Diversion of Amrit Mahal Kaval Grasslands in Karnataka Affects Cattle, Pollutes Groundwater

Reported by

Elizabeth Mani

Published on

September 18, 2018

September 18, 2018

Updated on

September 18, 2018

Location of Conflict

Challakere

Chitradurga

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Defence and Security Establishments

Defence and Security Establishments

(

Eco-Sensitive Zone

)

People Affected by Conflict

30000

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

4047

ha

Starting Year

2009

State

Karnataka

Sector

Infrastructure

Since they were appointed guardians of the Amrit Mahal Kaval grassland in Challakere in Chitradurga district by Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, the agricultural and shepherding communities in the region have been preserving this ecologically important zone. They were given land here by the erstwhile rulers to cultivate on the condition that they look after the Amrit Mahal breed of cattle, which was of strategic importance in battles and, hence, in sustaining empires. These grasslands were intimately connected to the communities' culture and livelihoods. But the grasslands were never officially recognised by the Government of India, which denoted the commons (thousands of acres of grasslands available for common use) as degraded forests, stripping them of the protection accorded to forestlands. This made it easy for the government to divert these lands for developmental and industrial purposes without the need to set up forest rights committees or without seeking the consent of the Gram Sabhas. Since 2009, nearly 10,000 acres of the Amrit Mahal Kaval grasslands have been diverted to several strategic and defence institutions, such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Indian Space Research Organisation, Indian Institute of Science and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). The herding communities only became aware of the problem in 2011 when walls started to be built around the demarcated lands and they found themselves losing access to their grazing grounds. Before 2011, there were three lakh livestock in the 60 villages in the region. But once they started losing access to the grasslands, most of the herders were forced to sell their cattle as they were no longer able to feed them. The work undertaken by these organisations is also affecting the quality of life in the villages. A private solar company, which has been allocated 1,200 acres of land, has destroyed hundreds of check dams built inside the grasslands. This has dried up lakes. As a result, the population is now dependent on groundwater, which is allegedly contaminated with fluoride. The administration had subverted crucial laws, such as the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to legitimise the diversion. The Act determines how many acres of grasslands are needed for certain breeds of cattle. The cattle census was also reportedly fudged. The number of cattle on paper was barely 10 per cent of the actual number, and it was demonstrated that the grasslands were in surplus, Leo Saldanha of the Bengalurubased Environment Support Group (ESG), which has been fighting for the protection of the commons, told LCW. When the village residents approached the Karnataka high court in 2011, their case was dismissed, and they were penalised a fine of INR 70,000. Their appeal was subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court too. When Saldanha approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the latter said the various ventures could go ahead, subject to stringent environmental clearances, considering there were plans by BARC to enrich uranium. The organisations had to comply with twostage clearances receive consent for establishing their industry as well as consent for conducting their operations. In February 2014, the NGT stayed all activity until the clearances were produced. While the parties maintained that they had the necessary clearance certificates, they refused to release them citing the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Petitioners like ESG then moved the Central Information Commission (CIC). In a landmark directive, the CIC noted that when it comes to the matter of lives and the environment, defence cannot be used as an excuse to deny information. Despite this, there continued to be resistance. "BARC gave us a twopage clearance copy with most of the information redacted," Saldanha said. With further appeals, the ESG could finally gain access to all the clearances almost 3,500 pages of documents. Another public interest litigation was filed challenging the diversion of 61 acres for the construction of canals under the Upper Bhadra project. The petitioner contended that the Amrit Mahal Kaval grassland is part of the conservation reserve notified under Section 36A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and cannot be allotted to Visvesvaraya Jala Nigam Limited for its project. In July 2020, the Karnataka high court ordered issue of notice. The case is ongoing.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Opposition against environmental degradation

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban and Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-Forest, Non-Forest (Grazing Land)

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Other, Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Section 2 [Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forestland for non-forest purpose by the Union government]
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963
Section 2(2) [Definition of district forest to include all land at disposal of government, except those assigned a public purpose, assigned as reserved/village forest or as free grazing ground]; Section 33 [Empowerment of state government to make rules to regulate the use of forest produce or of land at disposal of government]; Section 36(i) [Definition of forest, including any land containing trees and shrubs, pasture lands and any land notified by state government]
Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969
Rule 2(2) [Provision that ‘forest area’ includes all land notified as forest by state government]; Rule 33 [Recognition of Amrit Mahal Kaval by the state as statutory forest]
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
Section 71 [Assignment of special purpose of government-owned land by deputy commissioner]; Section 72 [Right of grazing on free pasture lands to be restricted to cattle of villages to which specific lands have been assigned by the state]
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966
Rule 97 [Provision laying out permissible specific use of non-agricultural land, such that permission for diversion of such land must be granted by state government]
Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962
Section 18 [Empowerment of Karnataka Housing Board to acquire property and carry out construction on such land]
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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:

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Yes

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

High Court of Karnataka

Case Number

W.P. Nos. 26144-26146/2012; O.A. 6/2014 (SZ), M.A.No.33 of 2014 (SZ); WP 8745/2020

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Other harassment

Whether criminal law was used against protestors

Reported Details of the Violation:

Shepherds were stopped from accessing the grazing lands citing security concerns; a perimeter along the grassland was built in 2012.

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Nature of Protest

Campaigns (grassroots organisations/press releases/media)

Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials

Objections as part of official procedures

Protests/marches

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

District Administration of Chitradurga

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Defence Research Development Organisation, Indian Institute of Science, Indian Space Research Organisation, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

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:

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch
X

Support our work

Your contribution ensures continuity of this crucial project.

As a member, you will get exclusive access to special reports, policy papers and research projects undertaken by Land Conflict Watch and behind-the-scenes interactions with the writers and researchers about their work.
Contribute Now