Rajasthan
,
Gamnewala
,
Jaisalmer
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Rehabilitation of Pong Dam Oustees in Rajasthan Pending for Over 50 Years
Reported by
Ashish Gaur
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
7000
People Affected
1972
Year started
50644
Land area affected
Households affected
7000
People Affected
1972
Year started
50644
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Power
Reason/Cause of conflict
Hydroelectric Project
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

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."

2
Fact Sheet

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?

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

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?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Author
Reported by
Ashish Gaur

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 promised land

Demand for rehabilitation

Rehabilitation of Pong Dam Oustees in Rajasthan Pending for Over 50 Years

Reported by

Ashish Gaur

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

October 31, 2017

May 17, 2022

Edited on

October 31, 2017

Sector

Power

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Hydroelectric Project

Non-rehabilitation of displaced persons

Starting Year

1972

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

50644

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

7000

State

Rajasthan

Sector

Power

People Affected by Conflict

7000

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

50644

ha

Starting Year

1972

Location of Conflict

Gamnewala

Jaisalmer

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Hydroelectric Project

Non-rehabilitation of displaced persons

Land Conflict Summary

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."

Fact Sheet

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

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

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?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Other, Land Acquisition Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Rajasthan Canal Colony) Rules, 1972
As per the rules, the government of Rajasthan must reserve land in specific areas of the Rajasthan Canal Colony for allotment to people who were ousted because of the canal project. The rules also provide for the procedure of allotment of the land so reserved, and the terms and conditions of this allotment.
Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954
Section 28: State government has the power to make rules to implement the provisions and purposes of the Act.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4: Publication of preliminary notification; Section 5A: Hearing of objections to the land acquisition notification; Section 6: Declaration that land is required for a public purpose; Section 9: Notice to persons interested; Section 11: Enquiry and award by collected; Section 15 read with Sections 23 and 24: Matters to be considered and neglected while determining the amount of compensation; Section 17(3A)(a): Collector must tender 80% of compensation for land as estimated by him before taking possession of any 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:

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

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

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?

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:

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 Rajasthan

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