Tamil Nadu
,
Thervoy Kandigai
,
Thiruvallur
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Madras High Court Allows Takeover of Land in Thiruvallur for SIPCOT Industrial Park
Reported by
Sundara Babu Nagappan
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
1200
People Affected
2007
Year started
456
Land area affected
Households affected
1200
People Affected
2007
Year started
456
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Special Economic Zones (SEZ)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) has set up an Industrial Park in Thervoy Kandigai village in Tamil Nadu's Thiruvallur district. The State Government had alienated at least 1000 acres of land in the area for the construction of the park. The government through SIPCOT had acquired Community Forest land, documented originally as Meikkal Poromboke land (common grazing land) under Thervoy Kandigai Panchayat, which for several decades has been used by the villagers, especially members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities.
Since the project went public in 2007, the villagers have held several demonstrations, written to several officials, etc. opposing the project as it would destroy their forest lands. A former Panchayat President of Thervoy, Anbhazhgan, echoes the sentiment of the entire village– "Take our houses, not the forest. No one has got the right to destroy the forest."
Thervoy is also reported to be an important catchment area, supplying the water requirements to at least 22 villages around the area. Reports also suggest that almost 1 lakh of the area's population depend on this source for their water needs.
Since then, several villagers spearheading the protests had been slapped with false cases and arrested over the years.
In September 2020, when Land Conflict Watch tried to get in touch with activists involved in the protests, they stated that the protests seem to have died down, since the park has been up and running for several years.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Forest and Non-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

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Water bodies

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

240

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2010

Page Number In Investment Document:

1

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

It is assumed to have ended. Since the park is up and running

Author
Reported by
Sundara Babu Nagappan

Tamil Nadu

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

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Opposition against environmental degradation

Madras High Court Allows Takeover of Land in Thiruvallur for SIPCOT Industrial Park

Reported by

Sundara Babu Nagappan

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

September 27, 2016

July 31, 2024

Edited on

September 27, 2016

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Special Economic Zones (SEZ)

Starting Year

2007

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

456

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

1200

State

Tamil Nadu

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

1200

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

456

ha

Starting Year

2007

Location of Conflict

Thervoy Kandigai

Thiruvallur

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Special Economic Zones (SEZ)

Land Conflict Summary

The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) has set up an Industrial Park in Thervoy Kandigai village in Tamil Nadu's Thiruvallur district. The State Government had alienated at least 1000 acres of land in the area for the construction of the park. The government through SIPCOT had acquired Community Forest land, documented originally as Meikkal Poromboke land (common grazing land) under Thervoy Kandigai Panchayat, which for several decades has been used by the villagers, especially members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities.
Since the project went public in 2007, the villagers have held several demonstrations, written to several officials, etc. opposing the project as it would destroy their forest lands. A former Panchayat President of Thervoy, Anbhazhgan, echoes the sentiment of the entire village– "Take our houses, not the forest. No one has got the right to destroy the forest."
Thervoy is also reported to be an important catchment area, supplying the water requirements to at least 22 villages around the area. Reports also suggest that almost 1 lakh of the area's population depend on this source for their water needs.
Since then, several villagers spearheading the protests had been slapped with false cases and arrested over the years.
In September 2020, when Land Conflict Watch tried to get in touch with activists involved in the protests, they stated that the protests seem to have died down, since the park has been up and running for several years.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-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?

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

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Water bodies

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

240

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2010

Page Number In Investment Document:

1

Has the Conflict Ended?

Yes

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Court decision not in favour of community

It is assumed to have ended. Since the park is up and running

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Constitutional Law, Environmental Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
Section 4 (f) [every Panchayat at the village level shall be required to obtain from the Gram Sabha a certification of utilisation of funds by that Panchayat for the plans, programmes and projects]
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Paragraph 7(III) read with Schedule 7(c) [Public consultation not mandatory for Industrial estates/ parks/ SEZs].
Environment Protection Rules, 1986
Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(v) read with Rule 5(3)(d) [GoI issued notification dated 14.09.2006. As per notification, prior environmental clearance for developing the land for industrial park below 500 hectares is not required if such industrial park is not housing any of the industry categorised as 'A' or 'B' in the notification].
  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:

Controversial land acquisition by the government

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 Madras

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 9319 of 2009

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

High Court of Madras, Writ Petition No. 9319 of 2009, Order dated September 16, 2009: High Court allowed the acquisition, and the project went through. It held that the meikkal poramboke land transfer to SIPCOT was not unreasonable, given the concept of 'sustainable development' as developed by the court. It also held that Forest Conservation Act does not apply here because this land does not belong to the Forest Department. However, it held that before proceeding with further development, SIPCOT has to obtain environmental clearance from the competent authority. However, SIPCOT was entitled to secure the lands by fencing the area. Once the environmental clearance certificate is sought for, most of the points raised would be taken care while processing the application for environmental clearance. In the meanwhile, it held that SIPCOT is at liberty to remove the 'encroachers' in accordance with law, after the transfer.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Reported Details of the Violation:

On 14th February 2010, an agreement of ‘no work’ till 23rd February was negotiated when over 500 women went to the SIPCOT site and asked them to stop work. But on the following day, 8 villagers, including three key activists among them, who have been spearheading the opposition against the land acquisition, were illegally detained and charged with various sections of the IPC and jailed by the Gummidipoondi police.

Date of Violation

February 13, 2010

Location of Violation

Gummidipoondi

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd (SIPCOT)

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:

Michelin Tyre France , Bekaert Belgium

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Thervoy Gramam Munnetra Nala Sangam

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 Tamil Nadu

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