Odisha
Balitutha
,
Dhinkia
,
Jagatsinghpur
Published :
Nov 2020
|
Updated :
March 31, 2023
IOCL's Pipeline Project Displaces Thousands in Odisha, Affected Families Demand Compensation, Rehabilitation
Reported by
Shazia Nigar
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
1752
Households affected
8410
People affected
1998
Year started
1354
Land area affected
1752
Households affected
8410
People Affected
1998
Year started
1354
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Petroleum and Gas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Petroleum and Gas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Paradip-Hyderabad Product Pipeline (PHPL), an initiative of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), will bypass Dhinkia and Balitutha villages in Jagatsinghpur district. The 1,212-kilometre pipeline will be spread across Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, of which approximately 330 kilometres will be laid in Odisha.
At the inception of the project in 1998, at least 143 families were displaced from Dhinkia. By 2018, about 1,752 families were displaced from the village as the project expanded. The 143 families have alleged that IOCL has violated the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006, of the Odisha government as the promises of rehabilitation and compensation to the displaced were not kept. They have demanded that at least one member from each of the displaced families should be provided with employment and remuneration for skill development. Additionally, they have reiterated that those who are yet to receive rehabilitation should be attended to immediately and that the rehabilitation facilities should be further developed. According to a news report, a clarification by IOCL in May 2018 says that of the 143 families, 45 families had benefited from employment opportunities and 95 families had received INR 1.18 crore. Authorities have been unable to contact the remaining three families.
Meanwhile, the 1,752 families that were displaced later have alleged increased air and water pollution from the pipeline project. Dhinkia panchayat and neighbouring villages have also been facing acute water crisis which, according to a news report, IOCL tried to abate by providing water tankers. But the local residents say the tankers are inadequate. These families too have demanded employment and opportunities for skill development. According to the same news report, IOCL claims to have provided jobs to 700 of the 1,752 displaced families and skill development trainings to 120 youths.
Sarpanch of Dhinkia panchyat Salila Nayak was quoted in a news report as saying: "The villagers are agitated over the high handedness of IOCL authorities and lack of job opportunities; due to pollution, trees and betel vines are adversely affected”. She added that the panchayat had adopted a resolution to not allow PHPL to lay its pipeline in the village.
In neighbouring Balitutha village, IOCL has acquired approximately 50 acres of farmland. The farmers in the village allege that the land was forcibly acquired and that the compensation offered was inadequate.
Bichitra Sena, a lawyer from Jagatsinghpur representing the displaced families, told LCW: “Local farmers from Balitutha have alleged that IOCL, with the support of the police, forcibly acquired their land in 2018 and provided inadequate compensation. They had demanded INR 30,000 per decimal of land. After negotiations between the Jagatsinghpur district administration and IOCL, the rate of compensation was settled at INR 19,100 per decimal. But defying the agreement, IOCL later attempted to pay only INR 7,600 to the farmers, which they refused. The oil corporation then agreed to pay the originally decided amount of INR 19,100 per decimal. The residents of both Dhinkia and Balitutha have, however, insisted that they will only accept INR 30,000 per decimal of land as compensation.”
In June 2020, police arrested 22 farmers who were protesting in Balitutha against forcible land acquisition and inadequate compensation.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

23 including two women

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Nil

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.

Case-1 (114/2020) - [341, 342, 323, 353, 294, 506, 186, 120B, 35 of IPC & 15 of P&MP Act] Case-2 (129/2020) - [143, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323, 353, 427, 506 of IPC, 51(b) of DM Act, 03 ED Act, 03 of PDPP Act] Case-3 (130/2020) - [143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323 353, 307, 332, 324, 354-A, 354-B, 506 of IPC, 51(b) of DM Act, 03 of PDPP Act, 15 of P&MP Act, 03 of ED Ordinance 2020 ]

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

_Not granted by the Session’s Court despite revoking the section 307 of IPC for which High Court gave the bail after 43 days. Quantum of bail was Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) per person. _

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

No Also attaching a factsheet here

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Manas Kar : Activist and Protester Contact details : 9778777575

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2021

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

890

Type of investment:

Investment Expected

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (RDC), Central Range, Cuttack

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Yes

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

The office of Ajit Kumar, head of IOCL's Corporate Office, New Delhi, forwarded LCW's call to the reception, but no one answered despite several tries. There was no response on the toll free number either.

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Yes

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

23 including two women

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Out on bail

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Nil

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.

Case-1 (114/2020) - [341, 342, 323, 353, 294, 506, 186, 120B, 35 of IPC & 15 of P&MP Act] Case-2 (129/2020) - [143, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323, 353, 427, 506 of IPC, 51(b) of DM Act, 03 ED Act, 03 of PDPP Act] Case-3 (130/2020) - [143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 269, 270, 294, 323 353, 307, 332, 324, 354-A, 354-B, 506 of IPC, 51(b) of DM Act, 03 of PDPP Act, 15 of P&MP Act, 03 of ED Ordinance 2020 ]

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

_Not granted by the Session’s Court despite revoking the section 307 of IPC for which High Court gave the bail after 43 days. Quantum of bail was Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) per person. _

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

No Also attaching a factsheet here

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Shazia Nigar
Show more work
Latest updates
East Jaintia Hills
Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela
Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja
Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan
Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai
Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune
Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat
Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand for more compensation than promised

Opposition against environmental degradation

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

_Not granted by the Session’s Court despite revoking the section 307 of IPC for which High Court gave the bail after 43 days. Quantum of bail was Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) per person. _

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

No Also attaching a factsheet here

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

2021

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Yes

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us