest area in the State of Orissa. Since no forest land in Orissa can be diverted without the recommendation of the Government of Orissa, the project in its present form cannot be implemented.

 ix)     as per the GWDT Award the project is to be cleared by the Central Water Commission expeditiously for FRL/MWL+150. In the award, GWDT directed the CWC to decide the design of the dam and its agreements between the parties. The proposal sent by the State of Andhra Pradesh is still under examination of the CWC. Till it is finalized by the CWC, joint verification cannot be undertaken because any change in design may result in back water effect and area submergence; and

 x)      no such consultation with the concerned gram sabhas in Orissa has taken place which is against the provisions contained in Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) (PESA) Act, 1996


25.    The main submissions made by the State of Chhattisgarh are summarized as under:

i)       the participation of the State of Chhattisgarh in the Polavaram River Valley Project and the rights and obligations ensuing there under emanates from the agreements entered into by the State of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and the Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal Award. In terms of the said agreement the State has agreed to the construction of Polavaram project so that maximum submergence in Chhattisgarh did not exceed +RL 150 ft. due to all effects including back water effect. The project was to be designed for the maximum probable flood in consultation with the Central Water Commission. However, the reports show that the construction of the dam in its present design, backwater level in Chhattisgarh will go beyond the agreed +RL 150 ft. which is a breach of the agreed terms between the two States. In view of the above it is necessary and essential that the project should be re-examined in the light of the changes made and work out an alternative plan mutually agreed by all the affected States;

 ii)      as per the final order of the Tribunal, the design of the dam and its operation schedule is to be decided by the Central Water Commission. Any change in the operation schedule is to be made only after consultation with all the three concerned States. However, neither the Central Water Commission has accorded the approval nor any consultation with the State of Chhattsgarh has taken place. The State of Chattisgarh reserves its rights to agitate its grievance relating to the violation of the agreement and the award in appropriate forums;

 iii)     the States of Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh have mutually agreed on 12.6.2006 to carry out a joint survey regarding submergence and environmental impact assessment of the project and related studies on wildlife. The said survey is yet to be carried out. As such no construction work in the project can take place till the report of the joint survey is received;

iv)     the proposed submergence area in Chhattisgarh is notified in Schedule 5 of the Constitution of India and therefore a decision in respect of these areas require permission of gram sabhas; 

v)      no public hearing has ever been conducted in the State of Chhattisgarh; and

 vi)     the State of Andhra Pradesh should be asked to stop any further construction activity and/or implement an alternative plan of shifting the location of the project to avoid submergence in the area of Chhattisgarh. 


26. In response to the above said views of the State of Orissa and Chhattisgarh, the following main submissions have been made by the State of Andhra Pradesh :

 (i)     the back water studies have been carried out and the full details have been provided to the concerned authorities of the State of Chhattisgarh and Orissa; 

(ii)     actual survey of areas getting submerged under FRL condition and back water condition have been assessed correctly and data furnished to them. The EIA and BMP reports as well as the R&R Plans have been prepared on the basis of information compiled after actual surveys; 

(iii)    if the State of Orissa and Chhattisgarh have any apprehension about the accuracy of the data, the studies can be got done through a reputed third party agency like CWC at the cost of the project. The State is willing to abide by the outcome of the studies; 

(iv)    as per the EIA Notification, public hearing should be held at one place in the region by duly giving wide publicity: 

(v)     the dam break analysis and disaster management plan have been appended to the EIA and BMP reports including the areas likely to be affected; 

(vi)    if the government of Orissa prefers to have protective embankments to safeguard their villages from the submergence as provided in the Bachawat Award, then necessary flood banks for a length of 30 kms along the River Sabri and River Sileru in the territory of Orissa will be formed at an approximate cost of Rs.393 crores chargeable to the project. This has already been informed to the Government of Orissa on 16.6.2006. The Government of Orissa has not yet responded; 

(vii)   if the Government of Orissa prefers to identify land for compensatory afforestation in their territory to avoid any adverse impact the same will be taken into consideration; 

(viii)        being a party to inter-State Agreement dated 2.4.1980, the State of Orissa and Chhattisgarh should take pro active steps in conducting joint survey and processing the F.C. Act proposal as well as R&R Plans; 

(ix)    the process of dialogue with the authorities of the States of Orissa and Chhattisgarh will continue and every effort will be made for joint survey to identify the actual extent of submergence; and 

(ix)             the forest area likely to be submerged under the project in the territory of Orissa and Chhattisgarh is 102.0 ha. and 0.16 ha. respectively at FRL. If the above two States opt for formation of protective bunds, which are the alternatives provided in the Bachawat Award, then there will not be any forest area affected in the above two States. In case they seek compensation for the lands and properties submerged, proposals are to be initiated for obtaining FC Act clearance. In such a case the A.P. Irrigation Department will become the user agency and the State of Orissa and Chhattisgarh respectively will become the concerned State Governments. In any case this issue is also required to be resolved in terms of Bachawat Award. The response of the State of Orissa regarding clearance of the CWC, R&R Plan, PESA, environmental clearance and F.C. Act clearance have been dealt with separately in the report 


27. As per the applicantState, the project involves displacement of 47911 families spread over 288 settlements. The total number of project affected persons comes to 1,95,357. About 50% are Scheduled Tribes, 15% Scheduled Castes, 17.5% backward classes and the balance fall in other categories.

28. The opponents of the project who have filed Application before the CEC have taken a stand that in the absence of the correct back water level data, which is yet to be taken up through model studies in consultation with the Central Water Commission, the number of project affected persons (PAP) cannot be arrived at. As per the reply filed by the State of Orissa and Chhatisgarh, with backwater effect the water level would reach 182 feet. In Andhra Pradesh itself the number of villages coming under submergence could increase from 276 to 400 and the number of project affected families could increase from 44574 to 70,000. Similarly, the project affected persons could increase from 1.77 lakh to 3.0 lakh in Andhra Pradesh. Similarly in Chhattsigarh and Orissa, the PAP will also increase. The agricultural land coming under submergence which is presently reported at 1.1 lakh acre will also increase to 1.6 lakh acre because of revised back water levels. Except for two villages in East Godavari district, all the other villages that would get submerged are in the scheduled areas of the three States of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. The forest area going under submergence in Chhattisgarh and Orissa may also be more than what has been projected. Because of the project the Coringa Sanctuary downstream will also be adversely affected as it would reduce fresh water flow in the river. 

29. It has also been stated that the land for settlement of uprooted villages has not been identified, the R&R Action Plan has not been prepared and the number of families dependent on agriculture is yet to be identified. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has not approved the R&R package prepared by the State Government. In fact, it has raised several objections with regard to the implementation of the Panchayat Extension in Scheduled Area Act (PESA) and has also insisted upon the project proponent to obtain resolutions from the Gram Sabhas in the notified scheduled areas. 

30. On the other hand the State of Andhra Pradesh has stated that it has issued R&R Policy 2005 on 8.4.2005 (ANNEXURE R-lll) which is better than the National R&R Policy and R&R Policies of other States. The State R&R Policy addresses the need to provide for an effective dialogue between the project affected families and the administration for their resettlement and rehabilitation. It provides for benefits to all the project affected families and the project displaced families. It includes allotment of house site free of cost, financial assistance of Rs.40,000 for construction of the house, allotment of land in lieu of the land acquired, grant for cattle shed, transportation of material, income generating scheme, payment of wages, subsistence allowance, basic amenities at the resettlement centres, preference to scheduled tribe category in the allotment of land, dispute redressal mechanism, grievance redressal mechanism, monitoring mechanism and concurrent auditing. 

31. It has also been stated by the State of Andhra Pradesh that separate organizational structure at the State, district and project level is proposed to be created. The State has appointed the Commissioner for Resettlement and Rehabilitation at the State level and who will be responsible for the supervision of the formulation of the rehabilitation and resettlement plans, their proper implementation and redressal of the grievances. A State level Monitoring Committee comprising of Secretaries of various Departments along with the State level NGOs and the concerned Chief Engineer has been formed vide Government order dated 9.5.2005. The project level Monitorinn Onmmittefi has hftfin formed nndfir thfi Chairmanship of the senior most District Collector. A Grievance Redressal Cell has also been constituted under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner for the R&R. The implementation of the R&R plan is programmed in such a way that it is completed at least one year before the completion of the project and all the project displaced persons will be accommodated in the new sites. Substantial progress in the verification, identification of sites for model colonies and other R&R work has already taken place. The State will abide by the provisions of the R&R as approved by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. 


32. As per the Applicants opposing the project, out of 7.20 lakh acre of ayacut of the project, 4.27 lakh acre is already covered by Pushkaram and Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Project. There are many existing minor irrigation projects such as Yeluru, Thoringedda LIS, Chogalnadu LIS, NagarjunasagarLeftCanal, etc. covering the same ayacut effectively. Hardly any new ayacut will result because of the project. The expenditure incurred on Pushkaram Lift Irrigation Project and Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Project will become infructuous. The project provides for generation of 960 MW of peak power which can be generated only durina the rainv season. For balance period, no water would be available for power generation. It is a misconception that lift irrigation is






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.