Jharkhand
Siyaljori, Budhibinor, Alkusa, Dhandabar, Bandhdih and Hutu Pathar villages
,
Bhagaband
,
Bokaro
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Vedanta Faces Hurdle in Environmental Clearance for Controversial Steel Plant in Jharkhand
Reported by
Sushmita
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
1500
People Affected
2008
Year started
890
Land area affected
Households affected
1500
People Affected
2008
Year started
890
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Industry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Steel Plant
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In 2008, Electrosteel Steels Limited (ESL) constructed a steel plant in Bokaro after receiving an environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The forest department claimed the construction was an encroachment of forestland in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

ESL reportedly deceived thousands of marginal farmers by misinforming them about the purpose of acquisition and not taking their consent. It was reported that the company’s middlemen purchased land at INR 70,000-80,000 per acre, which was one-tenth of the government’s stipulated industry price at that time. As compensation, the farmers demanded jobs at the plant, but ESL employed only a few of them. When the farmers protested, the company, in collusion with local officials, pressed false charges against hundreds of them.

Between March 2009 and March 2016, the forest department filed 53 cases against the company on this issue. A Supreme Court-appointed centrally empowered committee took stock of the situation and asked Jharkhand’s chief secretary on July 15, 2010, to act immediately, but no action was taken.

In October 2014, over 500 local residents, including farmers, gheraoed the steel plant and demanded employment for those who were displaced by the plant. They alleged that the company had agreed to hire about 2,000 land losers as contractual labourers but failed to keep its end of the bargain. Another report mentioned other challenges that the steel plant would pose, including loss of livelihood, displacement, groundwater pollution and crop damage, among others.

According to a May 2017 site inspection report, ESL had sought environmental clearance (EC) in 2006-2007 for a site in Parbatpur; however, the report found that the actual site was located in Bhagaband, five kilometers away from the proposed area, implying that ESL had made misrepresentations to obtain the clearance.

In 2018, Vedanta took over ESL and announced that there would be a new plant in the same location. The estimated investment was approximately US $3-4 billion for a capacity of 4.5 million tonnes annually.

Following the acquisition, ESL applied for fresh forest and environmental clearances. In a meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) -- responsible for granting EC to development projects -- it was confirmed that ESL had violated provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The EAC recommended issuing standard Terms of Reference to the project and directed the state government and the State Pollution Control Board to take action against the project proponent under the provisions of Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The committee also ordered that ESL should not be granted consent to operate till the project is given an EC.

In December 2019, the MoEFCC “regularised” the encroachment and gave in-principle forest clearance to 174 hectares of forestland that was reportedly encroached by ESL.

A public hearing for the project was organised in December 2020 in the presence of villagers residing close to the steel plant. While the CEO of Chas Municipal Corporation, who chaired the hearing, maintained that the hearing was successful and villagers had given their consent to the plant, people protested outside the plant premises, alleging that the hearing was conducted without informing the public at large.  

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Demand for promised compensation

Demand for employment

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Both

Forest, 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

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

2974

Type of investment:

Revised 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
Sushmita

Jharkhand

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
Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh

Hydroelectric projects on Subansiri river continue despite public outcry, disasters, and persistent floods

Gujarat
Gujarat

Farmers divided over Mandal-Becharaji Special Investment region in Gujarat

Gujarat
Gujarat

Farmers protest against GIDC in Gujarat, demand promised jobs, compensation

Goa
Goa

Proposed construction in Goa village blocks residents' access to agricultural fields, river

Assam
Assam

Violence erupts in Dhemaji amid ongoing Assam-Arunachal border dispute

Odisha
Odisha

Odisha's Dungripali village protests Aditya Birla solar power project

Assam
Assam

Illegal coal mining continues to thrive in Assam's Tinsukia

Assam
Assam

5 Cops Killed, 60 Civilians Injured in Firing between Assam, Mizoram Police

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Demand for promised compensation

Demand for employment

Vedanta Faces Hurdle in Environmental Clearance for Controversial Steel Plant in Jharkhand

Reported by

Sushmita

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

March 8, 2021

August 8, 2024

Edited on

March 8, 2021

Sector

Industry

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Steel Plant

Starting Year

2008

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

890

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

1500

State

Jharkhand

Sector

Industry

People Affected by Conflict

1500

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

890

ha

Starting Year

2008

Location of Conflict

Bhagaband

Siyaljori, Budhibinor, Alkusa, Dhandabar, Bandhdih and Hutu Pathar villages

Bokaro

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Steel Plant

Land Conflict Summary

In 2008, Electrosteel Steels Limited (ESL) constructed a steel plant in Bokaro after receiving an environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The forest department claimed the construction was an encroachment of forestland in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

ESL reportedly deceived thousands of marginal farmers by misinforming them about the purpose of acquisition and not taking their consent. It was reported that the company’s middlemen purchased land at INR 70,000-80,000 per acre, which was one-tenth of the government’s stipulated industry price at that time. As compensation, the farmers demanded jobs at the plant, but ESL employed only a few of them. When the farmers protested, the company, in collusion with local officials, pressed false charges against hundreds of them.

Between March 2009 and March 2016, the forest department filed 53 cases against the company on this issue. A Supreme Court-appointed centrally empowered committee took stock of the situation and asked Jharkhand’s chief secretary on July 15, 2010, to act immediately, but no action was taken.

In October 2014, over 500 local residents, including farmers, gheraoed the steel plant and demanded employment for those who were displaced by the plant. They alleged that the company had agreed to hire about 2,000 land losers as contractual labourers but failed to keep its end of the bargain. Another report mentioned other challenges that the steel plant would pose, including loss of livelihood, displacement, groundwater pollution and crop damage, among others.

According to a May 2017 site inspection report, ESL had sought environmental clearance (EC) in 2006-2007 for a site in Parbatpur; however, the report found that the actual site was located in Bhagaband, five kilometers away from the proposed area, implying that ESL had made misrepresentations to obtain the clearance.

In 2018, Vedanta took over ESL and announced that there would be a new plant in the same location. The estimated investment was approximately US $3-4 billion for a capacity of 4.5 million tonnes annually.

Following the acquisition, ESL applied for fresh forest and environmental clearances. In a meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) -- responsible for granting EC to development projects -- it was confirmed that ESL had violated provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The EAC recommended issuing standard Terms of Reference to the project and directed the state government and the State Pollution Control Board to take action against the project proponent under the provisions of Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The committee also ordered that ESL should not be granted consent to operate till the project is given an EC.

In December 2019, the MoEFCC “regularised” the encroachment and gave in-principle forest clearance to 174 hectares of forestland that was reportedly encroached by ESL.

A public hearing for the project was organised in December 2020 in the presence of villagers residing close to the steel plant. While the CEO of Chas Municipal Corporation, who chaired the hearing, maintained that the hearing was successful and villagers had given their consent to the plant, people protested outside the plant premises, alleging that the hearing was conducted without informing the public at large.  

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Demand for promised compensation

Demand for employment

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Both

Type of Common Land

Forest, 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

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

2974

Type of investment:

Revised 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

Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Environmental Laws, Land Acquisition Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 25 [Compensation award by District Collector must be made within 12 months from the date of publication of declaration]; Section 26 [This section lays down the criteria for assessment and determination of market value of land by District Collector]; Section 27 [This section determines the amount of compensation]; Section 28 [This section lays down parameters to be considered by District Collector to determine the compensation]; Section 31(1) [This section mentions the rehabilitation and resettlement award for affected families by District Collector]; Second Schedule Point 4 [Farmers have claimed that they have not been given the jobs they were promised under this section]
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Section 3(2)(iv) [This section empowers the Union government to take any measures necessary for protecting the environment. It is under this section that it can lay down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources]; Section 5 [Power to give directions for closure of industry]; Section 19 [Cognizance of any offence]; Paragraph 7 of the EIA Notification [This lists the stages in the prior environmental clearance process for new projects]
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Section 2 [Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forestland for non-forest purpose]
  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-implementation/violation of FRA

Violation of free prior informed consent

Non-implementation/violation of LARR Act

Incorrect estimation of compensation

Violation of environmental laws

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)

High Court of Jharkhand

Case Number

W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018 With I.A. No. 4608 of 2020

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Displacement

Judicial harassment

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Reported Details of the Violation:

Police arrested 250 protesting farmers and an MLA for 12 hours. Also, when the farmers protested, the company, in collusion with local officials, pressed false charges against hundreds of them.

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Bokaro, Jharkhand

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

Protests/marches

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

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:

Electrosteel Steels Limited, Vedanta Group

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Protests/marches

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 Jharkhand

cross
    Not a member yet?
    Sign up now