Rajasthan
,
Rewari
,
Jaisalmer
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Rajasthan's Rewari village opposes land transfer to Adani Group for solar project
Reported by
Sukriti Vats
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
251
Households affected
1208
People Affected
2021
Year started
834
Land area affected
251
Households affected
1208
People Affected
2021
Year started
834
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Power
Reason/Cause of conflict
Renewable Power
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

Rewari villagers in Rajasthan's Jaisalmer have been protesting against the state government's move to transfer land to the Adani Group for setting up a 450MW solar power plant.

The government has allotted 834 hectares of land to SBE Renewables Ten Project Pvt. Ltd, a subsidiary of the Adani Group, for the construction of a solar power plant. This is a part of Adani Group's hybrid solar and wind power plant to generate renewable energy. The cost of the project, acquired via the bidding process, is not available in the public domain.

During the protests, villagers stated that the SBE International did not give jobs to locals as promised under the project even as they lost all forms of livelihood, forcing them to travel to the district headquarters for labourer jobs. Several of them were also detained during the protest held on May 8, 2022.

Villagers claimed that SBE Renewables began taking over the government land in the village in 2021 after a meeting was held by the officials with the residents to inform them of the benefits. However, the villagers quickly realised that the benefits were promised in exchange for the land they had been using for several generations. 

The land was documented in the revenue records as a "banjar" (unoccupied and uncultivable) land, but villagers used it for cultivation and grazing their cattle. In exchange, they annually paid a trespassing (TP) fine to the revenue authorities.

Villagers said that the land allotted to the company had ponds and catchment areas that were used by the farmers and cattle alike. They also used the land to access different parts of the village. However, since all of this land was not legally recorded in any other category (grazing, ponds, sacred land), it was allotted to the company on a lease of 30 years.

While a court case was filed against the company terming the allotment as 'illegal,' since on paper everything was done legally, the judge decided against the villagers. The judge also invoked the Special Reliefs Act stating that no injunction could be passed against this infrastructure project, which would be of "great important to mother earth and entire humanity."

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for better access to common land/resources

Demand for employment

Demand to cancel the project

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Grazing Land), Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

Released from detention

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?

No, they were not produced before a magistrate at all

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

They were released within 24 hours

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)

Lawyer - Moti Singh (9828085442) Villager Mohabata Ram claimed that he was taken to jail after the protest but released the next day.

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Grazing, Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Not Available

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

Author
Reported by
Sukriti Vats

Rajasthan

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 better access to common land/resources

Demand for employment

Demand to cancel the project

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Rajasthan's Rewari village opposes land transfer to Adani Group for solar project

Reported by

Sukriti Vats

Legal Review by

Anmol Gupta

Edited by

Anupa Sagar Kujur

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

November 29, 2023

November 30, 2023

Edited on

November 29, 2023

Sector

Power

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Renewable Power

Starting Year

2021

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

834

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

251

People Affected by Conflict

1208

State

Rajasthan

Sector

Power

People Affected by Conflict

1208

Households Affected by Conflict

251

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

834

ha

Starting Year

2021

Location of Conflict

Rewari

Jaisalmer

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Renewable Power

Land Conflict Summary

Rewari villagers in Rajasthan's Jaisalmer have been protesting against the state government's move to transfer land to the Adani Group for setting up a 450MW solar power plant.

The government has allotted 834 hectares of land to SBE Renewables Ten Project Pvt. Ltd, a subsidiary of the Adani Group, for the construction of a solar power plant. This is a part of Adani Group's hybrid solar and wind power plant to generate renewable energy. The cost of the project, acquired via the bidding process, is not available in the public domain.

During the protests, villagers stated that the SBE International did not give jobs to locals as promised under the project even as they lost all forms of livelihood, forcing them to travel to the district headquarters for labourer jobs. Several of them were also detained during the protest held on May 8, 2022.

Villagers claimed that SBE Renewables began taking over the government land in the village in 2021 after a meeting was held by the officials with the residents to inform them of the benefits. However, the villagers quickly realised that the benefits were promised in exchange for the land they had been using for several generations. 

The land was documented in the revenue records as a "banjar" (unoccupied and uncultivable) land, but villagers used it for cultivation and grazing their cattle. In exchange, they annually paid a trespassing (TP) fine to the revenue authorities.

Villagers said that the land allotted to the company had ponds and catchment areas that were used by the farmers and cattle alike. They also used the land to access different parts of the village. However, since all of this land was not legally recorded in any other category (grazing, ponds, sacred land), it was allotted to the company on a lease of 30 years.

While a court case was filed against the company terming the allotment as 'illegal,' since on paper everything was done legally, the judge decided against the villagers. The judge also invoked the Special Reliefs Act stating that no injunction could be passed against this infrastructure project, which would be of "great important to mother earth and entire humanity."

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for better access to common land/resources

Demand for employment

Demand to cancel the project

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Non-Forest (Grazing Land), Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

Released from detention

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

No

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?

No, they were not produced before a magistrate at all

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

They were released within 24 hours

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)

Lawyer - Moti Singh (9828085442) Villager Mohabata Ram claimed that he was taken to jail after the protest but released the next day.

Status of Project

Project underway despite protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Grazing, Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Not Available

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956
Section 116 [When local areas which have no lawful owner is being enjoyed by the adjoining villages for pastural or other agricultural purposes, the land records officer may assign such village the land for such purpose.]
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Setting up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy Sources) Rules, 2007
Rule 5 [Land situated in any catchment area of tanks, rivers, nala or nadis (water bodies) to not be allotted for projects under these rules] Rule 12A [Land can be allotted to RREC or RSPDCL on lease hold basis for a period of 99 years. Subleases by RREC or RSPDCL cannot exceed a period of 30 years.]
Rajasthan Solar Energy Policy, 2019
Rule 20 [Sub-divisional Officer may allot land to trespassers instead of ejecting them, given that certain criteria such as maximum land area are not exceeded.]
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners' Estates Act, 1963
Rule 20 [Sub-divisional Officer may allot land to trespassers instead of ejecting them, given that certain criteria such as maximum land area are not exceeded.]
  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

No

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-consultation with stakeholders

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

No

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8472/2021

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

A writ petition was filed in the High Court against the land allotment of the project in 2021. On March 31, 2022, the High Court disposed of the case. The High Court accepted the state government’s arguments that none of the allotted land included restricted categories, such as Oran, canals, and other water bodies. The land was stated to be classified as ‘banjar/barani’. The Court rejected the precedent used in Kalyan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, where allotment of land was cancelled due to public utility land being allotted. The Court stated that in this case, no part of the allotted land is covered by public utilities or restricted lands. The High Court also stated that the petitioners were trying to abuse the judicial process by filing the writ as a PIL writ. The Court went on to emphasise the importance of renewable energy sources for the state. Further, the court cited Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which states that injunctions should not be passed against certain infrastructure projects as it could cause a delay in the completion of said project. The Court re-iterated this provision saying “granting any injunction against the infrastructural project of great importance to the mother earth and the entire humanity”.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Reported Details of the Violation:

During a protest on May 8, 2023, some farmers were detained by the police. They were released within 24 hours of detention.

Date of Violation

August 4, 2022

Location of Violation

Rewadi

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Fatehgarh Tehsildar, District Collector, Rajasthan Revenue and Energy Department

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:

Adani Group subsidiary - SBE Renewables Ten Project Pvt. Ltd.

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Yes

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Villagers and Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha of Riwadi

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

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

Released from detention

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?

No, they were not produced before a magistrate at all

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

They were released within 24 hours

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

A board showing Riwadi village’s common cow shelter

Image Credit:  

Sukriti Vats

A wall showing advertising the development work done by Adani Group in Riwadi village

Image Credit:  

Sukriti Vats

Video

Inshorts video

Other Land Conflicts in Rajasthan

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