Chhattisgarh
,
Tumalpad
,
Sukma
Published :
Aug 2026
|
Updated :
Stone mining, consent, and livelihood: Contestation over BRO road construction in Tumalpad, Sukma
Reported by
Hritik Bhatnagar
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Rakshit Dhingra, Amrita Chekkutty
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
6
Households affected
29
People affected
2026
Year started
0.95
ha.
Land area affected
6
Households affected
29
People Affected
2026
Year started
0.95
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Roads
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

Tumalpad is a village of approximately 40 families in Gram Panchayat Pentachimli, Jagargunda block, Sukma district, Chhattisgarh. The village falls within a Fifth Schedule area, where the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), are applicable. It is also located in an area of Bastar that remained among the most severely Naxal-affected regions until recently. Road construction in the region has been presented by the government as both a development initiative and a counter-insurgency requirement. Under the Border Roads Organisation's Project Hirak, a 51-kilometre road is being constructed between Silger and Elmagunda, along with roads connecting Silger, Puarti, Gomaguda, Metaguda and Bhimapuram-Jabbagatta. To meet the construction-material requirements of these roads, two large crusher plants were established in the forested area of Tumalpad Hill.

Stone is reportedly being extracted from approximately 0.95 hectares of government forest land in Protected Forest Compartment No. 475, Jagargunda forest range, through repeated blasting. The extracted boulders are transported in Hyva trucks to the crusher plants, where they are crushed into gravel for use in road construction. The road construction contract has reportedly been awarded to a company based in Raipur. The name of the company is not disclosed publicly. 

Villagers allege that the extraction and crushing activity began without the statutory permissions required for mining and stone extraction. They specifically claim that there was no environmental clearance, no approval from the Chhattisgarh State Pollution Control Board, and no mining permission from the Mineral Department. The allegation concerning mining permission is supported by a statement from the Mineral Department in-charge officer, Chhabineshwar Maurya, who confirmed that no mining permission had been issued for the area. The villagers have also questioned the lack of intervention from the Forest Department, stating that the blasts have been ongoing for 2 months, with half of the hills having already been quarried. 

The process has also been contested on grounds of Gram Sabha participation and consent. Since Tumalpad is located in a Fifth Schedule area, villagers and local activists argue that the required PESA procedures should have been followed before the land was used for the activity. Villagers state that no valid Gram Sabha meeting was convened to obtain their collective consent.

Former MLA and Adivasi rights activist Manish Kunjam, who visited Tumalpad, alleged that instead of conducting a proper Gram Sabha, a selective process was followed in which a few villagers were approached individually. According to him, this was allegedly done under pressure from the Collector and the Chief Executive Officer (CO), with the signatures of the sarpanch and secretary obtained, while other villagers did not provide written consent.

Villagers further allege that, before the stone extraction began, BRO officials or the contractor made several commitments to the community in exchange for cooperation. These reportedly included Rs 25,000 compensation for each household, construction of a school and angandwadi, installation of a borewell and provision of an auto-rickshaw for community use. 

According to villagers, none of these commitments has been fulfilled. As of the time of reporting, Tumalpad continued to have neither a school nor an anganwadi. Some households reportedly received between ₹21,000 and ₹22,000, rather than the promised ₹25,000. The villagers stated that the money received by certain individuals was collectively pooled and kept for community purposes rather than treated as individual compensation or inducement.

The extraction has also reportedly affected agricultural land and livelihoods. Villagers state that stones are thrown into nearby fields during blasting, while dust generated by the crusher plants settles continuously over surrounding agricultural land. Approximately six families with small agricultural plots close to the extraction site have reportedly been unable to cultivate portions of their fields, impacting the livelihoods of the people. 

Farmers are concerned that continued blasting during the agricultural season could prevent them from cultivating their remaining land altogether. The impact is compounded by the limited documentation available to many households. Forest-land title coverage in the area is described as extremely limited, with only some families having received two to three acres of forest land patta. As a result, villagers whose crops are being damaged say they may have difficulty establishing their claims for compensation because they lack formal land documentation.

In August 2026, Congress workers led hundreds of villagers on a 3-km march to the site on Thursday, alleging that "illegal mining" has eaten away more than half of a government-owned hill. On Thursday, Congress leaders, led by Bijapur MLA Vikram Mandavi, district panchayat president Soyam Mangamma and others, walked with hundreds of villagers to the alleged mining site at Tumalpad in Sukma district. The protestors raised slogans against the excavation and demanded an immediate halt to mining activities.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for compensation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Demand for promised compensation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Forest

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

Agricultural land, Other natural resource collection/dependence, "Access and mobility to land, water and natural resources", Other livelihood purposes, Food and Subsistence

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?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Border Roads Organisation

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:

5
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?

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
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us