Reported by
Legal Data by
Edited by
Updated by
Published on
January 28, 2017
March 24, 2023
Edited on
January 28, 2017
For the tribesmen of Attappady in Kerala’s Palakkad district, 31 wind turbines symbolise exploitation. Attappady is home to 6,000 tribal families in 180 hamlets scattered over 745 sq km in three panchayats. In 2007, Pune-based Sarjan Realities started taking on lease Adivasi land located in the Nilgiris Biosphere Reserve. The firm set up 31 windmills on 623 acres for the multinational company, Suzlon Energy Ltd. The turbines have a combined capacity of 20MW. The windmills were sanctioned by the Agency for Non-conventional Energy and Rural Technology (see image of report by Tehelka)
When inaugurated in 2007, Suzlon Energy announced that power generated would cater to Attappady’s requirement, and the rest would be transmitted to the other parts of Palakkad. Incidentally, Kerala’s Tribal Land Act, 1975, mandates that tribal land can only be sold to other tribals, that too under unavoidable circumstances (see the attached report by Tehelka). The Supreme Court had asked the government to cancel all transactions after 1986, but the order was circumvented by forcing tribal families to part with their land.
On August 8, 2010, the then district collector K. V. Mohan sought the details of all land deals in Attappady since January 2006. Earlier, the collector had recommended the government to conduct a detailed inquiry into the land deals by Sarjan Realities .In a May 17, 2010 report, Attappady's Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP) officer stated that Suzlon was buying and encroaching upon tribal land to lay roads. The officer also mentioned that more than 60 hectares, where the company has put up windmills, belonged to 36 tribals who were paying tax for the land. While Sarjan Realities claimed that the 261 ha land was bought from non-tribals, the report claim that it was tribal land. The tribals were misled into believing that they were giving their land on lease. Some of them got Rs 12,000 for land. They thought the land would be utilised for widening the panchayat roads, the report said.
In December 2011, the Kerala High Court ordered a status quo on the government decision to takeover about 85.21 acres of tribal land occupied by Suzlon. Earlier in 2011, the Oommen Chandy-led government had promised to give a portion of Suzlon’s profit to the tribal families on whose land it had set up windmills. But the plan was changed after criticism and the project was shelved. When asked about the decision, M. Sukumaran of Attappady Samrakshana Samithi (Attappady Protection Council) said if implemented, it would amount to agreeing that the land was legally taken over.
According to an agreement between the state government and National Hydro Power Corporation in 2014, it was proposed 82 MW of wind power would be generated in Attappady in various stages. The council demands the land to be returned where the windmills are installed. Sukumaran said each of these windmills stand on one acre and 20 cents of land, taken over using fake documents.
The farms have been sealed and the towers were ordered to be removed amid controversy in 2015. However, the village panchayat had approached the Kerala High Court to demand directive against the companies which refuse to evacuate the land. The tribal families, meanwhile, are not sure if they would benefit from the project. The Adivasi protection council, too, is confused and has hit a dead-end. The members feel that they will not be provided with relief by the government.
Demand for legal recognition of land rights
Dispossession of land through fraud
Rural
Common and Private
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
Project completed
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Residential area
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?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Legislations/Policies Involved
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Non-implementation of land reform laws
Scheduled Tribe status or lack of status
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)
Kerala High Court
Case Number
W.P(C).No.34006 of 2010
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
Development of a network or collective
Protests/marches
Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Kerala State Electricity Board, Kerala Forest Department
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:
Suzlon Energy, Poppy Umbrella Mart, Anna Aluminium, Bhima Jewellery
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Adivasis
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?
Image Credit:
Image Credit:
© 2023 Nut Graph LLP
All Rights Reserved.
