Legal Data by
September 18, 2016
September 18, 2016
September 18, 2016
The Maharashtra government had sanctioned the Urmodi Irrigation Dam near Parali village in Satara district. The decision was approved by state government in 1981. For the project, land measuring 1,528 hectares from 23 villages was estimated to be affected. In 1994, the capacity of the dam was increased and nine more villages were included in the affected zone, taking the total number of estimated affected people to 3,898 families. Over the years, the state government has ignored the rehabilitation of the displaced farmers from the 23 villages. A 2013 academic study by Sapkale and Suryavanshi on the displaced people found that athough 70 per cent of the affected households were rehabilitated, their other demands, such as agricultural facilities, were disregarded. Moreover, most of the rehabilitated farmers were given noncultivable and barren land as a replacement to their fertile land. In 2015, the plight of rehabilitation of the displaced families gained limelight when members of Parliament asked the minister of water resources about the assessment of families affected by various irrigation projects in India and the number of people who are yet to be rehabilitated. In response, the minister answered with a spreadsheet of people displaced. Maharashtra topped the list, with 7,13,136 displaced people. In an outrage over this data, the projectaffected people started a protest march in Sangli, Satara and Kolhapur districts in August 2015 and also sent a memorandum to Chief Minister Devendra Fadanvis. The protests were led by the Shramik Mukti Dal, an organisation fighting for the rights of displaced people. In 2016, the state government decided to reconstitute the Maharashtra State Rehabilitation Authority to address the rehabilitation of at least 30 lakh people displaced in the state. In a local report ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha election, it was reported that many people were rehabilitated in Man and Khatav tehsils, which is a famineaffected region. The villagers continue to demand fertile land.
Demand for rehabilitation
Demand for promised land
Total investment involved (in Crores):
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Page Number In Investment Document:
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Land Acquisition Laws, Other
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
Status of Case In Court
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
High Court of Bombay
Civil WP No. 2145/1998; WP No. 5162/2014
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Nature of Protest
Campaigns (grassroots organisations/press releases/media)
Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Satara district administration, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation
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:
Shramik Mukti Dal