Himachal Pradesh
,
Charan Khad slum
,
Kangra
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
1,500 Slum-dwellers Left Homeless After Eviction in Dharamshala, Their Demand of Rehabilitation Not Met
Reported by
Lokendra
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
1500
People Affected
2016
Year started
Land area affected
Households affected
1500
People Affected
2016
Year started
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Smart City
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

Dharamsala city in Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh is known as a place of refuge; many including Tibetans who fled China took shelter. But on June 17, 2016, the Municipal Corporation of Dharamshala (MCD) and the district administration turned their back on the city's poor and rendered about 1500 residents homeless by demolishing their shanties in Charan Khad. MCD cited the reasons for open-defecation and sanitation concerns to back the demolition drive. However, it did not provide the evicted with any rehabilitation. 
The slum dwellers are mostly migrant workers; many of them are Scheduled Caste people of Rajasthan and Maharashtra and had been residing in the slum cluster for over 30 years. As most of them work as daily wage labourers at construction sites, rag pickers and street-side vendors, they have nowhere to go. The eviction was described as "inhumanely" by a fact-finding report. 
In March 2016, the MCD started planning the demolition. It showed the slum dwellers relocation sites in villages Gamru, Passu and Sarra. The displaced people allege these villages have no amenities like housing, sanitation or water. They also said that the residents of these villages opposed the rehabilitation and that they were kicked out. 
However, MCD made no effort to sort out the rehabilitation problem and went ahead with the demolition on June 16 and 17, after serving a 10-day notice. 
The families were left on the streets to fend for themselves in the monsoon season. Close to 115 children from the slum, studying at government schools nearby, were adversely affected by the displacement. Activists allege police intimidated the displaced slum dwellers and those attempting to talk to them or provide support. 
Some news reports suggest that evictions were carried out after Dharamshala was short-listed as a smart city in 2016.
On June 25, 2016, the slum dwellers marched raising slogans like ‘_garibo ko ujadna bandh karo_’ and ‘_Charan Khad visthapiton ka punarwas karo_’ demanding rehabilitation. In the same month, one of the residents filed a petition in the High Court challenging the eviction. However, the court dismissed the petition
By September 2016, several families built temporary shelter in the city outskirts and applied for affordable houses, provided under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY).
Even after four years, the evictees are still awaiting rehabilitation, according to a press note in June 2020. The Charan Khad Basti Punarwas Samiti has been appealing to the authorities. They also submitted a memorandum to the District Collector of Kangra demanding relocation close to the city citing the difficulties in accessing livelihood opportunities and the additional financial burden.
The National Human Rights Commission has issued multiple notices to MCD and the state government. In the same press note, Sumit Mahar of Kangra Citizens Rights Group questioned why the Himachal government was treating the migrant workers, who have been providing services to the city for decades, as “second class citizens”? He also stated that “during the Covid crisis and lockdown the government issued several statements asking migrant workers to stay back, continue contributing to the state’s economy and that they would be taken care of by the government”.  
According to a 2020 news report, many of the evicted families have shifted to a temporary settlement in Chetru village, located on the flood plains of the Manjhi stream. This had made the affected vulnerable to flood damages every monsoon season. Meanwhile, the same report also stated that none of the families was granted housing under PMAY yet. 
Now, the restrictions due to the pandemic has hindered the advocacy activities to demand rehabilitation, Sumit Mahar told the Land Conflict Watch. 

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

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?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

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

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

June, 2016

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

Court did not grant interim relief and dismissed the application on the grounds that the petitioners have no right on the land over which they are squatting and, therefore, their status is that of the encroachers that too over the government land. A learned Division Bench of this Court in CWPIL No.17 of 2014 has directed the removal of all unauthorized occupants/encroachers over the government land. Furthermore, Court also observed that Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala, has recorded a positive finding that it is the petitioners, who have been responsible for the contamination of water which led to out-break of jaundice.

Author
Reported by
Lokendra

Himachal Pradesh

Kumar Sambhav is a social entrepreneur and award-winning journalist, leading innovative research in accountability investigations. He is the founder of Land Conflict Watch and is currently working as India Research Lead with Princeton University’s Digital Witness Lab.

Read More

Latest updates
Rajasthan
Rajasthan

UIT Bikaner's Jorbeer Housing Project on Stalls Following Rajasthan High Court Order

Rajasthan
Rajasthan

Jaipur Development Authority Acquires Land for Township Project, Ending Conflict

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Farmers land acquired under Mansarovar Housing Scheme in Lucknow

Maharashtra
Maharashtra

Citizens unite against cycle track around Powai, Vihar Lakes in Mumbai

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Families displaced by Mandal Dam in Jharkhand opppose project resumption

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Jharkhand approves Adani's thermal plant, farmers allege violation of LARR Act

Gujarat
Gujarat

Pastoral Community in Gujarat's Banni Grasslands Demands Titles Recognising Community Forest Rights

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Builder Encroaches Upon Farmers Land in Gosaiganj Lucknow, 150 Allottees in Lurch

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

1,500 Slum-dwellers Left Homeless After Eviction in Dharamshala, Their Demand of Rehabilitation Not Met

Reported by

Lokendra

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

August 31, 2016

July 30, 2024

Edited on

August 31, 2016

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Smart City

Starting Year

2016

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

1500

State

Himachal Pradesh

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

1500

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

ha

Starting Year

2016

Location of Conflict

Charan Khad slum

Kangra

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Smart City

Land Conflict Summary

Dharamsala city in Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh is known as a place of refuge; many including Tibetans who fled China took shelter. But on June 17, 2016, the Municipal Corporation of Dharamshala (MCD) and the district administration turned their back on the city's poor and rendered about 1500 residents homeless by demolishing their shanties in Charan Khad. MCD cited the reasons for open-defecation and sanitation concerns to back the demolition drive. However, it did not provide the evicted with any rehabilitation. 
The slum dwellers are mostly migrant workers; many of them are Scheduled Caste people of Rajasthan and Maharashtra and had been residing in the slum cluster for over 30 years. As most of them work as daily wage labourers at construction sites, rag pickers and street-side vendors, they have nowhere to go. The eviction was described as "inhumanely" by a fact-finding report. 
In March 2016, the MCD started planning the demolition. It showed the slum dwellers relocation sites in villages Gamru, Passu and Sarra. The displaced people allege these villages have no amenities like housing, sanitation or water. They also said that the residents of these villages opposed the rehabilitation and that they were kicked out. 
However, MCD made no effort to sort out the rehabilitation problem and went ahead with the demolition on June 16 and 17, after serving a 10-day notice. 
The families were left on the streets to fend for themselves in the monsoon season. Close to 115 children from the slum, studying at government schools nearby, were adversely affected by the displacement. Activists allege police intimidated the displaced slum dwellers and those attempting to talk to them or provide support. 
Some news reports suggest that evictions were carried out after Dharamshala was short-listed as a smart city in 2016.
On June 25, 2016, the slum dwellers marched raising slogans like ‘_garibo ko ujadna bandh karo_’ and ‘_Charan Khad visthapiton ka punarwas karo_’ demanding rehabilitation. In the same month, one of the residents filed a petition in the High Court challenging the eviction. However, the court dismissed the petition
By September 2016, several families built temporary shelter in the city outskirts and applied for affordable houses, provided under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY).
Even after four years, the evictees are still awaiting rehabilitation, according to a press note in June 2020. The Charan Khad Basti Punarwas Samiti has been appealing to the authorities. They also submitted a memorandum to the District Collector of Kangra demanding relocation close to the city citing the difficulties in accessing livelihood opportunities and the additional financial burden.
The National Human Rights Commission has issued multiple notices to MCD and the state government. In the same press note, Sumit Mahar of Kangra Citizens Rights Group questioned why the Himachal government was treating the migrant workers, who have been providing services to the city for decades, as “second class citizens”? He also stated that “during the Covid crisis and lockdown the government issued several statements asking migrant workers to stay back, continue contributing to the state’s economy and that they would be taken care of by the government”.  
According to a 2020 news report, many of the evicted families have shifted to a temporary settlement in Chetru village, located on the flood plains of the Manjhi stream. This had made the affected vulnerable to flood damages every monsoon season. Meanwhile, the same report also stated that none of the families was granted housing under PMAY yet. 
Now, the restrictions due to the pandemic has hindered the advocacy activities to demand rehabilitation, Sumit Mahar told the Land Conflict Watch. 

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

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?

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?

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

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

June, 2016

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

Court did not grant interim relief and dismissed the application on the grounds that the petitioners have no right on the land over which they are squatting and, therefore, their status is that of the encroachers that too over the government land. A learned Division Bench of this Court in CWPIL No.17 of 2014 has directed the removal of all unauthorized occupants/encroachers over the government land. Furthermore, Court also observed that Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala, has recorded a positive finding that it is the petitioners, who have been responsible for the contamination of water which led to out-break of jaundice.

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Constitutional Law, Other

Legislations/Policies Involved

Constitution of India, 1950
Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983
Section 30 (The revenue officers are liable to detect all encroachments on Govt. 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

Yes

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

The petitioners contended that right to shelter is considered to be a fundamental right and, therefore, petitioners should not be evicted till alternate accommodation that too at the expense of the State.

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

The petitioners contended that right to shelter is considered to be a fundamental right and, therefore, petitioners should not be evicted till alternate accommodation that too at the expense of the State.

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Non-rehabilitation of displaced people

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Case Number

CWP No. 1500 of 2016, CWPIL No.17 of 2014

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

High Court held that "Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners stand evicted, the writ petition has become infructuous. Dismissed as such. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent authority for the redressal of their grievances." It also observed that the petitioners have no right on the land over which they are squatting and, therefore, their status is that of the encroachers that too over the government land. A learned Division Bench of this Court in CWPIL No.17 of 2014 has directed the removal of all unauthorized occupants/encroachers over the government land. That apart, the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala, has recorded a positive finding that it is the petitioners, who have been responsible for the contamination of water which led to out-break of jaundice.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Torching of houses

Reported Details of the Violation:

The eviction was process was disorganised and traumatising for the community. A video clip (taken on 20 June) shows shacks being dismantled and torn tarpaulins and plastic sheets being collected and piled up by municipal workers while some evicted people continue to try and salvage their belongings.

Date of Violation

June 19, 2016

Location of Violation

Charan Khad, Kangra

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

District Administration of Kangra, Municipal Corporation Dharamshala

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

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:

Local slum dwellers

Information on the use of criminal law

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?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

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

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Other Land Conflicts in Himachal Pradesh

cross
    Not a member yet?
    Sign up now
    Conflicts Map
    Conflict Database
    About Us