The Pong Dam was built in 1974 in Kangra district in Himachal Pradesh. More than 30,000 people in 339 villages were displaced from at least 75,268 acres of land for the project In 1970, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the governments of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan to rehabilitate people in Rajasthan's Jaisalmer, Ganganagar and Bikaner districts. The reason was that the water from the dam was going to irrigate these regions through the Indira Canal Project. The Rajasthan government framed the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, which assured that eligible families will get irrigated land in the Canal's command area. Under the Rules, 16,352 families were eligible for rehabilitation in Rajasthan. But by 1992 only 9,196 allotments had been made, and out of them 6,658 allotments were cancelled by the Rajasthan government for violations of the 1972 Rules. The cancellations took place in context of the challenges faced by the displaced people, who belonged to the hill region and found it difficult to get used to the desert environment in Rajasthan. There was also a lack of amenities like electricity, roads and drinking water near the agricultural and household lands provided to them. Many oustees either abandoned their lands or sold them illegally. Some oustees have also alleged that they were intimidated by local people and forced to leave. In 1992, a forum of oustees known as Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti Rajasthan filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court regarding these issues. In its 1996 judgement the court constituted a committee led by the secretary to the union ministry of water resources, and with one secretary from each state government as members, to carry out and complete the rehabilitation. It also appointed a District Judge in Rajasthan to verify all cancellations made after 1992 and investigate claims of intimidation. However, the rehabilitation was not completed. In August 2008, the revenue ministers of both states met in Shimla and agreed to form two committees to resolve the issue: a standing committee led by the revenue secretary of Rajasthan and with representatives from oustees to resolve their grievances, and a subcommittee with representatives from both states and oustees to select appropriate land for rehabilitation. The sub committee carried out field inspections in the same month and found that land earmarked for rehabilitation was not suitable for cultivation and that there was not enough irrigated land available to accommodate all eligible oustees. As on December 2018, 12,027 allotments had been made by Rajasthan, according to data submitted by Himachal Pradesh government in the state assembly. Only 8,009 of these are in possession of land in Rajasthan, according to the data. In total, 8,343 families are awaiting rehabilitation of these 2,180 families were never allotted land while the rest are awaiting reversal of cancellation of land. On December 10, 2018, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered the two states to hold a meeting to resolve the issue. The Himachal Pradesh government offered to buy land for the dam oustees in the state itself, provided the Rajasthan government paid for the land. But the latter refused, saying that the land price in Himachal Pradesh was too high and that it could not afford it. In February 2019, the Rajasthan government agreed to provide land to the remaining oustees in Rajasthan itself. In September 2020, one of the oustees filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court demanding that the rehabilitation be completed. The court has issued notices and the matter is expected to be heard in January 2021. In March 2021, While responding on a question on the rehabilitation of the outsees in Assembly, Himanchal Pradesh Forest Minister Rakesh Patania said: "As per latest information, out of a total 16,352 families declared eligible for allotments in Rajasthan, 6,355 families are yet to be settled against which 2020 cases are pending with the Rajasthan government for allotment."
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand for promised land
Demand for rehabilitation
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Rural
Type of Land
Common
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Other, Land Acquisition Laws
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Non-rehabilitation of displaced people
Delay in allottment and possession of land/property
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Supreme Court of India
Case Number
WP (C) 1140/2020
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Displacement
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Government of Himachal Pradesh, Government of Rajasthan, Department of water Resources in Union Ministry of Jal Shakti
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Yes
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills
Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex
Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest
Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court
Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya
Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project
Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra
Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction