Forced Evictions

HOUSING AND LAND RIGHTS NETWORK FORCED EVICTIONS IN INDIA IN 2018 An Unabating National Crisis Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 01 Suggested Citation: Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis, Housing and Land Rights Network, New Delhi, 2019 Report Prepared by: Shivani Chaudhry, Deepak Kumar, Anagha Jaipal, and Aishwarya Ayushmaan [with contributions from Saba Ahmed, Shanta Devi, and Dev Pal] Cover Photograph: Anuradha Report Published by: Housing and Land Rights Network G-18/1 Nizamuddin West Lower Ground Floor New Delhi – 110 013, INDIA +91-11-4054-1680 contact@hlrn.org.in www.hlrn.org.in New Delhi, April 2019 ISBN: 978-8-935672-3-4 This publication is printed on CyclusPrint based on 100% recycled fibres FORCED EVICTIONS IN INDIA IN 2018 An Unabating National Crisis HOUSING AND LAND RIGHTS NETWORK ii Housing and Land Rights Network Acknowledgments Documenting forced evictions in India is a challenging task, especially as there is not much information available in the public domain. The Government of India—at the central and state levels—does not maintain data on evictions and displacement, and media reporting on the issue is limited. Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) thus established the ‘National Eviction and Displacement Observatory’ to document, draw attention to, and monitor forced evictions and displacement across India. We believe that without accurate data on the issue, policy response cannot be framed adequately. In the absence of official data, the Observatory also depends on the inputs of partner organizations working on issues of housing and land rights across India. We are grateful to the following individuals for their contributions to this report and for their time, effort, and willingness to assist us in this ambitious but important endeavour: Miloon Kothari, Vanessa Peter, Beena Jadav, Anuradha, Anand Lakhan, Brijesh Arya, Br Varghese Theckanath, Sanjeev Kumar, Isaac Arul Selva, Ashok Pandey, and Mansoor Khan. We would also like to thank, among others, Ankur Paliwal, Ashfaq Khan, Dhirendra Panda, Ganga Dileep, Gyatso Lepcha, Jessica Mayberry, Jiten Yumnam, Lakhi Das, Lobsang Gyatso, Medha Patkar, Moushumi Sharma, Mrinali Karthick, Nihar Gokhale, Nikhil Gupta, Pragnya Saha, Shweta Damle, and Srinivasu Pragada. Housing and Land Rights Network would like to acknowledge the following organizations for their assistance with data collection and verification: • Adarsh Seva Sansthan • Affected Citizens of Teesta • Association of Urban and Tribal Development • Beghar Adhikar Abhiyan • Campaign for Housing and Tenurial Rights (CHATRI) • Centre for Research and Advocacy • Centre for the Sustainable Use of Natural and Social Resources • Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan (GBGBA) • Habitat and Livelihood Welfare Association • Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities (IRCDUC) • Land Conflict Watch • Madhya Pradesh Nav Nirman Manch (MPNNM) • Montfort Social Institute • Nagrik Sangharsh Morcha • Narmada Bachao Andolan • NIDAN • Paryavaran Mitra • Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis iii • Pehchaan • Prakriti • Rahethan Adhikar Manch (Housing Rights and Human Rights Group) • Save Mon Region Federation • Shahri Gareeb Sangharsh Morcha • Slum Jagatthu • Video Volunteers • Vigyan Foundation We would like to dedicate this report to all those who have suffered from forced evictions and the loss of their homes/lands. We hope that our efforts at documenting and highlighting this unrelenting national crisis will help, in some way, to bring justice to the affected persons and will contribute towards the cessation of the unconstitutional and undemocratic practice of forced evictions, which results in multiple human rights violations and detrimental long-term consequences, not just for the affected population but also for the entire nation. Any state that is serious about meeting its national and international legal and moral commitments, must work to prevent the occurrence of forced evictions. Shivani Chaudhry Executive Director, Housing and Land Rights Network New Delhi, April 2019 iv Housing and Land Rights Network Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Major Findings 3 1. Geography of Forced Evictions in 2018 2. Reasons for Forced Evictions in 2018 3 4 3. Lack of Due Process 15 4. Low Rate of Resettlement and Inadequate Resettlement 18 5. Multiple Human Rights Violations 22 6. Violation of National and International Laws, Policies, and Standards 26 7. 26 Limited Access to Remedy and Justice 8. Extensive Threat of Eviction and Displacement 29 9. Loss of Housing from Fires 30 III. Recommendations 32 IV. Conclusion 35 Annexures 37 I. 38 Table1: Forced Evictions in Urban and Rural India in 2018 II. Table 2: Threat of Forced Eviction/Displacement in India 50 III. Map 1: Forced Evictions in India in 2018 54 IV. Map 2: People Affected by Evictions in Different States of India in 2018 55 V. 56 Map 3: Threat of Forced Eviction/Displacement in India Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis v vi Housing and Land Rights Network I. Introduction Housing and Land Rights Network India (HLRN), through its ‘National Eviction and Displacement Observatory’ has been documenting forced evictions across India since 2015. The Observatory compiles data on incidents of forced eviction and displacement in urban and rural areas—through primary and secondary research—and also aims to assist affected communities with relief, redress, restitution, and access to justice, where possible. In the absence of official data on displacement in India, HLRN established the Observatory to document, highlight, and seek solutions to the serious but largely unacknowledged and unaddressed national crisis of forced evictions and home demolitions of the urban and rural poor. Definition of ‘Forced Eviction’ This report uses the definition of ‘forced eviction’ provided by General Comment 7 (1997)1 of the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: “The permanent or temporary removal against the will of individuals, families or communities from their homes or land, which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.” In the year 2018, data collected by HLRN, with the assistance of partner organizations, reveals that government authorities, at both the central and state levels, demolished more than 41,700 homes, thereby forcefully evicting at least 202,200 (over 2 lakh) people across urban and rural India (see Annexure I for details). This is in addition to the over 260,000 people evicted in 2017, the majority of whom were not resettled by the state and thus continue to live in extremely inadequate conditions characterized by high insecurity, lack of access to basic services, precarity, and fear. Furthermore, data compiled by HLRN also reveals that at least 11.3 million people across India live under the threat of eviction and potential displacement (see Annexure II for details). It is important to note that while these figures are extremely alarming, they are a conservative estimate and present only part of the real picture and scale of forced evictions in the country, as they only reflect cases known to HLRN. The actual number of people evicted and displaced in India in 2018 as well as those facing the risk of eviction, therefore, is likely to be much higher. Also, though the incidence of forced evictions in 2018 is disturbingly high, it is likely to have been greater if the rate of investment in the country had been higher. As a result of a drop in industrial activity and projects, many land acquisition, real estate, and infrastructure projects were delayed or stalled in the calendar year of 2018.2 As more projects get sanctioned and implemented, it is feared that a large number of people living at or near sites marked for various projects, including mining, ports, dams, and road and highway construction, will be evicted and displaced. The total number of evictions would also have been higher had it not been for the strategic intervention and active resistance of local communities to save their homes in many parts of the country. Housing and Land Rights Network has documented that a large number of evictions have been prevented through advocacy by local communities with the support of civil society organizations, as well as through stay orders from courts. In the year 2018, proactive action in Delhi by local communities and supporting organizations, including Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 1 HLRN, resulted in stay orders from the High Court of Delhi that prevented more than 2,500 homes from being demolished by various government authorities, including the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Indian Railways. Similarly in Chennai, advocacy and resistance by local communities threatened with eviction has resulted in four settlements or over 1,200 homes being saved from demolition. In Mumbai, effective legal advocacy and intervention by civil society organizations resulted in a stay order from the Bombay High Court (W.P. (lodging) 3246/2004) on the demolition of 800 homes in Bheemchhaya, Vikhroli, a settlement of mostly Dalits and Muslims.3 Across the country, including in rural areas, a large number of local communities are struggling against projects that threaten to displace them from their homes and habitats. Without their sustained and strategic action, thousands more would have lost their homes in 2018. However, even though evictions may have been stalled temporarily in some sites, the majority of people continue to live in uncertainty and fear of imminent eviction. It is ironic that forced evictions and demolitions have continued across the country despite the central government’s Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) or ‘Housing for All–2022’ scheme and other state government housing programmes that claim to focus on the provision of housing for marginalized and low-income populations in urban and rural areas. HLRN As has been well-documented nationally and globally, including by HLRN in several publications,4 forced evictions violate multiple human rights and have severe impacts on the affected population, both in the short-term and long-term, as well as on social justice and the nation’s development and prosperity. Despite the severity of the nationwide crisis, the issue not only continues to be ignored by both state and non-state actors, but is being exacerbated by multiple acts of commission and omission at various levels. 2 Housing and Land Rights Network II. Major Findings Related to Forced Evictions in India in 2018 Key findings from HLRN’s primary and secondary research on forced evictions in India in 2018 include the following: 1. Forced evictions of low-income communities and demolitions of their homes occurred across urban and rural areas – in cities, towns, and villages. 2. Evictions were carried out for a range of reasons and under various guises, including: “slum-clearance/anti-encroachment/citybeautification” drives; removal of “illegal” constructions; infrastructure and ostensible ‘development’ projects, including ‘smart city’ projects; environmental projects, forest protection, and wildlife conservation; and, disaster management efforts. 3. In nearly all of the reported eviction cases, state authorities did not follow due process established by national and international human rights standards. 4. In the absence of resettlement for the vast majority, affected persons have had to make their own provisions for alternative housing or have been rendered homeless. For those who received some form of resettlement from the state, the sites they have been relocated to are remote and extremely inadequate. In 2018, HLRN documented the demolition of at least 41,734 houses and the forced eviction of over 202,233 people across the country. This means that state authorities destroyed at least 114 houses every day, evicting about 554 people daily or 23 people every hour in 2018. 5. All incidents of eviction resulted in multiple, and often gross, human rights violations. 6. Through these acts of eviction and demolition of homes, central and state government authorities have violated national and international laws, policies, guidelines, and schemes. 7. The majority of people evicted in 2018 do not have access to justice and their right to effective remedy has not been fulfilled. 8. At least 11.3 million people across India are currently threatened with the risk of eviction and displacement. These findings are elaborated in greater detail below. 1. Geography of Forced Evictions in 2018 Incidents of forced eviction were recorded by HLRN in at least 19 states and two Union Territories across the country in the year 2018. However, it is likely that evictions occurred in other states as well. Evictions occurred in large metropolitan cities5 (Chennai, Delhi, and Mumbai) and in other Tier I6 cities (Bengaluru and Hyderabad); Tier II cities (including Ahmedabad, Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, Ghaziabad, Gurugram, Jalandhar, Jammu, Madurai, Surat, Patna, Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad), Pune, Srinagar, Vadodara, Varanasi, and Vishakhapatnam); Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 3 Tier III cities (including Nashik and Panaji); smaller cities and towns (including Quepem, Goa, which is a Tier IV city); and, also in many villages (including in Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Odisha, Punjab, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand). 2. Reasons for Forced Evictions in 2018 In the overwhelming majority of incidents of forced eviction in the country, neither are people informed about the reason for demolition of their homes nor does the state make the reason public. However, after carefully analysing the available data on evictions in 2018, HLRN has identified four broad categories for which individuals and communities were forcibly removed and displaced from their homes and habitats: a) “Slum-clearance/anti-encroachment/city-beautification” drives, including for mega events, and interventions aimed at creating “slum-free” cities [47 per cent of affected persons]; b) Infrastructure and ostensible ‘development’ projects, including road widening, highway/road construction, housing, and ‘smart city’ projects [26 per cent of affected persons]; c) Environmental projects, forest protection, and wildlife conservation [20 per cent of affected persons]; and, d) Disaster management [8 per cent of affected persons]. 8% “Slum-clearance/anti-encroachment/city-beautification” drives 20% 47% Infrastructure and ostensible ‘development’ projects Environmental projects, wildlife conservation, and forest protection Disaster management 26% It is evident that most of the evictions in 2018 were not carried out for “exceptional circumstances” as stipulated by the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement (2007),7 which are the global operational human rights standards to be complied with by state and non-state actors before, during, and after any proposed eviction. UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 21. States shall ensure that evictions only occur in exceptional circumstances. Evictions require full justification given their adverse impact on a wide range of internationally recognized human rights. Any eviction must be: (a) authorized by law; (b) carried out in accordance with international human rights law; (c) undertaken solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare;* (d) reasonable and proportional; (e) regulated so as to ensure full and fair compensation and rehabilitation; and (f) carried out in accordance with the present guidelines. The protection provided by these procedural requirements applies to all vulnerable persons and affected groups, irrespective of whether they hold title to home and property under domestic law.8 a) “Slum clearance/anti-encroachment/city-beautification” drives While HLRN does not advocate the use of the term “slum” for housing of low-income groups because of its derogatory connotations in many parts of the country, the term used by the Indian government in official discourse, including in laws and policies, is “slum.” * In the present guidelines, the promotion of the general welfare refers to steps taken by States consistent with their international human rights obligations, in particular the need to ensure the human rights of the most vulnerable. 4 Housing and Land Rights Network An analysis of the causes of forced evictions and home demolitions, finds that the majority occurred for reasons related to removal of houses of the urban poor, based on the perception of the state and its agencies that they are “illegal” or “encroachments.” Such “slum-clearance/anti-encroachment/city-beautification” drives, including those related to mega events and for implementation of “slum-free city” schemes, resulted in the highest number of people (over 94,000) being evicted in 2018. This is in keeping with the trend recorded by HLRN in the year 2017. Across India, homes of the urban poor continue to be considered as “illegal/encroachments” by all branches of the government—the legislature, executive, and often the judiciary—and are demolished without any consideration that people have been living at those sites for decades, sometimes 40–50 years, and possess documents such as election and ration cards that validate their ‘legality’ and proof of residence. They work on improving the quality of the land, develop vibrant neighbourhoods and settlements, and contribute to the economy, but when the value of the land on which they live appreciates or when the state decides to commercially develop that land, they are considered dispensable and evicted. “The decision in Sudama Singh requires a Court approached by persons complaining against forced eviction not to view them as ‘encroachers’ and illegal occupants of land, whether public or private land…” ~ High Court of Delhi, Ajay Maken v. Union of India, 18 March 2019 In 2018, central and state governments undertook a large number of demolition drives in several cities across the country, resulting in the destruction of self-built homes of the working poor. The implementation of “slumfree” policies by demolishing homes of the poor not only violates their human rights but also goes against the very premise of creating “slum-free” cities, which is to improve living conditions of the poor by helping them to transition from “slums” to adequate and dignified housing. Furthermore, the continued assumption of government authorities—as reflected in these rampant home-demolition drives—that “city beautification” implies removing the poor from certain areas of cities, highlights the deep-set discrimination against the country’s most marginalized populations. This is all the more ironic given that they are the ones who build the city, contribute to its economy, and are largely responsible for its functioning. For instance, in November 2018, the Coimbatore civic body and the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB) demolished 151 houses along a water channel in Kuniyamuthur, with the aim of making Coimbatore a “slumfree city.” All affected families, reportedly, have been relocated to Madukkarai Anna Nagar.9 Following an Uttarakhand High Court order (W.P. PIL 148/2016), 42 houses were demolished in a clearance drive carried out by the Haridwar District Magistrate and Roorkee Sub-divisional Magistrate in Jaurasi Village, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.10 In Vadodara, Gujarat, authorities destroyed 35 homes for “beautification” of the area around the Kashi Vishweshwar Mahadev Mandir, without the provision of any resettlement or compensation to affected persons for the loss of their homes.11 In Delhi, India’s capital city, over 1,500 homeless persons evicted in 2017 for “beautification” of the city’s flyovers have still not received any relief or resettlement by the state but are forced to live on roadsides and pavements, at extreme risk to their health and lives. Two children died from road accidents, as a result of being displaced from under flyovers in Nehru Place and Sarai Kale Khan.12 Mega events, including sports and religious events, and related “beautification” measures also resulted in evictions. In the run-up to the World Cup Hockey 2018 tournament in Bhubaneswar, the Government of Odisha demolished about 211 homes between July and September 2018 to “beautify” the area around the Kalinga Stadium. In Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad), in preparation for the 2019 Maha Kumbh Mela, including “beautification” of the site, local authorities demolished 35 homes in the ‘Sangam’ area, effectively rendering more than 100 Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 5 In neighbouring Gurugram in Haryana, authorities demolished about 1,100 houses in 2018, belonging to economically weaker sections, in several such “slumclearance/anti-encroachment” drives. In Chandigarh, 29 houses in Jammu and Kashmir Colony, Sector 29, were destroyed without any resettlement. In Mumbai, almost 6,800 houses were destroyed for similar reasons. These included 175 houses in Shastri Nagar, Bandra West, which were demolished for the creation of a corridor for fire-fighting vehicles.17 6 Housing and Land Rights Network Anuradha Demolished houses in Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Delhi HLRN In Delhi, “slum-clearance” drives by various government authorities and departments, including the Indian Railways and DDA, rendered about 1,500 families homeless in 2018 without the provision of any prior notice, official reason for the demolition, or resettlement. These include demolitions of homes in Gole Market, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Paharganj, Pul Mithai, Rajapuri, Rani Bagh, and Yamuna Khadar. In April 2018, on the directions of a Supreme Court Monitoring Committee to the District Task Force (Delhi South), officials from DDA, the Delhi Disaster Management Authority, the Delhi Police, and other agencies undertook a demolition drive to remove all “encroachments” in and around the Mehrauli Archaeological Park.14 This resulted in the destruction of many homes and plant nurseries in Lado Sarai.15 The South Delhi Municipal Corporation demolished 275 structures, including 20 houses near Chhattarpur Metro station, allegedly to clear all four zones under its administration from “encroachments.”16 HLRN people homeless in August 2018. Given the repeated demolition of homes in the ‘Sangam’ region, in the year 2000, local residents filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. In 2010, the Court issued orders (WRIT - C 15330/2000) preventing the forced eviction/ removal of settlements in the area without adequate resettlement. In its order dated 3 May 2010, the Court stated that, “the disputed land is occupied by persons belonging to the poorest of poor and lepers for a long period of time” and directed the authorities “to deliberate and find out any alternate land, of about the same area for resettlement and rehabilitation of the persons occupying the disputed land.” Similarly, in its order dated 27 July 2010, the Court held that the Families evicted from the ‘Sangam’ area, Prayagraj people from the area “shall not be evicted except in accordance with law and without giving them proper rehabilitation” and that “rehabilitation shall be made by the State Government expeditiously.” After the August 2018 demolition, local organizations approached the Allahabad High Court, which held (in Contempt Application (Civil) 4579/2017) the Prayagraj Mela Authority in contempt of its order. However, the families have not received any relief and continue to reside on the banks of the Ganga River, in highly inadequate conditions, without access to water and sanitation facilities.13 Settlement of Indira Colony, Gurugram demolished under a “slum-clearance” drive Under the guise of “removal of encroachments,” authorities demolished 300 homes in Juhapura, Ahmedabad, leaving more than 1,440 people homeless. In August 2018, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, along with the state police, carried out a massive demolition drive in five zones of the city, on the basis of a Gujarat High Court order (W.P. PIL 170/2017). Local activists report that during the 12-day demolition drive, state authorities razed over 1,200 structures, including shops, temporary sheds, and houses. This has resulted in extensive loss of housing and livelihoods of hundreds of families. In a similar clearance drive, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation demolished 140 dwellings in Vansfodia Vasahat and Bhathujinagar.18 The Jabalpur Municipal Corporation, in October 2018, razed at least 200 houses located in Madan Mahal Hills, purportedly to remove “illegal occupancy” and to develop the area for tourism purposes.19 The Indian Railways has been responsible for several forced evictions across the country, including in the year 2018. Railway authorities demolished 130 houses to vacate land of “encroachments” from Ganpatipada, Yadav Nagar, Ilthanpada, and Devidham Nagar in Navi Mumbai in January 2018.20 Similarly, the Pune Municipal Corporation evicted 165 families living in Darode Mala, Sant Gadge Maharajnagar, and Shantinagar in Ghorpadi, and in Koregaon Park, allegedly to clear “encroachments” from land of the Indian Railways in the months of November and December 2018, rendering families homeless in the cold.21 In Delhi, the Railways demolished 35 homes in Mansarovar Park.22 Such actions indicate the increasing criminalization of poverty and go against the foundational principles of the Indian Republic as well as the Constitution of India that guarantees everyone the right to equality and the freedom to reside in any part of the country. Further, they also indicate the distortion of the notion of ‘public land,’ as the state that is entrusted with the protection of such land for the people continues to act against the people, by evicting them at its whim. HLRN The prejudiced perception amongst many groups in Indian cities that the urban poor pose a “security threat” to wealthier residents is also evident in the way that the state treats them. For instance, in Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, state authorities destroyed 20 houses of a low-income settlement on the basis of a complaint from a neighbouring girls’ hostel that the settlement-dwellers posed a ‘threat’ to the girls’ safety. The demolition of homes occurred without prior notice or adequate time for residents to gather their belongings. The grim irony of this situation is starkly apparent as close to 65 women and children were rendered homeless, increasing their vulnerability to abuse and violence, in order to address the issue of security of another group. Similarly, in Gurugram, on the outskirts of Delhi, the Department of Town and Country Planning demolished 150 houses in Saraswati Kunj, on the basis of complaints from a neighbouring housing society that “open defecation and unhygienic living conditions of people” in the settlement posed a threat to their health and safety.23 Some migrant workers evicted in southeast Bengaluru alleged that their houses were demolished on the basis of complaints of middle-class residents living in the area. Also, in Kadipur Village, Gurugram, about 40 families witnessed forced eviction, allegedly on the complaint of other residents in the area. Women and children rendered homeless in Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 7 b) Infrastructure and Ostensible ‘Development’ Projects As in 2017, infrastructure and ostensible ‘development’ projects continued to displace the urban and rural poor across India, generally without due process or rehabilitation. In the year 2018, over 52,200 people across India were evicted/displaced for infrastructure projects, including highway construction, road-widening projects, construction of railway tracks, housing schemes, and ‘smart city’ projects under India’s Smart Cities Mission. Though many of these evictions are justified by the state as “public purpose” projects, the term continues to be misused in the absence of a human rights-based definition and interpretation. Also, the population that benefits from these ostensible “public purpose” projects is always different from the one that pays the price for them, including through the loss of their homes, habitats, livelihoods, health, education, and security. In a day-long demolition drive in Indore, the Indore Municipal Corporation razed 125 semi-permanent houses in Azad Nagar for the construction of a garbage transfer station, allegedly under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean India Mission). Affected persons were moved to a transit camp in July 2018. Though the government claimed they would be allotted permanent housing, they have no information on the same and continue to live in inadequate temporary arrangements.24 Highway/road construction and road-widening projects displaced over 5,400 families in 2018. For instance, over 500 families living in Shivpuri in Patna, witnessed demolition of their homes for the construction of a road by the Bihar State Road Development Corporation Ltd.26 Construction of a four-lane road in Patna led to the destruction of 514 homes, whereas in Gurugram, highway construction resulted in the demolition of 800 houses. It is not known whether any resettlement was provided to the displaced families, as they cannot be traced. In Mumbai, several road-widening projects resulted in forced evictions in Wagle Estate, Balkum, Hardas Nagar, and Mahakali Caves. Expansion of National Highway 163 led to the demolition of 300 structures in Hyderabad, including some shops.27 In Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad), a number of road-widening projects have evicted over 538 families; the majority without resettlement. In Nochikuppam, Chennai, over 200 temporary houses of tsunami survivors were destroyed in order to widen the road. In December 2018, on account of a road-widening project, the Yavatmal Municipal Council and the Building and Construction Department demolished 150 houses on the Pimpalgaon bypass in Yavatmal, rendering people homeless in the bitter cold. The affected families 8 Housing and Land Rights Network Anuradha In Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad, authorities demolished 65 houses of a migrant community—engaged largely in broom-making—for a metro rail project. Also, in Ahmedabad, metro construction resulted in the demolition of 45 homes of families who had been living outside the Agriculture Produce Market Committee market in Juhapura for 20–25 years. In another drive for the construction of a third railway line between Adityapur and Kharagpur in Jharkhand, railway officials along with the district administration demolished 230 houses in the Krishnanagar area of Bokaro District from 24 to 26 November 2018.25 Also, in Jamshedpur, 36 families lost their homes for the construction of a new railway line. Houses demolished for road widening in Himmatganj, Allahabad claimed to have been living in the settlement for 40 years and included tribal communities as well as a large number of children and older persons.28 In Ahmedabad, 250 families living in Gulbai Tekra witnessed two incidents of demolition of their homes that rendered over 1,200 people homeless in July and August 2018, for road-widening projects. Similarly, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation demolished 95 houses in Gokul Nagar and over 110 houses in Vastrapur, three times, between January and May 2018 for road-widening purposes. Homes destroyed in Gokul Nagar, Ahmedabad for a road-widening project It is ironic that over 2,400 people were evicted, allegedly, to implement central and state government housing schemes. In Jamshedpur and Indore, authorities demolished 70 and 110 houses, respectively, for the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Urban/Housing for All–2022 scheme. Several families displaced from Birsanagar, Jamshedpur threatened self-immolation in protest of the loss of their homes.30 In Hyderabad, the Telangana government destroyed 70 homes, in order to provide residents with flats under the state government’s 2BHK (two BedroomHall-Kitchen) scheme for the urban poor. While this is a positive initiative to provide adequate housing to Demolition of homes for road widening in Wazirabad, Gurugram the low-income population, its implementation has been fraught with questionable practices. The state government forcefully demolished existing homes of affected persons, rendering them homeless without any guarantee of when they would be provided the promised two-bedroom houses. This has resulted in increased insecurity among the affected population. HLRN This continuing destruction of houses and displacement of the poor, without due process, to ease traffic congestion and facilitate road transportation reflects the scant regard of the state towards people and communities who have been living for many years, often for generations, at these sites. Beena Jadav In Gurugram, Haryana, 31 families lost their homes for construction of the Dwarka Expressway,29 despite a stay order on the demolition from the Punjab and Haryana High Court (C.W.P. 13731/2018 and C.W.P. 13943/2018). In 2018, authorities demolished homes in several other sites in Gurugram, including Gadhi Village, Sheetla Mata Road, and Wazirabad Market, for road-widening purposes. For the construction of a housing society in Sadarpur Village in Sector 43, Noida, authorities demolished houses of 250 low-income families in August 2018,31 while in Delhi, 11 families living in Khichripur, ironically, were evicted for the proposed construction of housing for economically weaker sections on the land occupied by them. Although they were promised flats in the buildings to be constructed, they have not received any official confirmation of the same and have rebuilt their homes close to the same site. In Dhanbad, four families lost their homes for the construction of railway staff quarters. About 60 families living in Maheru Village witnessed demolition of their homes and were rendered homeless, without any resettlement, for the construction of housing for government employees. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 9 In Ahmedabad and Rajkot, state authorities destroyed housing of 575 families, allegedly, for in situ (on site) “slum development” projects under various state schemes. Affected families are still awaiting alternative permanent housing. Thus, even when the state’s claims, in this case the provision of housing, are seemingly noteworthy, the implementation processes are marked by a glaring lack of respect for human rights, including the rights to information, participation, consultation, and adequate housing. The provision of housing must not be preceded by demolition of people’s homes without their consent resulting in displacement and insecurity. Furthermore, housing of one group of people must not be prioritized over housing for another, as reflected in the incidents above. Several evictions have been reported for projects related to the Smart Cities Mission. Research by HLRN has documented forced evictions in 34 of the 100 ‘smart cities’ being developed across the country. While it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of ‘smart city’-related evictions, HLRN has found that ‘smart city’ projects have directly resulted in about 17,700 people losing their homes. For instance, the Tamil Nadu government demolished about 1,700 homes (of over 4,200 identified houses) for a ‘smart city’ project related to restoration of water bodies in Coimbatore, while in Thanjavur, it demolished over 130 homes for a ‘smart city’ project to renovate a moat. In Nagpur, Maharashtra, 12 homes were destroyed for the Pardi Flyover, as part of the ‘smart city’ development work. In Machhi Bazaar, Indore, 455 families lost housing as a result of a road-widening ‘smart city’ project. In 2018, about 4,500 people lost their homes for the development of the Rs 600 crore (60 million)33 ‘Kashi Vishwanath Temple Corridor’ in Varanasi. The project is part of the development of Varanasi as a ‘smart city.’ Despite strong local opposition, the Varanasi Development Authority demolished 400 houses in the city’s oldest areas for the temple corridor, which is being built to facilitate the movement of pilgrims Homes demolished for a ‘smart city’ project in from the Manikarnika, Jalasen, and Lalita ghats of Machhi Bazaar, Indore the Ganga River to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Most of the affected families were living on rent in the area for generations and were engaged in small and medium businesses.34 Many families are also at risk of losing their livelihoods, as they depend on the local temple-based economy for their survival. The local economy and social fabric of the ancient city of Varanasi have been disrupted by this infrastructure project, which seeks to enhance the experience of a certain class of citizenry at the cost of displacing local residents. This project is linked to tourism development, which is increasingly displacing local communities across the country. 10 Housing and Land Rights Network MPNNM The Bhopal Municipal Corporation demolished over 150 houses in Ahata Rustam Khan and Pratap Nagar in Bhopal, for the construction of a “smart road” under the auspices of the Smart Cities Mission being implemented by Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited. Another 150 houses are threatened with demolition for the same project. A few of the displaced families, reportedly, were moved to a transit camp in the area. The affected families staged a protest for violation of a Supreme Court order prohibiting evictions in inclement weather and for the lack of basic facilities in the transit accommodation.32 Nikhil Gupta Historic houses in Varanasi demolished for the Kashi Vishwanath temple corridor Tourism development related to the statue of Sardar Vallabhai Patel or ‘Statue of Unity’ in Gujarat has displaced several communities and is likely to affect thousands more. Built at a cost of Rs 3,000 crore (450 million US dollars), the Statue of Unity is located on Sadhu Bet Island on the Narmada River, 3.2 kilometres downstream from the Sardar Sarovar Dam and within the Garudeshwar weir supporting the Dam. Construction of the Statue and development of surrounding areas has led to the displacement of farmers and tribal communities as well as the loss of agricultural land, including of tribal farmers who were displaced for the Dam but not recognized as ‘project-affected’ and thus still not resettled. While the exact number of persons affected by various Statuerelated projects is difficult to ascertain, especially as much of the displacement occurred earlier, local residents report that at least 100 families lost their homes and lands in 2018, as a result of the construction of the Statue and related development.35 About 85 per cent of the population in the affected area comprises tribals/adivasis whose lands are protected under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. This requires consent of the gram sabha (village council) for any land acquisition. However, for construction of the ‘Statue of Unity,’ the state government did not comply with this legal requirement nor was any environmental impact assessment of the project conducted. Other infrastructure projects for which people were displaced from their homes in 2018 include construction of a police station in Nagpur, widening of a bridge in Ludhiana, construction of a bus terminal in Navi Mumbai, construction of a parking lot in Dhanbad, and expansion of a drain in Khandsa Village, Haryana. It is likely that many more infrastructure and other project-related incidents of eviction and displacement occurred across the country, which HLRN has not been able to document, particularly in the absence of public information. HLRN Under Delhi’s proposed ‘Yamuna Riverfront Development Project,’ DDA has developed plans to create a biodiversity park and lake, over an area of 189 acres, in three phases. For development of the first phase of the project, DDA demolished 550 houses in China Colony, Bela Gaon, and Moolchand Basti, rendering close to 2,130 women and children homeless without due process. Site cleared of 120 houses for the Jagraon Bridge expansion, Ludhiana Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 11 c) Environmental Projects, Forest Protection, and Wildlife Conservation Several incidents of forced eviction were carried out, purportedly, for the implementation of environmental projects and for wildlife conservation and forest protection. This resulted in the forced eviction and displacement of over 40,600 people across the country. Some of these evictions were ordered by courts. Such cases, unfortunately, create an artificial conflict between environmental rights and human rights of local communities, even though many communities live harmoniously with nature and contribute to its conservation and sustainable development. In Salem, Tamil Nadu, government officials cleared 2,382 houses around water bodies—in a drive that lasted several days—allegedly, to ensure free movement of rain water. This included areas around the water bodies of Koneri Odai, Nattamangalam Lake, Neikarapatti Lake, and on the banks of the Cauvery, Sarabanga, and Vasishta rivers, allegedly on the basis of a Madras High Court order. Only 200 of the affected families, reportedly, received alternative land, though the government claims it will provide resettlement to all affected families.36 In May 2018, on the basis of a Madras High Court order (W.P. 29811/2014), the Chennai Corporation and police officials demolished over 315 houses in the settlement of Otteri. A local women’s rights organization, Pennurimai Iyakkam, had filed a case in the Madras High Court for in situ rehabilitation of the community, alleging that relocation to the remote site of Perumbakkam would force children to drop out of school and result in loss of livelihoods. The Court, however, rejected their plea and ordered relocation. Though it granted residents time until 10 June 2018 to relocate to Perumbakkam, authorities carried out the eviction in May 2018.37 “My nine-year child goes to a matriculation school here. Schools in Perumbakkam are under-staffed and poorly run. We are being relocated against our will.” ~ A resident of Otteri, Chennai For the alleged “restoration” of Korattur Lake, officials of the revenue and public works department razed 583 houses in Kallikuppam, Chennai, amid strong resistance of affected families, who claimed to have been living at the site for over 30 years and possessed election cards, ration cards, and other government-issued identity documents to prove their residence.38 In Jharsa Bundh, Sector 47, Gurugram, authorities destroyed over 60 houses considered as “encroachments” around water bodies in February 2018. In Delhi, DDA demolished 550 houses on the banks of the Yamuna River for reasons related to “rejuvenation of the river and to promote eco-friendly development.” Many of the projects, however, are to promote investment and riverfront development, all of which pose a threat to the river’s ecosystem. However, it is generally housing of the poor that is viewed as an “encroachment” and targeted for removal under the guise of environmental protection. The Surat Municipal Corporation demolished 360 houses at Mota Varachha Dantali for the development of a lake. In October 2018, the Chirang and Hultugaon Forest Departments, along with the local administration, demolished at least 140 temporary houses in the Ripu-Chirang Reserve Forest area of Kokrajhar and Chirang Districts of Assam to clear forestland.39 In February 2018, authorities flattened houses of over 65 cattle-herders living in Kathanibari, Kumurakati in Kaziranga National Park, Assam.40 In Manipur, state authorities, including the Forest Department, Imphal East district administration, police, and paramilitary forces used force to demolish 74 houses and a primary school in Awaching Kshetri Bengoon Mamang Village, which is a part of Nongmaiching Reserved Forest, in July 2018. The demolition was strongly resisted by the community. In protest, the All Manipur Muslim Organisations Co-ordinating Committee called for a 72-hour shutdown across the state. Earlier in 2018, Manipur forest department authorities also destroyed 12 Housing and Land Rights Network two houses in the Langol Reserve Forest and eight houses in the Heingang Reserve Forest, allegedly for forest protection purposes.41 Demolitions in Nongmaiching Reserve Forest, Manipur Drives to clear forestland also resulted in the demolition of over 1,000 houses in Navi Mumbai in May 2018, and 124 houses in Nagpur in October 2018. GBGBA During 2018, the Mumbai Mangrove Conservation Unit, a part of the forest department’s mangrove cell, demolished at least 1,120 houses in the city of Mumbai as part of its “mangrove preservation” efforts: 70 houses in Yari Road, 150 in Versova Creek, 600 in Cheeta Camp, and 300 houses in Sai Dham Nagar. These demolitions continued despite the statement of the Additional Principle Chief Conservator of Forests that not even one per cent of the area of mangroves earmarked as ‘reserved forests’ was encroached.42 Cheeta Camp, Mumbai – after demolition of homes for ‘mangrove protection’ d) Disaster Management In 2018, evictions were also executed under the guise of ‘disaster management.’ In response to a 2015 order (W.P. 39234/2015) of the Madras High Court to take “expeditious steps for early removal of encroachments by construction of alternative tenements,” under the Cooum River Restoration Project, the Government of Tamil Nadu demolished 3,181 houses in Chennai in 2018 and has destroyed a total of nearly 8,000 houses since 2016. In Chennai, over 15,000 people were evicted from over 30 settlements on the banks of the Adyar and Cooum rivers. Reports indicate that the municipal corporation of Chennai has targeted the removal of 9,539 “encroachments” along the Adyar River, of which 3,464 houses have been demolished since 2015; 300 of them in 2018. Families living in the remaining 6,075 houses face the imminent threat of eviction. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 13 IRCDUC Demolition underway at Navalar Nedunchezhiyan Nagar, Chennai In West Cooum Road, the Cooum River Restoration Trust cleared over 300 small shops and businesses operated by low-income groups. Though they have been provided free plots of land of 300 square-feet in an alternative site (Auto Nagar), the destruction of their shops and forced relocation has greatly impeded their livelihoods and resulted in a drastic fall in their monthly income, leading to further impoverishment of these already marginalized communities who are struggling for survival in the city. The state has only targeted homes and small enterprises and shops of the urban poor and not cleared large commercial establishments along water bodies. While most of the affected families have been provided alternative housing in the resettlement sites of Perumbakkam, Gudapakkam, and Navalur, these sites are situated on low-lying, flood-prone areas, thus bringing into question the rationale of disaster protection, for which, allegedly, they have been relocated. The final report of the Integrated Cooum River Eco-Restoration Plan prepared by the Chennai Rivers Restoration Trust (CRRT) and Tamil Nadu Urban Infrastructure Financial Services Limited (TNUIFSL) proposed three options for the affected families: (i) in situ development, wherever possible; (ii) in situ reconstruction; and, (iii) resettlement. The table below provides information on the Project Affected Families in each option.43 Project Affected Persons (PAF) in Studied Options Summary Percentage Project Affected Persons Option 1: Partial resettlement + in situ development 87% 12,459 Option 2: Partial resettlement + in situ development + in situ rehabilitation Option 3: Complete resettlement [option approved by TNSCB] 47% 6,681 100% 14,257 [Source: Integrated Cooum River Eco-Restoration Plan, Final Report, November 2014] Though the option of complete resettlement affected the highest number of persons, the state government chose that and opted for forcibly evicting and resettling families without considering possibilities of in situ redevelopment and rehabilitation, which would have benefitted the majority. This strategy has also resulted in further impoverishment of the affected families. The final report of the Integrated Cooum River Eco-Restoration Plan also states that after evicting the urban poor, the areas cleared around water bodies will be used for “recreational spaces, children’s playgrounds and food courts.” The categories for development include riverfront development, riverfront improvement, urban renewal, and urban regeneration. The table below, from the report, explains the proposed area development plans. 14 Housing and Land Rights Network Summary of Riverfront Proposals Category Quantity Length (in kilometres) 1. Maintenance Ways 11 9.6 2. Walkways 22 24.02 3. Cycle tracks 17 19.26 4. Parks 24 Area (in square metres) 663,788 [Source: Integrated Cooum River Eco-Restoration Plan, Final Report, November 2014] The project report also points out that the “implementation of the suggested activities such as vegetation plantation, riverfront beautification, creation of parks and walkways will provide the Chennai citizens with areas for leisure in a new ecosystem that will see life rising from the River.” While the relocation of marginalized communities has been carried out, allegedly, for ‘disaster management,’ the project report focuses on riverfront redevelopment aimed at benefitting a select population at the cost of displacing thousands from their homes and livelihood sources. 3. Lack of Due Process In almost all cases known to HLRN, including the ones described above, the authorities responsible for the evictions and demolition of homes did not comply with due process requirements, as established by human rights guidelines and laws. Despite clear operational guidelines laid out in the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement, to be followed before, during, and after evictions, state and central government authorities disregarded all due process procedures. The following section highlights examples of various forms of violation of due process. a) Lack of Prior Notice or Information UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 41. Any decision relating to evictions should be announced in writing in the local language to all individuals concerned, sufficiently in advance. The eviction notice should contain a detailed justification for the decision, including on: (a) absence of reasonable alternatives; (b) the full details of the proposed alternative; and (c) where no alternatives exist, all measures taken and foreseen to minimize the adverse effects of evictions. In most instances, affected communities were not provided any notice or adequate time to remove their belongings from their homes. The documented eviction and demolition drives not only destroyed housing but also cash savings and personal belongings of residents, including vital documents, jewellery, school books, and uniforms. Furthermore, in many of the reported cases, authorities did not have a legal basis for the eviction, nor did they provide a justifiable reason to people before forcing them out of their homes and razing structures to the ground. In Chennai, local organizations report that for all evictions carried out for the Cooum River Restoration Project, communities were not provided any prior notice about the impending demolition of their homes or any information on proposed resettlement. In no instance were communities shown the resettlement sites where they would be relocated. Due process requirements of consultation and information have been completely absent from the eviction and relocation process in the city. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 15 For the restoration of Korattur Lake in Chennai, authorities demolished 583 homes, allegedly without any prior notice. Families were left scrambling for their possessions amidst the rubble after the demolition. Traumatized by the shock of the eviction, a woman attempted self-immolation with her two young children, but was rescued in time. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) demolished 500 houses of a settlement of migrant workers in east Bengaluru without prior notice. This resulted in extensive loss of their personal belongings. A large number of children and older persons were among those rendered homeless. In none of the evictions reported in Delhi in 2018 did affected communities receive prior written notice of the impending demolition of their homes. This includes the sites of Gol Market, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Kalyanpuri, Khichripur, Lal Masjid, Malikpur, Mansarovar Park, Purana Usmanpur, Rohini, and Yamuna Khadar, among others. Similarly, in none of the sites of evictions in Gujarat did authorities provide affected communities with any prior notice before demolishing their homes. b) HLRN The Supreme Court of India, in S.L.P. (C) 30026– 30027/2018, had declared that protocol must be followed before an eviction, including issuance of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. Bulldozers appear at Mansarovar Park, Delhi without prior notice Evictions in Inclement Weather UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 49. Evictions must not take place in inclement weather, at night, during festivals or religious holidays, prior to elections, or during or just prior to school examinations. Forced evictions and home demolitions occurred throughout the year, including in extreme weather conditions – during the intense heat of summer, in the bitter cold, and in the monsoon season. An analysis by HLRN found that the majority of evictions took place in the summer and winter months. Month-wise Occurrence of Evictions in 2018 January 14 February 12 March 14 April 23 31 May June 12 July 17 August 18 September 7 October 23 29 November December 16 Date not known 2 0 16 5 Housing and Land Rights Network 10 15 20 25 30 35 Despite a call by the Delhi government to halt evictions during the winter, central government authorities carried out several demolitions during the winter months. For instance, in November 2018, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation demolished 14 houses in Malikpur, rendering 20 families homeless, while 22 Gadia Lohar families were forcefully evicted in the months of November and December 2018. The demolition in Shahabad Dairy, Delhi, also took place in November. Affected communities were not provided with any prior notice or time to remove their personal belongings from their homes. In Pune, the city municipal corporation demolished 165 homes in Ghorpadi and Koregaon Park during the winter, leaving families out in the cold without any shelter. c) HLRN The Indore Municipal Corporation rendered over 110 families from Bhuri Tekri homeless in the hot summer month of June without adequate resettlement. Similarly, in Delhi, 15 houses of the Gadia Lohar community were demolished in Sector 3, Dwarka in the heat of May 2018. Also in May, 31 families lost their homes for the construction of the Dwarka Expressway and were forced to sleep out in the open in the heat. The eviction drive in Awaching Kshetri Bengoon Mamang Village in Manipur left families homeless during torrential rain. Demolition in Shahabad Dairy, Delhi during the winter Evictions Before and During School Examinations In many instances, authorities carried out evictions prior to school examinations, thereby greatly impeding children’s ability to study and appear in exams. Seventy per cent of the evictions in Chennai took place prior to children’s mid-year examinations.44 In the settlement of Navalar Nedunchezhian Nagar at Chintadripet, Chennai, authorities demolished homes of 700 families during the mid-year examinations of school children, despite desperate pleas of affected persons to postpone the eviction exercise to after the examinations. Home demolitions before school examinations affected about 550 school-going children living near Korattur Lake in Chennai. State authorities have not made any provisions to ensure adequate education facilities in the resettlement sites where people are being forced to move. This has resulted in an increased drop-out rate of children from school. Families displaced from the Tansa Pipeline in Mumbai also witnessed severe impacts on the right to education of children, as they were evicted in the middle of the academic year.45 In Awaching Kshetri Bengoon Mamang Village in Manipur, in addition to homes, state authorities demolished a primary school. d) Use of Force During Evictions UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 50. States and their agents must take steps to ensure that no one is subject to direct or indiscriminate attacks or other acts of violence, especially against women and children, or arbitrarily deprived of property or possessions as a result of demolition, arson and other forms of deliberate destruction, negligence or any form of collective punishment. During the demolition of over 80 houses in Purana Usmanpur, Delhi, officials used force to evict residents, which resulted in several people being injured in the process. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 17 During the eviction of families from forestland in Awaching Kshetri Bengoon Mamang Village in Manipur, government officials and armed security forces entered the area around 7 a.m. and used force to evict people who resisted the eviction. HLRN At 5 a.m. in the morning, about 500 officers from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) surrounded the settlement next to Lal Masjid in Nizamuddin and used force to evict 35 families who had been residing there for generations. The site has been enclosed and occupied by a CRPF camp. The demolition at Pimpalgaon bypass in Yavatmal, was carried out in the presence of 150 police personnel, allegedly, to prevent any resistance from the residents.46 Force used to evict families in Purana Usmanpur, Delhi 4. Low Rate of Resettlement and Inadequate Resettlement Research by HLRN, including primary data from the field, indicates that the vast majority of those evicted have not been resettled by the state. Of the 218 cases of forced eviction known to HLRN in 2018, information on resettlement is available only in 173 cases. Of these, HLRN found that the state had provided some form of resettlement/alternative housing in only 53 of the affected sites. However, mere relocation to remote sites and the provision of inadequate housing without access to basic services does not qualify as resettlement or rehabilitation, which implies the improvement of affected persons’ standard of living and restitution of their rights. UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 52. The Government and any other parties responsible for providing just compensation and sufficient alternative accommodation, or restitution when feasible, must do so immediately upon the eviction… Most evicted and displaced persons have had to fend for themselves and either rebuild their own homes at their own cost, or seek rental housing. Those who have not been able to afford alternative housing options have been rendered homeless. In several cases, the displaced are denied their rights and not resettled on the false grounds that they are not “legal” residents or are unable to prove their “eligibility” for state schemes. In over 98 per cent of the cases of forced eviction documented by HLRN in 2018, affected persons were not provided monetary compensation. Only families evicted from four sites received some compensation from the state for their losses. These include those who lost their homes for the Hockey World Cup 2018 in Bhubaneswar47 and for the construction of the Kashi Vishwanath temple corridor. Where provided, compensation has largely been insufficient. For instance, families displaced from Goplaraju Colony in Tirupati, allegedly, refused the compensation offered to them, as it was too low. Discrimination on the basis of tenure is also prevalent in determining compensation and resettlement. For instance, the Varanasi Development Authority provided compensation of only Rs 100,000 to tenants affected by the Kashi Vishwanath temple corridor, whereas landowners, reportedly, received compensation according to prevailing market rates. Compensation should be determined by comprehensive assessments, should be commensurate with actual losses incurred, and should include both material and non-material losses. In almost all the cases known to HLRN, in the absence of rehabilitation, affected families have made temporary housing arrangements in and around their original sites of residence or have moved to other locations, or in some instances, have left the city/town. 18 Housing and Land Rights Network In Delhi, none of the over 2,100 families evicted in 2018 received any relief or resettlement from the government agencies that carried out the demolitions. Families who witnessed demolition of their homes without resettlement in 2016, 2017, and 2018 continue to live in extremely inadequate conditions near, or in a few cases at, the sites of demolition, in temporary structures without access to drinking water and sanitation facilities. For example, in Kalayanpuri, Delhi, families who lost their homes for the construction of a sewer line, have had to move to rental housing, which has adversely impacted their already precarious financial condition. Those who cannot afford rental housing are forced to live on the streets. Residents of Manasarovar Park have faced several evictions over the past two years under the guise of “safety” and “slum clearance.” The state has not provided any resettlement to the evicted families. Members of the Gadia Lohar community evicted in 2017 have still not received any alternative housing or compensation for their cumulative losses, and continue to live at the same site in precarious conditions without access to adequate housing, water, or sanitation. Women are forced to bathe fully clothed in the open, which violates their human rights to water, security, and privacy. Of the over 1,200 houses demolished by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in August 2018, reportedly, only 10 per cent of those who applied for regularization of their structures, were considered “eligible” for resettlement. The 35 families from Gurukul Subash Chowk who lost their homes for roadwidening purposes, although considered “eligible” for rehabilitation, have not been resettled or provided any form of relief, and continue to live in the same area in unsafe conditions. Despite receiving letters Families rendered homeless in Kalyanpuri, Delhi from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in 2012 that they would be relocated, families displaced from Vastrapur for road-widening projects between January and May 2018, have not been rehabilitated and are living at the same time in impoverished conditions. HLRN In Prayagraj, a large number of evicted families have either left the city or been forced to leave by local authorities. In Vadodara, those who lost their homes for “beautification” of the area around the Kashi Vishweshwar Mahadev temple did not receive any compensation or rehabilitation from the state. In Surat, 280 families evicted in Katargam and 360 families evicted in Mota Varachha Dantali meet the state’s ‘eligibility criteria’ for resettlement. However, in both cases, the verification process is still being undertaken by municipal authorities, as a result of which the affected families have been forced to live in dismal conditions. Similarly, the 95 families evicted from Gokul Nagar, Ahmedabad for road-widening purposes, though “eligible” under the state policy, have not been resettled and are living in makeshift housing around the same area. Families evicted from Railways’ land in Ghorpadi, Pune, were rendered homeless and forced to live in the open for two months in the winter. Only after an older person died from the cold, authorities announced that the displaced families would be provided alternative housing under the erstwhile Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) scheme in Hadapsar. As of January 2019, of the 165 affected families, 84 had submitted documents proving their residence at the site while the paperwork of the remaining 81 families had still to be verified.48 The persistent discrimination against the country’s poor is further perpetuated in state policy. Most state governments continue to use the exclusionary tool of ‘eligibility criteria’ to determine whether an evicted family should be rehabilitated or not. Even when families have lived for many years at a site, if they fail to meet the state’s documentation requirements or happen to be omitted from state-conducted surveys, they are denied any form of relief or resettlement despite losing their homes, which are generally built incrementally, over years of hard work and investment. This is directly contributing to a rise in homelessness. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 19 In Delhi, the inability of evicted families to meet documentation requirements stipulated in the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy (2015), despite having lived at a site for many years, results in their exclusion from state-provided resettlement. There are also multiple cases known to HLRN, where families evicted in 2016 and 2017 were denied resettlement despite having the documents to prove their ‘eligibility.’ Furthermore, the Policy requires affected non-Scheduled Caste families to also pay Rs 142,000 in cash, as a one-time down payment, for an alternative flat in a resettlement site. Many families are not able to generate the funds, as they do not have access to formal financial markets and are not able to afford the high interest rates in the informal market. As a result, they have been rendered homeless after losing the capital invested in their homes. Those who manage to raise the requisite amount by taking loans from multiple sources are pushed into cycles of greater indebtedness and impoverishment. Where resettlement has been provided, including by the Governments of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Delhi, it is in extremely inadequate sites located on the outskirts of cities (for instance, Baprola in Delhi; Perumbakkam, Navalur, and Gudapakkam in Chennai; and, Mahul in Mumbai). It has been well-documented that resettlement to remote sites results in loss of livelihoods, income, education, healthcare, and security, with the most severe impacts suffered by women and children. Multiple studies conducted by HLRN and its partners highlight the abysmal conditions of resettlement sites as well as the absence of a human-rights based approach and participation of affected communities in the design, location, and planning of such sites.49 UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 16. All persons, groups and communities have the right to resettlement, which includes the right to alternative land of better or equal quality and housing that must satisfy the following criteria for adequacy: accessibility, affordability, habitability, security of tenure, cultural adequacy, suitability of location, and access to essential services such as health and education. The living conditions in all resettlement sites are grossly inadequate, resulting from the absence of proper and participatory planning, use of sub-standard construction material, and the lack of maintenance by local authorities. Chennai is one of the few cities where almost 95 per cent of the evicted families have been resettled. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has provided housing in resettlement sites like Perumbakkam, Navalur, and Gudapakkam for the thousands of families evicted for the Cooum River Restoration Project. The lure of permanent housing has been used as a strategy by the state to force people to move to city peripheries. In addition to the remote location and poor connectivity of these sites to the city, they lack adequate housing and access to healthcare, education, and basic services and infrastructure, including water, sanitation, street lights, transportation, and access to burial and cremation grounds. In the resettlement site of Perumbakkam,50 where the majority of families have been relocated, there are only four ration/Public Distribution System shops for subsidized food, in contrast to the required 14 shops (as per the population). Similarly, only seven anganwaadis/crèches under the Integrated Child Development Services scheme exist, as opposed to the requisite 60, given the number of children at the site who are below the age of six. This has greatly impeded the human rights to education and food of affected families, especially of pregnant and lactating women and children. The highly erratic water supply also disproportionately affects women and children.51 In the absence of toilets in the primary school in Perumbakkam, children are forced to defecate in the open, which especially affects girls.52 In the absence of sufficient schools at the resettlement sites, children’s education has been adversely affected. On average, in Perumbakkam, children have to travel 22 kilometres (one way) to reach their school daily, in Navalur they commute an average distance of 44 kilometres (one way) and in Gudapakkam, they have to travel about 27.5 kilometres (one way) to get to school every day.53 20 Housing and Land Rights Network Resettlement Woes in Perumbakkam, Chennai All relocated families have experienced a loss of their livelihoods because of the remote location of the sites and the lack of employment options in surrounding areas. Furthermore, some residents report that the stigma attached to these sites also impedes their ability to find employment. Despite advocacy and lobbying by civil society organizations, these sites continue to be unsafe for women and children. They are unable to move around independently; this has severely affected their social and economic mobility and is also a violation of their human rights to livelihood/work, security, equality, and freedom of movement. IRCDUC After the demolition of their home in 2017, nine-year old Geetha (name changed in the interest of privacy) and her family were forcefully relocated to Perumbakkam. Geetha currently studies in the Perumbakkam Primary School, which functions inside one of the residential tenements. She laments that, “There is no toilet facility in the school and our teachers ask us to use the open space around the building.” Her mother complains, “The quality of schools in this settlement is poor; flats have been converted into schools and the area is cramped, with poor lighting and ventilation. My older daughter studying in the high school at the site complains of corporal punishment. I lost my employment after relocation and for nearly a year I was unable to get jobs in this area. Now, that I have started working, I am worried about leaving my daughters alone at home, as this settlement is unsafe. I find it difficult to return home from work as there are no street lights. The absence of safety is now forcing me to quit my job.”54 Poorly constructed tenements in Perumbakkam, Chennai UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 56 (b) Resettlement must ensure that the human rights of women, children, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups are equally protected, including their right to property ownership and access to resources… In July 2018, 36 of the 60 families evicted from Keshav Nagar in Hyderabad, Telangana under the state’s 2BHK (Bedroom-Hall-Kitchen) housing scheme were resettled in buildings constructed under the erstwhile Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY) scheme. The quality of housing provided is sub-standard and families reportedly face problems related to water supply, sanitation, and overflowing drains. Fourteen families evicted from Keshav Nagar were denied resettlement and continue to live in makeshift tents in the same area. On the basis of a Bombay High Court order (PIL 140/2006), the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai cleared all “illegal hutments” within 10 metres of both sides of the Tansa Pipeline, resulting in the forced eviction of over 7,000 families. The state government is building a 39-kilometre cycling track on the cleared land. Affected families have been relocated to Mahul, a site declared as a “Critically Polluted Area” by the National Green Tribunal, as it is located near oil refineries. After being relocated to Mahul, families have faced adverse health impacts, including tuberculosis, asthma, skin rashes, and in a few cases, cancer. At least 100 persons living at the site have died.55 On the direction of the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra state urban development department asked the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay to assess the infrastructure facilities at the resettlement site. The final IIT report of March 2019 recommended that in order to “prevent further harm” to the lives and livelihoods of the residents, there was “no option other than to shift the entire population to safer places.”56 In addition to suffering from poor health, children relocated to Mahul have been forced to drop out of school as the site is situated far from their schools. In many instances, women are forced to travel distances ranging from 12–25 kilometres, to drop their children to school, which has not only led to their further economic impoverishment, but also impeded their social mobility and ability to work. The lack of connectivity of the site Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 21 GBGBA with the rest of the city and the absence of livelihood opportunities in the area has forced many families to commute long distances to their previous places of work, which places them under greater financial stress.57 Poor living conditions in the toxic resettlement site of Mahul, Mumbai In Delhi, families relocated to the resettlement sites of Baprola and Dwarka in 2016 and 2017 continue to face challenges with regard to housing and basic services. The sites lack security for the residents, especially women and children. In the absence of piped drinking water supply in the tenements, residents are forced to fill drinking water from tankers and carry it in buckets to their homes. This is especially difficult for women, persons with disabilities, and older persons, who have been allotted tenements on upper floors. Another critical issue that has affected habitability of the site and health of the residents is that of seepage in the buildings resulting from poor quality building materials, inadequate construction, and bad plumbing design. Relocation has adversely impacted livelihoods, including of women, and disrupted children’s education. Families relocated to these sites also face challenges in accessing healthcare, as the closest hospitals are around 20–25 kilometres away. Families considered ‘eligible’ for housing at Kathputli Colony, Delhi were moved to an overcrowded transit camp in Anand Parbat, which does not have sufficient space and access to basic services. Though they have been living in dismal conditions in “transit housing” for the last 3–4 years, they do not have any information as to when they will receive permanent housing. Furthermore, the government has not taken any steps to improve their living conditions. The continued exclusion from housing by local governments using the flawed notions of ‘eligibility criteria’ and ‘illegality’ as well as the coerced relocation of the urban poor is contributing to a rise in homelessness as well as an increase in the number of people being forced into insecure and inadequate living conditions across India. 5. Multiple Human Rights Violations UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 58. Persons, groups or communities affected by an eviction should not suffer detriment to their human rights, including their right to the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing. In all the reported evictions and demolitions of homes across India, there has been little or no compliance with human rights safeguards and international guidelines, including the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement. The processes followed before, during, and after evictions have resulted in the violation of multiple human rights of affected persons, including their human rights to life, adequate housing, land, work/livelihood, health, food, water, sanitation, education, security of the person and home, information, participation, and freedom of movement and residence. 22 Housing and Land Rights Network “The practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing.” ~ UN Human Rights Commission, Resolutions 1993/77 and 2004/28 “Forced evictions constitute gross violations of a range of internationally recognized human rights, including the human rights to adequate housing, food, water, health, education, work, security of the person, security of the home, freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and freedom of movement.” ~ UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement a) Violation of the Rights to Life, Health, and Food In the aftermath of the demolition of homes in Shahabad Dairy, Delhi, a 24-year old man succumbed to the cold, as a result of being forced to live in the open during the city’s harsh winter. A month later, another man lost his life as a result of living without any shelter. Similarly, in Pune, an older person also died from the cold after being rendered homeless during an “anti-encroachment” drive carried out by the Pune Municipal Corporation in Ghorpadi and Koregaon Park to clear land of the Indian Railways in the months of November and December.58 A homeless eight-year old boy living on the roadside in Nehru Place died after being hit a car. His family had been evicted from under the Nehru Place flyover in 2017 during the city’s drive to beautify and enclose flyovers but did not receive any resettlement. No one has been held accountable for these deaths; neither have the affected families been paid any compensation. Several people die after losing their homes and being forced to live in inadequate conditions in extreme weather conditions. Those who are already suffering from chronic or acute health issues face increased morbidity and thus succumb to their illnesses much sooner. Such loss of life is seldom documented and the link between the eviction and increased mortality of affected persons is generally denied by state authorities, who avert any form of accountability. During the eviction process in Korattur Lake in Chennai, a 66-year old man, reportedly, suffered a mild heart attack and collapsed when he saw his home being razed to the ground.59 The use of force by local officials and police during evictions has been reported in several incidents of eviction, including in Purana Usmanpur, Delhi where residents were injured during the demolition process. Inadequate living conditions resulting from loss of housing directly contribute to a deterioration of the health of affected persons. Evicted families from Mansarovar Park, Delhi, continue to suffer from adverse health impacts, especially children, older persons, and women who do not have adequate housing or water and sanitation facilities. In April 2018, the residents of Pul Mithai, Delhi, witnessed the fourth demolition of their homes in the last few years. This repeated eviction greatly affects their physical and mental health, and increases psychological trauma, especially of children. The financial losses incurred by the already economically marginalized community as a result of the multiple evictions, including the increased cost of rebuilding homes and loss of livelihoods and days of work, have contributed to a sustained deterioration in their standard of living with long-term health impacts, which have not been documented. The psychological impacts of forced evictions are seldom acknowledged or addressed. A direct result of forced evictions on marginalized communities is the increased rate of malnourishment, malnutrition, and hunger. In the aftermath of a forced eviction, families are not able to cook food or spend money on food. This is also because they lose food supplies and cooking implements during the brutal demolition drives. The surge in expenditure related to rebuilding homes or relocating, and the inevitable loss of income resulting from loss of livelihoods also contribute to a much lower expenditure on food and healthcare, which directly contributes to increased morbidity and vulnerability of evicted persons, especially children, older persons, persons with chronic and serious illnesses, and pregnant and lactating women. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 23 Sites where communities have witnessed multiple evictions and demolitions of their homes include: Gulbai Tekra, Juhapura, and Vastrapur in Ahmedabad; and, Mansarovar Park and Pul Mithai in Delhi. b) Violation of the Human Rights to Adequate Housing, Land, and Security of the Person and Home “The human right to adequate housing is the right of every woman, man, youth, and child to gain and sustain a safe and secure home and community in which to live in peace and dignity.” ~ UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, E/CN.4/2006/41 As affirmed by the United Nations, the act of forced eviction is a gross violation of the human right to adequate housing. The first impact of an eviction is the loss of housing and the substantial investment of affected persons in that housing, which is generally built over many years with hard-earned savings and personal labour. Since resettlement is seldom provided to affected families, they are either rendered homeless or forced to live in inadequate housing. This affects the realization of multiple human rights of affected persons and results in an overall deterioration in their standard of living. The loss of housing for children has serious long-term impacts and greatly impedes their development as well as their ability to study, play, and grow in a safe and secure environment. Forced evictions also violate the human right to security of the person and home, and increase vulnerability of evicted/displaced persons, in particular of women and children, to a range of violations, including sexual violence and abuse and an increased threat of trafficking. In some instances, early marriage of adolescent girls has been reported in the aftermath of an eviction, as parents, worried for their daughters’ safety, prefer to marry them off rather than have them live on the streets or in insecure and remote resettlement sites. c) Violation of the Human Right to Education One of the immediate impacts of a forced eviction is that children are not able to attend school. This is due to several reasons. As reported above, evictions often occur during or just before school examinations. Children who are evicted or witness demolition of their homes are unable to appear in the exams, as a result of which they often lose an entire academic year and consequently, drop-out of school. The loss of uniforms, school books, and school bags during the demolition process also impedes children’s ability to study. In Delhi, for instance, in several sites children reported that teachers would not admit them to school without a school uniform, which they lost during the bulldozing of their homes. Their parents could not afford to buy them new uniforms because of the extensive losses suffered by them as a result of the eviction. Affected families often incur increased financial costs to retain their children in schools that are located far from resettlement sites or alternative housing locales. Those who cannot afford the increased expenditure are forced to pull their children out of school. The girl child is generally most impacted and often stops studying in order to take care of younger siblings or contribute to the household income, or because of safety concerns. Impacts of Forced Eviction and Displacement on Children The long-term impacts of forced eviction and resettlement on children are acute and include mental illness, psychological trauma, fear, insecurity, loss of education, loss of health, and increased vulnerability to sexual abuse and violence. 24 Housing and Land Rights Network d) Violation of the Human Right to Work/Livelihood and Reduced Income Evictions, displacement, and relocation adversely impact affected persons’ right to work/livelihood. When families lose their homes, they are not able to go to work for several days until they find alternative accommodation or are able to rebuild their homes. This results in many people losing their jobs. Those who are forced to move to distant resettlement sites or to other locales, have to seek new employment, which is often difficult to find. Women’s livelihoods are most adversely affected by the process of eviction. The loss of livelihoods results in a loss of income for already impoverished families. In addition, in the aftermath of an eviction they have to spend more on reconstructing homes, purchasing lost essential items, and often on securing vital documents, including election cards, ration cards, driving licenses, school certificates and other important documents, lost during the demolition process. Most of the families displaced from Gulbai Tekra in Ahmedabad were primarily engaged in idol-making, which they made and sold in front of their homes. After the demolition, in addition to losing their personal belongings, including cash savings due to the lack of prior notice given by the authorities, the families also lost their livelihoods. Long-term Human Rights Impacts of Forced Eviction: Delhi Kamala Devi (name changed in the interest of privacy), who used to live in Rajiv Camp, New Delhi, worked as a rag-picker and provided for her five children and their education with immense difficulty. In 2016, her settlement was demolished for the expansion of a highway, furthering the marginalization of already disadvantaged families and forcing them towards homelessness. The survey conducted by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) in the site omitted several families, including Kamala Devi’s. With the help of lawyers and organizations, including HLRN, Kamala Devi approached the High Court of Delhi for relief. In 2017, the Court held that she was eligible for rehabilitation and ordered the allotment of a flat as per the DUSIB policy, which requires a deposit of Rs 142,000. Kamala Devi was in no position to pay the amount, owing to her debilitating health and meagre daily income, but relied on informal loans and contributions from individuals to deposit the money. However, despite the deposit, DUSIB refused to allot her a flat asking for further proof of residence at Rajiv Camp. In the meanwhile, Kamala Devi has been living in a temporary structure besides a drain, not far from where her house was demolished, waiting for allotment of an alternative flat, while she continues to struggle to make a living for herself and her five children whose education has been completely disrupted. The destruction of homes, personal possessions, and educational material during evictions, and the loss of livelihoods, education, and health in the aftermath have resulted in increased marginalization and impoverishment of evicted families. In most of the cases, however, affected persons have not been compensated for their losses. Children, women, persons with disabilities, and older persons are the worst affected by forced evictions and displacement. Several of the evictions have affected Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 56 (d) No affected persons, groups or communities shall suffer detriment as far as their human rights are concerned, nor shall their right to the continuous improvement of living conditions be subject to infringement. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 25 6. Violation of National and International Laws, Policies, and Standards Almost all the documented acts of forced eviction and demolition of homes across the country have violated the provisions of the Constitution of India, national and international laws, and progressive Indian court judgments that have interpreted the right to housing as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. They also violate The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 as well as several state and central laws that include provisions for due process, including the requirement of notice, for forced evictions. These include the Delhi Development Act 1957, Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971, and The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014, among other laws. By these acts of forced evictions, state authorities have also breached India’s treaty obligations under, inter alia, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The reported acts of eviction and displacement also go against provisions of General Comment 4 (‘The right to adequate housing’) and General Comment 7 (‘Forced evictions’) of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement; the UN Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure for the Urban Poor; the New Urban Agenda; and, The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Furthermore, acts of forced eviction and displacement compromise India’s commitment to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. The reported acts of eviction and home demolitions also disregard the objectives of the central government’s Housing for All–2022 scheme (PMAY) as well as several state housing schemes that cite provision of housing for economically weaker sections (EWS) and low-income groups (LIG) as their goal. With each home destroyed, the government backtracks on its commitment to provide ‘housing for all.’ This is further reflected in its failure to recognize and implement the right to adequate housing as a human right, which includes ensuring access to work/livelihoods, education, healthcare, water, food, sanitation, electricity, and enabling the realization of everyone’s right to an adequate standard of living. By the continued sanction of forced evictions and home demolitions across the country, the goal of ‘housing for all’ will not be achieved. 7. Limited Access to Remedy and Justice UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement 59. All persons threatened with or subject to forced evictions have the right of access to timely remedy. Appropriate remedies include a fair hearing, access to legal counsel, legal aid, return, restitution, resettlement, rehabilitation and compensation… The majority of evicted and displaced persons in India do not have access to justice; neither is their right to effective remedy protected or fulfilled. In most cases, affected persons are left to fend for themselves with limited recourse to relief and redress. Most state grievance redress mechanisms do not address issues related to forced evictions and displacement. As the urban and rural landless are generally perceived as “encroachers/ illegal” residents by the state and its law-enforcement authorities, their pleas for justice are often ignored. Where they are able to generate resources or are supported by institutions working on housing and land rights issues, they may approach courts or national human rights institutions for relief. Several cases on evictions across India have been filed with the National Human Rights Commission. While the Commission demands explanations/reports from concerned state agencies, independent investigation or punitive action against responsible officials is missing. On the basis of a complaint by Information and Resource 26 Housing and Land Rights Network Centre for Deprived Urban Communities (Chennai) and Housing and Land Rights Network to the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) regarding violation of children’s rights in resettlement sites in Chennai, a team from NCPCR visited the site and passed immediate recommendations to improve living conditions, including through the establishment of a new school. Role of Courts in Forced Evictions Though the Supreme Court of India and several state High Courts have, in numerous judgments, upheld the right to housing/shelter as an inalienable component of the fundamental right to life, in 2018, court orders and their interpretation by state authorities were responsible for 27 of the total incidents of forced eviction recorded by HLRN. These orders resulted in the eviction of over 52,000 people, including in Chandigarh, Chennai, Dehradun, Delhi, Gurugram, Jaipur, Mumbai, Patna, Prayagraj, and Srinagar, among other locations. The Madras High Court, in various cases, ordered the removal of low-income houses considered as “encroachments,” primarily for the protection and “restoration of water bodies.” The order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) 20884/2018 resulted in a drive to remove 198 identified settlements along the Panaiyur Canal, during which people protesting the eviction were arrested. In W.P. 29811/2014, the Madras High Court ordered eviction in Konnur High Road, Otteri, Chennai, resulting in the removal of 315 families that had been living there for more than 50 years and who worked in the neighbourhood as domestic workers, construction workers, drivers, rickshaw-pullers, small vendors, and tailors. Similarly, in Salem, nearly 211 houses built on the water-spread area of the Vasishta River, reportedly, were demolished, on an order of the Madras High Court. In Kallikuppam, Chennai, 213 houses were demolished for the restoration of Korattur Lake despite strong protests from residents who had been living at the site for more than 30 years. The Madras High Court, in W.P. 1294/2009, had categorically prohibited the regularization of settlements situated near water bodies such as Korattur Lake, leaving no scope for in situ rehabilitation of the residents, forcing them to relocate to sites situated on city outskirts. The Madras High Court (W.P. 36135/2015), while supporting removal of homes of the urban poor living along water bodies in Tamil Nadu, also ordered that, “In case the encroachments are not removed even after due process of law, the authorities are at liberty to remove such of those encroachments by use of force, if need be, and in such circumstances, the police authorities shall give all necessary assistance to the authorities for removal of the said encroachments.” In W.P. (MD) 22163/2018, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court held that any person who claims residence on land notified as a water body in the revenue records of the state, shall not be included in the voter list for the elections. In Prem Nagar, Dehradun, an order of the Uttarakhand High Court in W.P. (PIL) 47/2013 led to the demolition of 50 houses. In the order dated 18 June 2018, the Court stated that, “Towns have been reduced to the status of slum areas,” and consequently, directed the authorities to remove all unauthorized encroachments on public streets “by using its might,” including the imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code60 to aid the demolition process and prevent any protest. In Jaurasi, Roorkee, authorities demolished 42 houses without any notice, acting on the order of the Uttarakhand High Court in W.P. (PIL) 148/2016 to remove encroachments for widening roads in order to accommodate the rise in vehicular traffic. The eviction was carried out despite clarification from the Supreme Court of India, in S.L.P. (C) 30026–30027/2018 that protocol had to be followed before the eviction, including issuance of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. Similarly, in W.P. (PIL) 170/2017, the Gujarat High Court ordered the removal of all “encroachments” without any delay from the streets of Ahmedabad to ease vehicular traffic. In its order dated 7 August 2018, the Court observed that if the “encroachers” were allowed “to remain in settled possession for a long period, they may claim a semblance of right.” Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 27 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), on the basis of a Bombay High Court order (PIL No. 140/2006) that directed clearance of ‘illegal hutments’ within 10 metres of both sides of the Tansa pipeline, has evicted over 7,000 families, about 3,000 of them in the year 2018. Allegedly, the cleared land will be used to construct a 39-kilometre cycling track. While there is an implicit presumption of “illegality” of the urban poor in many court orders, in several instances the judiciary also provided relief against forced evictions in the form of stay orders in 2018. For example, in W.P. (C) 617/2017 and W.P. (C) 734/2018, the High Court of Delhi issued stay orders on demolition of settlements in Nehru Camp, and Dhandan Mohalla, Badarpur Village in Delhi. Although many reported incidents of evictions in 2018 were carried out under court orders, the judiciary also upheld the right to housing in a few progressive orders. For instance, in W.P. (C) 11616/2015, the High Court of Delhi regularly monitored the condition of people evicted in 2015 in Shakur Basti (West), Delhi, and passed orders for the provision of electricity and installation of toilets. In its final judgment of 18 March 2019, the Court strongly affirmed the right to housing as a human right, held that forced evictions without due process, including survey, notification, and resettlement are illegal, and declared that the urban poor could not be viewed as “encroachers” or illegal occupants of the land. The Court held that forced eviction without following due process established in the case of Sudama Singh v. Union of India (2010) and other relevant policies would be illegal. It stated that: Once a JJ basti/cluster is eligible for rehabilitation, the agencies should cease viewing the JJ dwellers therein as ‘illegal encroachers.’ The decisions of the Supreme Court of India on the right to shelter and the decision of this Court in Sudama Singh require a Court approached by persons complaining against forced eviction not to view them as ‘encroachers’ and illegal occupants of land, whether public or private, but to require the agencies to first determine if the dwellers are eligible for rehabilitation in terms of the extant law and policy. Forced eviction of jhuggi dwellers, unannounced, in co-ordination with the other agencies, and without compliance with the above steps, would be contrary to the law explained in the above decisions [emphasis added]. The High Court of Delhi also affirmed the ‘right to the city’ of the urban poor, in strong contrast to judgments which presume “illegality” of urban settlements and order eviction. The Court held that: The ‘Right to the City’ acknowledges that those living in JJ clusters in jhuggis/slums continue to contribute to the social and economic life of a city. These could include those catering to the basic amenities of an urban population, and in the context of Delhi, it would include sanitation workers, garbage collectors, domestic help, rickshaw pullers, labourers and a wide range of service providers indispensable to a healthy urban life. Many of them travel long distances to reach the city to provide services, and many continue to live in deplorable conditions, suffering indignities just to make sure that the rest of the population is able to live a comfortable life. Prioritising the housing needs of such population should be imperative for a state committed to social welfare and to its obligations flowing from the ICESCR and the Indian Constitution [emphasis added]. The Supreme Court of India, in an ongoing case (W.P. (C) 55/2003), has passed a series of positive orders to safeguard the rights of homeless persons across the country. In an order dated 7 September 2018, the Court reiterated that “housing is a basic need of everybody” and required all states/Union Territories to formulate a Plan of Action for the urban homeless which would include the methodology for identification of homeless persons, nature of shelters, and identification of land. 28 Housing and Land Rights Network 8. Extensive Threat of Eviction and Displacement In addition to the reported incidents of forced eviction, HLRN has also noted information on several imminent threats of forced eviction and displacement. At least 11.3 million (1.13 crore) people in India currently live under the threat of eviction and displacement (see Annexure II for details). This estimate is based on primary and secondary research by HLRN. The actual number could be much higher, as there is no official data on people facing eviction and displacement threats in the country. Reasons for potential displacement range from construction of infrastructure to forest protection; from restoration of water bodies to implementation of court orders; and, from removal of “encroachments” to tourism development. In Chennai, 71,000 families living along water bodies, including the Adyar and Cooum rivers and Buckingham Canal, are faced with the imminent threat of eviction. Additionally in Chennai, over 15,000 families are likely to be displaced in order to clear government land. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has identified households living along water bodies to be relocated under a housing project for economically weaker sections. The state government has signed a memorandum of understanding with the World Bank, which will be funding the housing project along with the Tamil Nadu Housing and Habitat Development for the Urban Poor programme.61 An Uttarakhand High Court order to remove “illegal” constructions across the city is likely to result in the displacement of at least 30,000 more households across the city of Dehradun. In Permude and Kuthethur villages of Karnataka, 700 families face the risk of eviction, as the state government has issued a notification as per The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 to acquire 800 acres of land. The perceived failure of land-holders to apply for the regularization process under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and requirement of land for ‘development’ purposes could see the forced eviction of over 8,000 families in Ahmedabad. About 28,000 families live under the fear of displacement in the Secunderabad Cantonment area in Telangana.62 Along the banks of the Yamuna River in Delhi, close to 5,000 houses are under the threat of being demolished for the Yamuna Riverfront Development Project, which will include a bio-diversity park and lake over an area of 189 acres.63 Though DDA already demolished 550 houses in three settlements (China Colony, Bela Gaon, and Moolchand Basti) for the first phase of the project, the High Court of Delhi (in W.P. (C) 5214/2018) has issued a stay order on further demolitions. Thousands of people in villages in Gujarat living around the Statue of Unity, reportedly, live under the threat of displacement, as a result of multiple projects proposed to boost tourism in the region. These include a tent-city, valley of flowers, a 100-acre safari park, state bhavans, amphitheatres, and other recreational facilities.64 In order to ensure connectivity to the region through “modern infrastructure such as expressways, improved rail system and helipads”65 plans are being made to construct a railway line and an airport, and to also create provisions for ferries and sea-planes. The construction of the 15 billion US dollars Mumbai–Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Project (‘bullet train’ project) would require about 1,500 hectares of land from 296 villages in Gujarat and Maharashtra.66 The Resettlement Action Plan of the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited has identified about 14,900 families, many of them tribals, as ‘Project-Affected Households’ who will be displaced by the project.67 Over 2,000 people living in the village of Hanuman Nagar in Palghar District, Maharashtra face the threat of being displaced for the second time, as they were previously shifted out of Jawhar for the construction of the Surya Dam.68 Communities living in villages along the proposed route of the high-speed train already face threats of displacement from several other projects including the expansion of National Highway 8, the Vadhwan Port, the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor, a proposed coastal highway, and a proposed dedicated freight corridor.69 Much of the land to be acquired for the high-speed rail corridor is under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India and several affected villages have passed gram sabha (village councils) resolutions against the project. About 1,000 farmers have also filed petitions and separate affidavits opposing the acquisition of land for the project in the Gujarat High Court.70 Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 29 On the basis of a case filed by wildlife and nature conservation groups in the Supreme Court of India, the Court has been examining the validity of claims made by forest-dwellers under India’s historic Forest Rights Act 2006. In an order dated 13 February 2019 (W.P. (C) 109/2008), the apex court, however, ordered the eviction of over 1.9 million forest-dwelling families—in 21 states across the country—whose forest claims had been rejected by the state.71 Based on petitions from the central and Gujarat state government, the Court stayed the eviction until 10 July 2019, before which all state governments are to file petitions related to the status of approval of forest claims. Nationwide, over 9.5 million affected forest-dwellers, thus, live in extreme insecurity and fear of impending displacement, which would not only result in the loss of their homes and habitats, but also of their livelihoods, cultures, customs, and way of life that has been in symbiosis with nature. With sanction from the Ministry of Coal and Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change to open the Hasadeo Arand forest areas of Chhatisgarh to mining, thousands of people, mostly adivasis/tribals living in 18 villages in the area face the threat of eviction and displacement.72 Also, a large number of people across India have been living with the continued threat of displacement for many years. These include those living along the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor; persons affected by the Sardar Sarovar Project in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra, and the Polavaram Dam in Telangana, Chhatisgarh, and Odisha; and, those threatened with displacement from forestland clearance drives in many states. 9. Loss of Housing from Fires In addition to the loss of homes through direct demolitions and forced evictions, HLRN has also documented that over 3,300 houses of low-income families across the country were destroyed by fire accidents in the year 2018, rendering over 15,800 persons homeless. The reported reasons for fires in low-income settlements vary from cases of cylinder blasts to short circuits; however, in the majority of incidents, the reasons for fire and loss of housing could not be ascertained. Though conclusive evidence is lacking, as such incidents are rarely investigated, this indicates that fires could be an indirect means of evicting the poor from their homes and lands. HLRN People living on the banks of the Yamuna River in east Delhi, whose homes were burnt in March 2018, allege it was part of the state’s plan to remove them from the area. In April 2018, 250 homes in the settlement of Lal Bagh, Mansarovar Park in Delhi—which is under the threat of eviction—burnt to ashes. Affected families were devastated by the fire, which took the life of a six-year-old girl, gutted houses, and destroyed most of their possessions. The next day, another fire in Delhi, in Sector 28, Rohini, left over 1,000 people homeless. Also in April 2018, at least 200 homes burnt down in Manas Vihar Colony, Lucknow. In May 2018, over 100 homes of migrant labourers were reduced to ashes in Aashiyana Colony in Meerut. Families devastated by fires in Mansarovar Park and Yamuna Khadar, Delhi 30 Housing and Land Rights Network In a mysterious fire incident, over 20 houses of Dalit families of the Pasi community, living in Village Kaundhiyara, Karchana Tehsil, Uttar Pradesh, were gutted during a demolition drive. In a similar incident, where the cause of fire could not be ascertained, 80 houses of a village in Dilawar Nagar in Hardoi District of Uttar Pradesh were burnt. Reportedly, this was the third time that the affected persons lost their homes; the Forest Department had demolished their homes in 2005 and 2014. The villagers had been fighting for over a decade for their village to be recognized as a ‘forest village.’ Though they were provided temporary shelters in a nearby village, reports indicate that affected persons had to struggle for access to basic facilities.73 The poor quality of housing, including the inflammable materials used in many houses, as well as the high density and congestion in many settlements results in rapid and widespread devastation during fire. State relief and rehabilitation for those who lose their homes to arson, including fire, is sporadic, ad hoc, and not based on any definitive policy or direction. In most instances, it is limited to a nominal cash amount or provision of immediate food or tents, but durable solutions and rehabilitation are generally absent. Even where affected persons have been provided with alternative housing, rehabilitation is not adequate. For instance, families who lost their homes in Patrika Nagar, Madhapur, in Hyderabad, received alternative accommodation in Gopanpally, but allegedly, it lacks access to basic services.74 Fires, which may be accidental in some cases, cannot be ruled out as arson and as a means of dispossessing the poor and clearing their lands. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 31 III. Recommendations Given the alarming incidence and widespread occurrence of forced evictions across India, and the fact that these incidents continue resulting in gross human rights violations, in contravention of laws, policies, guidelines, schemes, and international human rights standards, Housing and Land Rights Network would like to propose the following recommendations, for immediate implementation, to the Indian government – at the central, state, and local levels. Recommendations Related to Remedial Action 1. Take immediate measures towards restitution of human rights of all affected persons by providing adequate compensation, resettlement, and rehabilitation; restoring homes, livelihoods, basic services, and education; ensuring access to places of work, education, and healthcare; and, enabling return to original sites of residence, where possible and desired. Grant compensation to all affected persons, based on human rights assessments and comprehensive criteria, for all losses—material and non-material—and damage incurred during the eviction/relocation process. 2. Investigate incidents of forced eviction, according to due process of the law, and take punitive action against those found guilty of violating the law and human rights. Recommendations Related to Positive and Preventive Action 3. Recognize and uphold the human right to adequate housing,75 as guaranteed in international law, of all residents of India. This implies adopting UN standards for ‘adequate housing’ in all housing-related state interventions. These include: legal security of tenure; provision of basic services; habitability; affordability; accessibility (for all); adequate location; cultural adequacy; physical security; participation and information; access to land, water, and other natural resources; freedom from dispossession, damage and destruction; resettlement, restitution and compensation; access to remedies; education and empowerment; and, freedom from violence against women.76 4. Recognize that housing is integrally linked to several other human rights, including the rights to work/ livelihood, education, and health; and, ensure that people’s self-built housing is protected, improved, and regularized through adequate budgetary investments and technical assistance. 5. Impose a moratorium on forced evictions in the country. 6. Recognize the right to land of urban and rural communities. Take immediate measures to provide security of tenure to all those living in conditions of insecurity and precarity in urban and rural areas, consistent with the requirement of international human rights instruments, including General Comment 4 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the UN Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure for the Urban Poor.77 Tenure options should be flexible, provided along a spectrum – including rental housing, collective tenure options, and ownership; and should be discussed with people to ensure the best solutions for them. Many families have been living in settlements for decades and have legal rights to the land based on the doctrine of ‘adverse possession.’ However, the state continues to view them as ‘encroachers’ and 32 Housing and Land Rights Network evicts them from their homes and land. This mind-set needs to change and also needs to be reflected in state policy. 7. Invest adequately in low-cost housing for EWS/LIG, with a focus on social housing. Define ‘affordable housing’ on the basis of income to prevent its misuse. Prioritize participatory and human rights-based in situ (on site) upgrading of housing that respects peoples’ livelihoods and cultural needs. In areas where in situ upgrading is not possible, ensure that alternative housing/land is provided within five kilometres of people’s original places of habitation. 8. Halt the creation of resettlement sites in remote areas and on peripheries of cities. The state must stop forcefully relocating low-income groups to these ghettoes of disenfranchisement under the garb of permanent housing and ‘resettlement.’ 9. Carry out comprehensive reviews of laws, policies, and schemes, and remove provisions that exacerbate existing inequalities and make women vulnerable to being evicted from their homes and lands. 10. Ensure that the free and prior informed consent of all affected persons is taken before any eviction/ relocation/redevelopment/in situ upgrading project is finalized. 11. Carry out human rights-based ‘eviction impact assessments,’78 consistent with national and international law, prior to the implementation of any project. Ensure that the differential impacts of evictions and displacement on women, children, and marginalized groups are taken into account, including through the collection of disaggregated data. All social, eviction, and environmental impact assessment documents should be made public, and must be shared with the affected persons. 12. Take specific preventive measures to avoid and/or eliminate underlying causes of forced evictions, such as speculation in land and real estate. The government should review the operation and regulation of the housing and tenancy markets and, when necessary, intervene to ensure that market forces do not increase the vulnerability of low-income and other marginalized groups to forced eviction. 13. Incorporate a human rights and social justice approach for implementation of all central and state schemes related to housing, and ensure that no further evictions and violations of human rights take place in the country. 14. Ensure that evicted, displaced, and homeless/landless families are considered for priority housing and land allotment under all state and central housing schemes. 15. Define “public purpose” adequately, consistent with human rights standards, to ensure that marginalized individuals, groups, and communities are not routinely displaced for projects that do not benefit them but instead result in their chronic impoverishment and increased marginalization. 16. Review the nation’s economic policy, and its unsustainable reliance on projects that sanction evictions and displacement. The notion that a large number of the urban and rural poor must continue to pay for India’s economic growth has not only to be challenged but also removed from policy frameworks and their implementation. 17. Implement laws and court judgments upholding the human right to adequate housing, and incorporate international guidelines, particularly the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement,79 into national, state, and local laws and policies. 18. Implement recommendations made to India by all UN human rights bodies and Special Procedures, including those of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing in her mission to India report, particularly the recommendation for a “national moratorium on forced evictions and demolitions of homes.”80 19. Implement recommendations accepted by India during its third Universal Periodic Review,81 especially the three recommendations related to providing adequate housing for all. These are: 161.155: Implement a human-rights based, holistic approach to ensure access to adequate housing as well as to adequate water and sanitation, also for marginalized groups, including Dalits/scheduled castes, homeless, landless, scheduled tribes, religious and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and women. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 33 161.156: Expand the “Housing for all” scheme to realise the right to adequate housing for vulnerable people and eliminate homelessness by 2030. 161.157: Continue the Housing for All policy led by the Government to eradicate by 2030 the problem of homelessness, in conformity with Goal 11 of the 2030 Agenda. 20. Incorporate a human rights approach to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), several of which relate to the need to improve housing and living conditions of the urban and rural poor. The indicators to monitor SDGs should also be human rights-based and developed in consultation with independent experts and local communities. Specific Recommendations for State Governments 1. Develop and promulgate laws on the human rights to adequate housing and land, on the lines of the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act 2017.82 Such laws should be based on human rights and should not discriminate people on the basis of tenure status or geographical location. They should also move away from referring to the urban poor as “slum-dwellers.” 2. Develop and promulgate right to homestead legislation, which provides secure land for housing and subsistence livelihoods for the urban and rural landless and homeless population, similar to the Madhya Pradesh Housing Guarantee (for Lower Income Groups and Economically Weaker Sections) Act 2017.83 34 Housing and Land Rights Network IV. Conclusion The data compiled by HLRN on forced evictions across urban and rural India in 2018, while being a conservative estimate of the actual scale of the crisis, is alarming and reveals a distressing reality of state-sponsored dehousing and destruction of homes, property, and other resources of the country’s poorest and most marginalized populations. As highlighted in this report, the impacts of forced eviction are long-term and severe, and result in an increase in poverty, destitution, and unemployment; loss of education, health, and security; hunger and malnutrition; and, mental, physical, and psychological distress. Women, children, persons with disabilities, and older persons are among those most adversely affected. Forced evictions not only violate national and international laws and policies, but also reflect a continuing systematic dispossession and disenfranchisement of the poor. Persistent acts of forced eviction and home demolition by the state are directly contributing to a rise in displacement and social unrest. Affected persons have little recourse to remedy and suffer multiple human rights violations as well as a considerable deterioration in their standard of living. This adversely impedes human development, social justice, and national progress. Despite the documented adverse impacts of forced evictions and displacement, the government has not taken any measures to address this unmitigated crisis. The continued sanction of forced evictions by the state also reflects a failure to understand and address the housing crisis in India, which is not merely about the shortage of housing units but also about the absence of tenure security and land rights for the urban and rural poor, which precludes the realization of the human right to adequate housing for the vast majority. State policies related to economic growth, urban and rural development, industrial development, and housing need to be re-envisioned in order to respect and uphold the rights, lives, and livelihoods of the majority of Indians who contribute to the nation with their subsidized labour and low ecological footprints. The fact that such a large percentage of the Indian population continues to live in insecure and inadequate conditions is an indication of the failure of state policy. Instead of focusing on improving their housing and living conditions, state actions that consider the urban and rural poor as dispensable in the nation’s drive to industrialize and modernize, thereby directly exacerbating their marginalization and poverty, are condemnable. Unless concerted efforts are adopted by the central and state governments to incorporate a strong human rights approach in the conceptualization and implementation of schemes, and unless the state understands that housing is not about building houses but is an issue of social justice, which includes protecting housing built by people, providing them with legal security of tenure, and enabling everyone to achieve an adequate standard of living, the targets of ‘housing for all’ will continue to remain mere rhetoric. It is only through the respect, protection, and fulfilment of the human rights of the urban and rural poor to their lands and homes, that India’s housing crisis can be resolved. Housing and Land Rights Network hopes that this report will help draw attention to the unabating but silent national crisis of forced evictions and displacement, and that the recommendations presented above will be implemented in order to address this severe national emergency and bring restitution and justice to the millions of affected persons. Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 35 36 Housing and Land Rights Network Annexures Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 37 Annexure I Forced Evictions in Urban and Rural India in 2018* STATE I. AFFECTED CITY/TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED EVICTIONS UNDERTAKEN FOR “SLUM-CLEARANCE/ANTI-ENCROACHMENT/CITY-BEAUTIFICATION” DRIVES 1. Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam Rammurthypantulu Peta, Kancharapalem January “Slum-clearance” drive 130 2. Andhra Pradesh Tirupati Goplaraju Colony, near Rayalacheruvu Railway Gate January “Slum-clearance” drive 7 Families, reportedly, did not accept the compensation offered 3. Bihar Patna Golakpur May Following an order of the Patna High Court (CWJP 7284/2015) to clear land of the Patna University 40 No 4. Bihar Patna Malahi Pakdi Bypass Road, Kankarbagh June Removal of “encroachments” on drains 4 No 5. Chandigarh Chandigarh Hallo Majra February Land clearance for a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp 9 Not known 6. Chandigarh Chandigarh Khuda Alisher Village, near Capitol Complex April Following an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for removal of constructions on ‘lal dora’ land (reserved village land) 20 No; families have rebuilt their houses at the same site 7. Chandigarh Chandigarh Jammu and Kashmir Colony April “Slum-clearance” drive 27 No; families have rebuilt their houses at the same site 8. Chandigarh Mohali Jagatpura Village October Removal of “encroachments” 9. Delhi Delhi Lal Masjid February Land clearance (CRPF) 35 No 10. Delhi Delhi Gole Market April “Slum-clearance” drive 150 No 11. Delhi Delhi Near Chhatarpur Metro Station April “Slum-clearance” drive 20 No 12. Delhi Delhi Paharganj, Jhandewalan April “Slum-clearance” drive 250 No 13. Delhi Delhi Pul Mithai April “Slum-clearance” drive 50 No 14. Delhi Delhi Lado Sarai (around the Mehrauli Archaeological Park) April “Slum-clearance” drive 15 No 15. Delhi Delhi Sector 16, Rohini April “Slum-clearance” drive 20 No 16. Delhi Delhi Several sites, including R.K. Puram, Aurobindo Marg, Greater Kailash I, and near the IIT flyover April–May Removal of “illegally developed structures” 275 No 17. Delhi Delhi Sector 3, Indira Camp, Rohini May “Slum-clearance” drive 120 No 18. Delhi Delhi T-Hut, Outer Line of Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar May “Slum-clearance” drive 60 No 19. Delhi Delhi Mansarovar Park May “Slum-clearance” drive 20 No 20. Delhi Delhi Malikpur, near Tagore Park May “Slum-clearance” drive 14 No 21. Delhi Delhi Rajapuri, Sector 3, Dwarka May “Slum-clearance” drive 15 No 2,000 Families relocated under the erstwhile Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) No; people have left the area * This table is arranged alphabetically according to the name of the state. Within each state, evictions have been listed chronologically, according to the month in which they occurred. 38 Housing and Land Rights Network STATE AFFECTED CITY/TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION 22. Delhi Delhi Rani Bagh June “Slum-clearance” drive 2 No 23. Delhi Delhi Yamuna Khadar August “Slum-clearance” drive 60 No 24. Delhi Delhi Purana Usmanpur, Naya Pushta October “Slum-clearance” drive 80 No 25. Delhi Delhi Mansarovar Park October “Slum-clearance” drive 35 No 26. Delhi Delhi Shahabad Dairy, Rohini November “Slum-clearance” drive 200 No 27. Delhi Delhi T-Hut, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar November “Slum-clearance” drive 4 No 28. Delhi Delhi Chirag Delhi November “Slum-clearance” drive 15 No 29. Delhi Delhi Wazirpur December “Slum-clearance” drive 22 No 30. Delhi Delhi Bhajanpura December “Slum-clearance” drive 7 No 31. Goa Mormugao Baina coastal belt January “Slum-clearance” drive 32 Not known 32. Goa Quepem Pedamoll in Sirvoi February Removal of “encroachments” 20 Not known 33 Gujarat Surat Katargam January “Slum-clearance drive” in order to carry out waterworks over the Tapi embankment 280 Considered “eligible” but still awaiting resettlement 34. Gujarat Vadodara Vansfodia Vasahat and Bhathujinagar January “Slum-clearance” drive 140 No; alternative accommodation proposed 35. Gujarat Ahmedabad Juhapura January “Slum-clearance/antiencroachment” drive 300 No 36. Gujarat Ahmedabad Juhapura March Removal of “encroachments” (resulting from failure to regularize holdings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act) 300 No 37. Gujarat Vadodara Near Kashi Vishweshwar Mahadev Mandir April “City beautification” around the temple 35 No 38. Gujarat Ahmedabad Vastrapur May “Slum-clearance” drive 110 No 39. Gujarat Ahmedabad Demolition drive over 2 days in different areas of the city August Removal of “encroachments” following a Gujarat High Court order (W.P. PIL 170/2017) 35 No 40. Gujarat Ahmedabad Demolition drive over 12 days in different areas of the city August Removal of “encroachments” following a Gujarat High Court order (W.P. PIL 170/2017) 1,200 41. Gujarat Rajkot Rajkot Road August Removal of “encroachments” following a Gujarat High Court order 200 42. Haryana Gurugram Sector 10 February “Slum-clearance” drive 80 No 43. Haryana Gurugram Sector 14 March Following a Punjab and Haryana High Court order to clear land of the Indian Air Force 25 No 44. Haryana Gurugram Kaliawas Village, near Sultanpur Bird Sanctuary May “Slum-clearance” drive 46 No 45. Haryana Gurugram Dharam Colony, near Indian Air Force Depot May Land clearance (Indian Air Force) 20 No 46. Haryana Gurugram Bhondsi Chowk, Bhondsi Village May Removal of “illegal constructions” 15 No 47. Haryana Gurugram Maruti Kunj May Removal of “illegal constructions” 40 No 48. Haryana Gurugram CHD Avenue Society, Fazilpur, Jharsa July “Slum-clearance” drive 100 (550 people) No 49. Haryana Gurugram Sector 47 July “Slum-clearance” drive 35 (170 people) No MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED Resettlement provided to only 10 per cent of the affected persons Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 39 40 STATE AFFECTED CITY/TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION 50. Haryana Gurugram Sector 53, Saraswati Kunj August “Slum-clearance” drive 150 No 51. Haryana Gurugram Sadhrana Village August Removal of “unauthorized colony” 20 Not known 52. Haryana Gurugram Sector 51 August “Slum-clearance” drive 150 No 53. Haryana Gurugram Sector 5 August “Slum-clearance” drive 20 No 54. Haryana Gurugram Jharsa Bundh November “Slum-clearance” drive 5 No 55. Haryana Gurugram Bajrang Basti, Sector 56 November “Slum-clearance” drive 200 (1,200 people) No 56. Haryana Gurugram Indira Colony, Sector 52 November “Slum-clearance” drive 40 (240 people) No 57. Haryana Gurugram Samaspur Village, Sector 51 November “Slum-clearance” drive 25 (130 people) No 58. Haryana Gurugram South City, Sector 47, Sohna Road November “Slum-clearance” drive 10 No 59. Haryana Gurugram Sai Dham, Sector 49, Sohna Road November “Slum-clearance” drive 50 No 60. Haryana Gurugram Kadipur Village, Sector 10 November “Slum-clearance” drive 40 No 61. Jammu and Kashmir Jammu Rajouri January Removal of “encroachments” 11 Not known 62. Jammu and Kashmir Jammu Along Jammu Tawi golf course at Sidhrah October Removal of “illegal” structures 36 Not known 63. Jharkhand Ranchi Lohra Kocha December “Slum-clearance” drive 7 Not known 64. Madhya Pradesh Dhar Sector 3, Pithampur industrial area April “Slum-clearance” drive 60 Not known 65. Madhya Pradesh Ujjain Panchampura area July Removal of constructions on drains in the city 3 Resettlement provided under the erstwhile Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) scheme 66. Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Sharda Chowk, ‘balancing rock’ area, Madan Mahal Hills October Removal of “encroachments” 200 Some families relocated to Suhagi 67. Maharashtra Navi Mumbai Sector 36, Karave in Nerul January “Slum-clearance” drive 50 Not known 68. Maharashtra Navi Mumbai Ganpatipada, Yadav Nagar, Ilthanpada, and Devidham Nagar under Digha Ward January “Slum-clearance” drive 100 Not known 69. Maharashtra Nagpur Mominpura and Boriapura March Land clearance (by a medical college) 43 families (living in 20 structures) 70. Maharashtra Mumbai Dhobi Ghat, Mahalaxmi May “Slum-clearance” drive 2,720 71. Maharashtra Mumbai Wagale Estate April “Slum-clearance” drive 200 72. Maharashtra Navi Mumbai Thakurpada, Kirauli Village May “Anti-encroachment” drive 500 Not known 73. Maharashtra Nagpur Mangalwari Zone July Removal of “illegal” structures 4 Not known 74. Maharashtra Mumbai Ghatkopar Mankhurd Link Road and Nagewadi August “Slum-clearance/antiencroachment” drive 140 No 75. Maharashtra Mumbai Mariamma Nagar, near Worli Sea Face, behind Poonam Chambers October “Slum-clearance” drive 550 No; some people received rental allowance from authorities Housing and Land Rights Network APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED No; residents are living at the same site and have rebuilt their homes No; builder provided rent allowance for some residents, not all Families relocated to Manpada and Mumbra STATE AFFECTED CITY/TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED 76. Maharashtra Mumbai Along the Tansa Pipeline October Removal of “encroachments” following a Bombay High Court order 3,000 Families relocated to Mahul 77. Maharashtra Mumbai Shastri Nagar, Bandra West November “Slum-clearance” drive – to create a corridor for fire-fighting vehicles 78. Maharashtra Pune Ghorpadi 79. Odisha Bhubaneswar 80. Odisha 81. 175 No November– “Anti-encroachment” drive December on Railways land 165 After being homeless for two months, government announced housing under the erstwhile BSUP scheme Jaganath Basti, near Gate 9, Kalinga Stadium July– September “City beautification” for the Hockey World Cup 2018 189 Families relocated to Panda Kudia and given compensation of Rs 45,000 Bhubaneswar Gouda Basti, near Gate 1, Kalinga Stadium September “City beautification” for the Hockey World Cup 2018 22 Families relocated to Panda Kudia and given compensation of Rs 45,000 Odisha Koraput Roads along Saheed Laxman Nayak Medical College and Hospital December “Slum-clearance” drive 200 Not known 82. Punjab Jalandhar Bulandpur Village and Nangal Salempur Village January Removal of “illegal constructions” 4 colonies (number of houses not known) Not known 83. Punjab Amritsar Gheo Mandi August Government land clearance 20 Alternative housing provided 84. Punjab Bathinda Model Town Phase 3 December Removal of “encroachments” 10 Not known 85. Rajasthan Jaipur Shastri Nagar August Following a Rajasthan High Court order (W.P. 390/2015, dated 31 July 2018) for the removal of “encroachments” on graveyard land 416 No; the government claims that 156 families who agreed will be given BSUP houses at Anandlok, near Silk Road 86. Tamil Nadu Trichy Vayalur Road January Removal of “encroachments” to ease traffic congestion 200 Not known 87. Tamil Nadu Thanjavur Keezh Alangam June ‘Smart city’ project (renovation of a moat) – under the Smart Cities Mission 130 Apartments allotted at Pillaiyarpatti; residents protested as the site is on the city outskirts 88. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Medhavar Colony, MGR Nagar, Karunanidhi Nagar, Seeranaickenpalayam, and Vadavalli October “Slum-clearance/antiencroachment” drive 190 Families relocated to Malai Nagar and Malumichampatty 89. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Quaid-e-Millath Colony, Kuniyamuthur November Creation of a “slum-free city” 151 Families relocated to Madukkarai Anna Nagar 90. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Mettupalayam Road, and railway track, along Sanganoor Canal December “Slum-clearance” drive 200 Families relocated to Keeranatham 91. Telangana Hyderabad Near Afzal Sagar Nala, Nampally August “Slum-clearance/antiencroachment” drive 46 (50 families) Only 34 families relocated Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 41 STATE AFFECTED CITY/TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED 92. Uttar Pradesh Ayodhya Manjha November “City beautification” for a cultural event 1,000 people 93. Uttar Pradesh Noida Sorkha Village, near Sector 118 March Land clearance (for access to the Samajwadi Awas Housing Society ) 12 Not known 94. Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Eit Pajaya–Shaidana stretch, Shyamganj July “Slum-clearance” drive 15 Not known 95. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Sangam Kshetra September “City beautification” and preparation for the 2019 Kumbh Mela 35 No 96. Uttarakhand Dehradun Across the city June–July Following an Uttarakhand High Court order (W.P. PIL 47/2013) to remove “illegal constructions” across the city Over 2,000 (including shops) No 97. Uttarakhand Dehradun Prem Nagar September Following an Uttarakhand High Court order (W.P. (PIL) 47/2013) for removal of “encroachments” 50 No; about 150 people are living in the open at the site 98. Uttarakhand Roorkee Jaurasi Village November Following an Uttarakhand High Court order (W.P. PIL 148/2016) related to “illegal” construction 42 Not known No TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED 19,321 TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE EVICTED 94,130 (Using the Census 2011 average household size of 4.8 persons – except where the exact number of people is known) STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED II. EVICTIONS UNDERTAKEN FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PROJECTS 42 99. Andhra Pradesh Rajamahendravaram Chodeswar Nagar March Road widening 24 Families relocated to Lalachervu 100. Bihar Patna Shivpuri, along the Digha rail track September Construction of a fourlane road 514 No; officials claimed there is no policy to provide housing, but some alternative would be given on “human grounds” 101. Delhi Delhi Block 8, Kalyan Puri February Construction of a sewer line 35 (38 families) No 102. Delhi Delhi Khichripur March Construction of housing for economically weaker sections 11 No 103. Delhi Delhi China Colony, Bela Estate May Proposed park and lake 90 No 104. Delhi Delhi Mallah Gaon, Bela Estate May Proposed park and lake 310 No 105. Delhi Delhi Moolchand Basti, Bela Estate May Proposed park and lake 150 (160 families) No Housing and Land Rights Network STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED 106. Delhi Delhi Sector 23, Rithala, Budh Vihar July Road construction (following a court order) 25 No 107. Goa Margao Comba December Construction of the Ring Road 12 No; alternative housing to be provided by the Goa Housing Board 108. Gujarat Ahmedabad Gurukul Subhash Chowk January Road widening 35 No 109. Gujarat Ahmedabad Amraiwadi January In situ “slum” redevelopment under the state Regulations for the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums 2010 and Gujarat Slum Rehabilitation Policy -PPP 2013 175 Verification process underway; rental housing provided to all families 110. Gujarat Ahmedabad Gokul Nagar April Road widening 95 No 111. Gujarat Ahmedabad Sabarmati May Road widening 150 No 112. Gujarat Ahmedabad Vastrapur Road March Road widening 131 (including shops) 113. Gujarat Rajkot Raiyadhar July In situ “slum” redevelopment under the state Regulations for the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums 2010 and Gujarat Slum Rehabilitation Policy – PPP 2013 250 Temporary housing provided 114. Gujarat Ahmedabad Gulbai Tekra July– August Road widening 250 No 115. Gujarat Ahmedabad Juhapura, near the Agricultural Produce Market Committee market August Metro project 45 Yes 116. Gujarat Ahmedabad Odhav Ring Road August Road widening, following a Gujarat High Court order 100 No 117. Gujarat Narmada District Villages of Gabhana, Kevadiya, Navagam, Limdi, and Vagadia September Construction and development work related to the ‘Statue of Unity’ Over 100 families No 118. Gujarat Ahmedabad Amraiwadi June Metro project 65 No 119. Gujarat Ahmedabad Meghani Nagar August In situ “slum” development under the state’s Mukhya Mantri GRUH Yojana 2013 150 Verification process underway; rental housing provided to all families 120. Haryana Gurugram Sector 65, Golf Course Road Extension January Highway construction 800 Not known 121. Haryana Gurugram CRPF Camp, Sheetla Mata Road February Road widening 10 No 122. Haryana Gurugram New Palam Vihar March Construction of the Dwarka Expressway 14 Alternative plots provided to families with registry of their houses 123. Haryana Gurugram New Palam Vihar May Construction of the Dwarka Expressway 31 Not known 124. Haryana Gurugram Khandsa Village June Expansion of the Badshahpur drain 35 Some families allotted plots, but they are yet to get possession 125. Haryana Gurugram Garhi Village July Road widening 10 No 126. Haryana Gurugram Wazirabad Market, Sector 56 November Road widening 150 No Not known Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 43 44 STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES AFFECTED) 127. Jharkhand Jamshedpur Tatanagar Railway Line February Construction of a new railway line 36 Not known 128. Jharkhand Dhanbad DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) Chowk March Construction of railway staff quarters 4 Not known 129. Jharkhand Dhanbad Chaigadda April Construction of a parking lot 50 Not known 130. Jharkhand Bokaro Steel City Krishna Nagar Colony November Construction of a new railway line 230 Not known 131. Jharkhand Jamshedpur Laltand Village, Birsanagar November Construction of houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 70 Not known 132. Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Exact sites not known March ‘Smart city’ development – under the Smart Cities Mission 300 Not known 133. Madhya Pradesh Ujjain Major Road 5, in front of St Paul’s School March Road widening 50 Resettlement provided under the erstwhile BSUP scheme 134. Madhya Pradesh Indore Sangam Nagar area March Road widening 5 Four families relocated to Bhuri Tekri 135. Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Bilpura in Ranjhi zone April Construction of a water tank under AMRUT 2 Resettlement provided under the erstwhile BSUP scheme, near Brijmohan Nagar 136. Madhya Pradesh Indore Machhi Bazar May Road-widening for a ‘smart city’ project – under the Smart Cities Mission 91 buildings (455 families) Resettlement provided under the erstwhile BSUP scheme 137. Madhya Pradesh Indore Bhuri Tekri June For in situ slum rehabilitation under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) – Urban 110 Families are living in transit housing at the same site; housing promised under PMAY has not been provided 138. Madhya Pradesh Indore Azad Nagar July Construction of a sewage treatment plant/garbage transfer station under the Swachh Bharat Mission 125 Temporary accommodation provided in a transit camp; no assurance of permanent housing 139. Madhya Pradesh Bhopal Ahata Rustam Khan and Pratap Nagar October Construction of a “smart road” under the Smart Cities Mission 150 Families shifted to a transit camp 140. Madhya Pradesh Indore Champa Bagh October Road widening 141. Maharashtra Mumbai Hardas Nagar March Road construction 255 Families relocated to Manpada 142. Maharashtra Mumbai Mahakali Caves, Andheri April Road widening 90 No; some families have rebuilt their homes at the same site while others have moved out 143. Maharashtra Mumbai Near the bridge connecting Kurla and Vakola May Road widening (Santa Cruz–Chembur Link Road project) 250 Families relocated to Mahul 144. Maharashtra North Nagpur Mouza Wanjiri May Construction of the Yashodhara Police Station 20 Not known 145. Maharashtra Nagpur Pardi Road July Pardi Flyover project – under the Smart Cities Mission 12 No 146. Maharashtra Navi Mumbai Sector 8, Khanda Colony December Construction of a proposed bus terminal 20 Not known Housing and Land Rights Network 5 RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED Families relocated to Bhuri Tekri under the erstwhile BSUP scheme STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES AFFECTED) 147. Maharashtra Yavatmal Pimpalgaon Bypass December Road widening 150 Not known 148. Punjab Mohali Along the Chandigarh– Kharar underconstruction highway June Road widening 244 Compensation provided to affected families, as per reports 149. Punjab Jalandhar Maheru Village June–July Construction of government housing 150. Punjab Ludhiana Along Jagraon Bridge December Widening of the Jagraon Bridge 151. Rajasthan Udaipur Amberi March Road construction 152. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Several sites around water bodies, including Rabindranath Tagore Road and Maniyakarampalayam June Restoration of water bodies – under the Smart Cities Mission 153. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Ammankoil, Saravanampatti Road August Road widening 63 Families relocated to Keeranatham 154. Tamil Nadu Chennai Nochikuppam October Road widening 200 No 155. Tamil Nadu Salem Kottai Flyover to Attur Bus Stand November Road widening 211 Not known 156. Telangana Hyderabad Indira Nagar in Chaitanyapuri Ward July State government’s 2BHK (Bedroom-HallKitchen) Housing scheme 10 No 157. Telangana Hyderabad Keshav Nagar December State government’s 2BHK Housing scheme 60 36 families allotted VAMBAY housing in Gopanpally; 14 families living in makeshift tents near the site 158. Telangana Hyderabad Along National Highway 163 December Road widening 159. Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Bakarganj April Construction of a waste treatment plant 15 Not known 160. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Shivkuti July Road widening 16 No; some families left the city, those who stayed are being pressured by authorities to leave 161. Uttar Pradesh Noida Sadarpur Village, Sector 43 August Construction of “group housing” for the planned development of Noida 250 No 162. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Rajapur September Road widening 35 (87 families; 500 people) No; some families left the city 163. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Himmatganj September Road widening 75 (200 people) No; some families left the city 164. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Teliyarganj October Road widening 40 (125 people) No; some families left the city, others were forced by authorities to leave the area 165. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Leader Road October Road widening 32 Not known 166. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Sohbatiya Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road November Road widening 37 No; some families left the city 167. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Dhobi Ghat November Road widening 12 Not known 168. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Sohbatiya Bagh, Jawaharlal Nehru Road November Road widening 22 (50 families) 20 (60 families) 120 3 1,700 300 (including shops) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED No Most families relocated to Shimlapuri Not known Some families relocated to Keeranatham Affected families are supposed to receive compensation No; some families left the city Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 45 STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES AFFECTED) 169. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Jhunsi Village November Road widening 100 (500 people) 170. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Johnstongunj November Road widening 20 Not known 171. Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Lahori Tola November– December Kashi Vishwanath Corridor project (under the Smart Cities Mission) 400 buildings (4,500 people) Not known 172. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Karela Bagh December Road widening 20 (100 people) No; people are living at the same site in temporary sheds 173. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Daraganj Jhopadpatti December Road widening 40 No; some families left the city, those who stayed are being pressured by authorities to leave 174. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Sanjay Nagar Jhopadpatti December Road construction 12 No; families are living in temporary structures at the site 175. Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj Khuldabad December Road widening 22 No; some families left the city TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED 10,772 TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE EVICTED 52,226 RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED No; some families left the city, those who stayed behind are being continuously pressured by authorities to leave (Using the Census 2011 average household size of 4.8 Persons – except where the exact number of affected people is known) STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED III. EVICTIONS UNDERTAKEN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND FOREST AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 46 176. Assam Kathanibari, Kumurakati Kaziranga National Park February Wildlife conservation 65 No 177. Assam Kokrajhar and Chirang Ripu-Chirang Reserve Forest October Forest protection 140 Not known 178. Gujarat Ahmedabad Ropada Talav April Lake development 85 Considered “eligible” but still awaiting resettlement 179. Gujarat Surat Mota Varachha Dantali May Lake development 361 No; resettlement promised but still not provided 180. Haryana Gurugram Jharsa Bandh, Sector 47 February Removal of “encroachments” from around a water body 60 No 181. Haryana Gurugram Inside Aravali Biodiversity Park May Removal of “encroachments” from the park 400 Not known Housing and Land Rights Network STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) 182. Haryana Gurugram Near Sispal Vihar, along the road between Sector 47 and Sector 49 July Removal of “encroachments” from green belt 30 No 183. Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar Dal Lake catchment area February Following an order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court (OWP (PIL) 159/2002) 5 Not known 184. Karnataka Bengaluru Migrant settlement in southeast Bengaluru August Removal of “encroachments” 500 No; families have rebuilt their houses at the same site 185. Maharashtra Mumbai Versova Creek February Mangrove protection 150 No 186. Maharashtra Mumbai Yari Road, Versova February Mangrove protection 70 No; people have rebuilt their homes at the same site 187. Maharashtra Mumbai Sai Dham Nagar, opposite Charkop Bus Depot, Kandivali April Mangrove protection 300 No; people have rebuilt their homes at the same site 188. Maharashtra Navi Mumbai Different locations, including Yadav Nagar, Ilthanpada, and Kanheiya Nagar, along Digha Dam April Forest protection 189. Maharashtra Mumbai Cheeta Camp May Mangrove protection 600 No 190. Maharashtra Nagpur Saoner, Patansaongi– Dhapewada Road October Forest protection 124 No 191. Manipur Imphal East Awaching Kshetri Bengoon Mamang Village July Forest protection 74 No; affected families have been displaced while some are living close to the site 192. Manipur Sadar East Range Pantilong, Langol Reserve Forest Not known Forest protection 2 Not known 193. Manipur Sadar East Range Heingang Reserve Forest Not known Forest protection 8 Not known 194. Odisha Ramjodi Village Similipal Tiger Reserve June Wildlife conservation 73 No 195. Rajasthan Jaipur Durga and Kanta colonies, April Hasanpura Dravyavati River Rejuvenation Project 40 Only eight families, reportedly, resettled 196. Tamil Nadu Chennai Konnur High Road, Otteri May Following a Madras High Court order (W.P. 29811/2014) to desilt drains 315 Families relocated to Perumbakkam; claim they were not provided the promised assistance for relocation 197. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Along Indian Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Seeranaickenpalayam, and MGR Nagar October Restoration of water bodies 117 Some families relocated to Malumichampatti 198. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Muthannan Kulam October River restoration project 500 Families relocated to Maraimalai Nagar 199. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Muthannan Kulam and Medavar October River restoration project 101 Families relocated to Maraimalai Nagar 1,000 RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED Not known Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 47 STATE AFFECTED CITY/ TOWN/ VILLAGE SITE OF EVICTION MONTH PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION 200. Tamil Nadu Salem Koneri Odai October Removal of “encroachments” from water bodies 201. Tamil Nadu Salem Nattamangalam Lake October Removal of “encroachments” from water bodies 202. Tamil Nadu Salem Neikarapatti Lake October Removal of “encroachments” from water bodies 203. Tamil Nadu Salem Banks of the Cauvery River, Sarabanga River, and Vasishta River October Removal of “encroachments” from water bodies 204. Tamil Nadu Chennai Kallikuppam, near Ambattur October 205. Tamil Nadu Madurai Albert Victor Bridge to Ismailpuram, along the Panaiyur Canal 206. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 207. Uttar Pradesh Greater Noida House sites, reportedly, provided to over 200 people displaced from the Sarabanga River and the Vasishta River Restoration of Korattur Lake 583 Families relocated to Perumbakkam November Following a Madras High Court order (W.P. (MD) 20927/2018 and 20884/2018) for the “removal of encroachments along water bodies” 198 Not known Quaid-e-Millath Colony, Periasamy Street November River restoration project 171 Families relocated to Arivoli Nagar, Kovaipudur Sector 71 July Removal of “illegal” structures around reservoirs and water tanks 6 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED 8,460 TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE EVICTED 40,608 Housing and Land Rights Network RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED 2,382 (Using the Census 2011 average household size of 4.8 persons – except where the exact number of affected people is known) 48 APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) Only two families provided alternative housing in Janata Flats in Sector 71; others rendered homeless STATE AFFECTED SITE OF EVICTION MONTH CITY/TOWN/ VILLAGE PURPORTED REASON FOR THE EVICTION APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED (FAMILIES/ PEOPLE AFFECTED) RESETTLEMENT PROVIDED IV. EVICTIONS UNDERTAKEN FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT 208. Tamil Nadu Chennai Bootha Perumbal Koil Street April Cooum River Restoration Project – following an order of the Madras High Court 168 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 209. Tamil Nadu Chennai South Cooum Road April Cooum River Restoration Project 350 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 210. Tamil Nadu Chennai NSK Nagar May Cooum River Restoration Project 300 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 211. Tamil Nadu Chennai West Cooum Road May Cooum River Restoration Project 410 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 212. Tamil Nadu Chennai Muthu Mariamma Colony/parts of Ponnuvel Pillai Garden May Cooum River Restoration Project 387 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 213. Tamil Nadu Chennai Beri Weri Road May Cooum River Restoration Project 190 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 214. Tamil Nadu Chennai Nagamthamman Koil Street May Cooum River Restoration 30 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 215. Tamil Nadu Chennai Mel Naduvangarai May Cooum River Restoration 40 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 216. Tamil Nadu Chennai East Cooum Road June Cooum River Restoration Project 406 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 217. Tamil Nadu Chennai Navalar Nedunchezhiyan Nagar November Cooum River Restoration Project 600 Families relocated to Perumbakkam 218. Tamil Nadu Chennai Ponnuvel Pillai Garden November Cooum River Restoration Project 300 Families relocated to Perumbakkam TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED 3,181 TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE EVICTED 15,269 (Using the Census 2011 average household size of 4.8 persons – except where the exact number of affected people is known) TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSES DEMOLISHED IN URBAN AND RURAL INDIA IN 2018 41,734 TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE EVICTED IN URBAN AND RURAL INDIA IN 2018 202,233 (Using the Census 2011 average household size of 4.8 persons – except where the exact number of affected people is known. However, many families consist of more than 5 persons and many of the demolished structures housed more than one family. This total, is, thus, a conservative estimate.) Source of data: Primary and secondary research by HLRN and information from partner organizations Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 49 Annexure II Threat of Forced Eviction/Displacement in India 50 STATE SITE AND CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE 1. Arunachal Pradesh Tawang Dam area 2. Assam Goalpara: Moylaputa, Bhalukdubi, and Dhuptola 3. Assam Kawoimari Forest, Barpeta 2,000 families Land dispute 4. Assam Sipajhar Village, Guwahati 70,000 people Alleged “encroachment” of grazing land 5. Assam Guwahati 65,900 families Government land clearance 6. Bihar R Block, Digha railway line, Patna 500 houses Removal of “encroachments” 7. Bihar Shivpuri, along the Digha railway line, Patna Exact number not known 8. Bihar Eastern and western banks of the Falgu River, Gaya 1,500 houses Patna High Court order for the removal of “encroachments” on the banks of the Falgu River 9. Chandigarh Kaimbwala 250 houses Removal of “illegal” structures located outside ‘lal dora’ land 10. Chandigarh Manimajra 400 houses Removal of “illegal” structures located outside ‘lal dora’ land 11. Delhi China Colony, Mallah Gaon, Moolchand Basti, and other sites along the banks of the Yamuna River 5,000 houses Yamuna Riverfront Development Project 12. Goa Near Baina Beach, South Goa 400 families Disaster management and implementation of Coastal Regulation Zone rules; affected families allege the eviction is due to a “beautification” drive 13. Goa Vasco da Gama 350 houses Port expansion by the Mormugao Port Trust 14. Gujarat Ahmedabad 8,000 houses Failure of land-holders to regularize holdings under the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Act, and requirement of land for ‘development’ purposes 15. Gujarat Gulbai Tekra, Ahmedabad 16. Gujarat Villages affected by the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat 200 families Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River 17. Gujarat Chandola, Ahmedabad 1,200 houses Chandola Lake Redevelopment Project 18. Gujarat Narmada District, around the Statue of Unity 19. Haryana Jharsa, Sector 37 50 houses Removal of “encroachments”/slum clearance” 20. Haryana Rakhigarhi Village, Hisar 201 houses Archaeological excavation 21. Himachal Pradesh Stretch of Manali–Kullu Highway, Manali 24 houses Road widening 22. Himachal Pradesh Kullu 130 houses Removal of “encroachments” along the Kullu–Bhuntar Highway 23. Himachal Pradesh Bilaspur 1,051 houses Order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (CWPIL 17/2014) to clear forestland 24. Himachal Pradesh Forest areas across the state of Himachal Pradesh 250,000 people Order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (CWPIL 17/2014) to clear forestland across the state 25. Jammu and Kashmir Jammu Housing and Land Rights Network HOUSES/ FAMILIES/PEOPLE THREATENED 10,000 people Exact number not known 1,000 houses Thousands of families, mostly tribals 33 families (nomadic tribes) PURPORTED REASON OF EVICTION Construction of the Tawang Dam Restoration of the green cover of the forest area Construction of a four-lane road “Slum redevelopment” under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) Tourism development for the Statue of Unity Removal of “encroachments” HOUSES/ FAMILIES/PEOPLE THREATENED PURPORTED REASON OF EVICTION STATE SITE AND CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE 26. Jammu and Kashmir Vijaipur, Samba District, Jammu 202 families Establishing an All India Institute of Medical Sciences 27. Jharkhand Sector 12, Bokaro Steel City 2,000 houses Bokaro Airport development 28. Jharkhand Tinplate Colony, Golmuri, Jamshedpur 300 houses Government land clearance (Indian Railways) 29. Jharkhand Nirmal Nagar, Jamshedpur 150 houses Government land clearance (Jharkhand State Housing Board) 30. Jharkhand Bari Co-operative, Bokaro Steel City 200 houses Removal of “encroachments” on the Garga River 31. Jharkhand Different parts of Jamshedpur 500 houses Construction of the third railway line between Kharagpur and Chakradharpur 32. Karnataka Migrant worker community in east Bengaluru 5,000 people “Health concerns” from “slums” 33. Karnataka Villages of Permude and Kuthethur, Mangalore 700 families State government notification to acquire over 800 acres of land as per The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 34. Karnataka Tumkur 30 families Government land clearance 35. Kerala Kochi 1,300 families 36. Kerala Thuruthi Village, Kannur 29 houses Construction of a national highway 37. Kerala Vengara, Malappuram 50 houses Expansion of the Kozhikode–Thrissur Highway 38. Kerala Muthanga Wildlife Sanctuary, Wayanad 68 families Wildlife conservation 39. Kerala Coastal areas of Kerala 10,000 people Vizhinjam International Deepwater Multipurpose Seaport 40. Madhya Pradesh Ahata Rustam Khan and Pratap Nagar, Bhopal 150 houses Construction of a “smart road” under the Smart Cities Mission 41. Madhya Pradesh Machhi Bazaar area, Indore 300 houses Riverfront development project between Harsiddhi and Machhi Bazaar, following an order of the National Green Tribunal 42. Madhya Pradesh Rampura Village, Panna District 43. Madhya Pradesh Ratlam 21 families Food-processing Park 44. Madhya Pradesh Seoni 400 families Government land clearance (Indian Railways) 45. Madhya Pradesh Villages affected by the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Madhya Pradesh 35,000 families Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River 46. Maharashtra Bezonbagh, Nagpur 379 houses Order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court (W.P. (PIL) 1515/2008) for the removal of “encroachments” on the land of Bezonbagh Society 47. Maharashtra Shivpuri Chowk, Nashik 150 houses Removal of “unauthorized” constructions 48. Maharashtra Bheemchhaya in Kannamwar Nagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai 800 houses Clearance of notified forest area 49. Maharashtra Tawade Hotel area, Kolhapur 19 houses Removal of “illegal” structures 50. Maharashtra Along the Mithi River, Mumbai 53 houses Santa Cruz–Chembur Link Road project 51. Maharashtra Near Lonar Crater, Nagpur 300 houses Order of the Bombay High Court (W.P. 4549/2009) for the protection of the Lonar Lake 52. Maharashtra Across Mumbai and Navi Mumbai 3,000 houses Mangrove protection 53. Maharashtra Navi Mumbai 150 people (adivasis/tribals) 17,500 families (1,500–2,000 houses in 10 villages) Canal development projects Tiger Conservation (Panna Tiger Reserve) Construction of the Navi Mumbai International Airport Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 51 52 STATE SITE AND CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE 54. Maharashtra Gittikhadan, Hazaripahad, Friends Colony, Vayusena Nagar, KT Nagar, Narmada Colony, and Vrindavan Colony – Nagpur 350 houses Widening of Katol Road 55. Maharashtra Along Versova Creek, Mumbai 500 houses Mangrove protection 56. Maharashtra Villages affected by the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project 50,000 people Dighi Industrial Port, part of the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project 57. Maharashtra Villages affected by the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Maharashtra 500 families Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River 58. Maharashtra Chiradpada Village, Thane District 59. Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Several villages in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli 60. Manipur Tousang Khunou Village, Tamenglong 705 families Loktak Downstream Hydroelectric Project over the Leimatak River 61. Odisha Between Malgodam and Panposh, Rourkela 766 houses Construction of Jharsuguda–Rourkela third railway line on the Mumbai–Howrah route 62. Odisha, Chhatisgarh, and Telangana Several villages in the three states 200,000 people Polavaram Dam on the Godavari River 63. Punjab Rishi Nagar, Y Block, Ludhiana 93 houses Government land clearance (Ludhiana Improvement Trust) 64. Punjab Dhobiana Nagar, Bathinda 65. Sikkim Along the Teesta River, Sikkim 66. Tamil Nadu Elephant corridor in Sigur, Udagamandalam 390 houses Order of the Supreme Court of India for creating an elephant corridor 67. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore – multiple sites around water bodies 2,563 houses Restoration of water bodies – under the Smart Cities Mission 68. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 15,717 families Government land clearance 69. Tamil Nadu Chennai – people living along water bodies 71,000 families Restoration of water bodies 70. Tamil Nadu Near Adambakkam Lake, Chennai 700 houses Removal of “encroachments” on lake banks 71. Tamil Nadu Kumbakonam, Thanjavur, Chennai 923 houses Order of the Madras High Court (W.P. 31720/2015) to clear areas along temple tanks and channels; administration asked to relocate “encroachers” on plots at a distance of three kilometres 72. Tamil Nadu Kayidhe Millath Nagar, Anankaputhur – Pallavaram, Chennai 200 families Order of the Madras High Court to clear government land 73. Tamil Nadu Coimbatore 200 people “Slum clearance” 74. Tamil Nadu Kamakshi Amman Nagar, Chennai 550 people Restoration of Pallikaranai marshland 75. Tamil Nadu KP Kandhan Nagar, Chennai 230 people Restoration of Pallikaranai marshland 76. Tamil Nadu Quaid-e-Milleth Nagar, Chennai 115 people Restoration of Pallikaranai marshland 77. Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Nagar, Chennai 110 people Restoration of Pallikaranai marshland 78. Tamil Nadu Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai 70 people Restoration of Pallikaranai marshland 79. Tamil Nadu Nilgiri Hills 80. Telangana Secunderabad Cantonment Board area Housing and Land Rights Network HOUSES/ FAMILIES/PEOPLE THREATENED 16 people (adivasis/tribals) 14,884 households Exact number not known 29 households Exact number not known 28,000 families PURPORTED REASON OF EVICTION Construction of the Mumbai–Nagpur Samruddhi Mahamarg (‘Prosperity Highway’) Mumbai–Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Project (bullet train project) Widening of the Ring Road Construction of Stage IV of the Teesta Dam Order of the Madras High Court to remove “encroachments” Government land clearance (Ministry of Defence) SITE AND CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE 81. Telangana Secunderabad Cantonment Board area 600 houses Government land clearance (Ministry of Defence) 82. Uttarakhand Davipura, Champawat 568 people Forestland clearance 83. Uttarakhand Champawat 30 families Forestland clearance 84. Uttarakhand Along the Rispana River and the Bindal River, Dehradun 30,000 houses Order of the Uttarakhand High Court (W.P. (PIL) 47/2013) to remove “illegal constructions” across the city 85. Uttarakhand Across the city, Dehradun 2,674 houses Order of the Uttarakhand High Court (W.P. (PIL) 47/2013) to remove “illegal constructions” across the city 86. Uttarakhand Rajaji National Park, Pauri Garhwal 100 families Protected Area conservation 87. Uttar Pradesh Bakarganj, Bareilly 25 houses Construction of a waste treatment plant 88. Uttar Pradesh Dudhwa National Park, Lakhimpur Kheri 2,000 families Biodiversity conservation 89. West Bengal New Garia–Airport Metro alignment, Mahisbathan, Kolkata 1,090 houses Metro project 90. West Bengal Bishnupur, Kolkata 100 houses Prevention of construction within 100 metres of heritage monuments; to facilitate entry of Bishnupur (temple town of terracotta) in UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites 91. Forest areas across 21 states (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal) 1,900,000 (over 1.9 million) families Following a Supreme Court of India order (W.P. (C) 109/2008) to evict forest-dwellers whose claims under the Forest Rights Act 2006 were rejected; at present there is a stay order on the eviction until 10 July 2019 by the Supreme Court TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED HOUSES/ FAMILIES/PEOPLE THREATENED PURPORTED REASON OF EVICTION STATE 11,280,076 (Considering the Census 2011 average household size of 4.8 persons – except where exact number of affected people is known) Source of data: Primary and secondary research by HLRN and information from partner organizations Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 53 Annexure III Forced Evictions in India in 2018 54 Housing and Land Rights Network Annexure IV People Affected by Evictions in Different States of India in 2018 Legend: Number of People Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 55 Annexure IV Threat of Forced Eviction/Displacement in India 56 Housing and Land Rights Network Endnotes 1 General Comment 7: ‘The right to adequate housing (Art. 11.1 of the Covenant): forced evictions,’ United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1997. Available at: http://hlrn.org.in/documents/CESCR_General_Comment_7.pdf 2 While the Government of India’s financial year is from 1 April to 31 March, the HLRN report documents evictions in the calendar year of 1 January to 31 December. 3 ‘Bheemchhaya to be demolished, a large population of dalit and poor people will become homeless,’ Counterview, 21 May 2018. Available at: https://counterview.org/2018/05/21/bheemchhaya-to-be-demolished-a-large-population-of-dalit-and-poor-people-willbecome-homeless/ 4 For information on HLRN publications and resources on forced evictions, displacement, and resettlement, see: http://hlrn.org.in/forced-evictions 5 A metropolitan city is one with a population of over 1 million. 6 The Reserve Bank of India has classified Indian centres into six tiers, on the basis of population: Tier 1: Population of 100,000 and above; Tier 2: 50,000 to 99,999; Tier 3: 20,000 to 49,999; Tier 4: 10,000 to 19,999; Tier 5: 5,000 to 9,999; and, Tier 6: Population of less than 5,000. 7 Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement, presented in the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, A/HRC/4/18, February 2007. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Housing/Guidelines_en.pdf 8 The paragraph numbers presented in these text boxes from the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement correspond to the actual paragraph numbers of the UN document. 9 ‘Houses encroaching on channel demolished,’ The Hindu, 29 November 2018. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Coimbatore/houses-encroaching-on-channel-demolished/article25620460.ece 10 ‘Jaurasi residents hoping for relief as SC raps officials,’ The Times of India, 6 December 2018. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/66976861.cms 11 Information from Rahethan Adhikar Manch - Housing Rights and Human Rights Group, Gujarat. 12 Incidents reported to Housing and Land Rights Network. 13 Information from Shahri Gareeb Sangharsh Morcha, Prayagraj. 14 Report on encroachment removal drive in and around Mehrauli Archaeological Park, Office of the District Magistrate (Saket), 12 April 2018. Available at: http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/35aaad00455ac4d897b5b7e55f38377c/demolition+in+mehrauli. pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=1220211330 15 ‘Encroachments in Mehrauli area,’ Business Standard, 13 April 2018. Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/encroachments-in-mehrauli-area-removed-118041300008_1.html 16 ‘SDMC removes 275 illegal structures in anti-encroachment drive,’ Daily News and Analysis, 30 April, 2018. Available at: https://www.dnaindia.com/delhi/report-sdmc-removes-275-illegal-structures-in-anti-encroachment-drive-2610005 17 Information from Habitat and Livelihood Welfare Association, Mumbai. 18 ‘Polls over, VMC resumes demolition drive in the city,’ The Times of India, 4 January 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vadodara/polls-over-vmc-resumes-demolition-drive-in-the-city/articleshow/62358318.cms 19 ‘Illegal structures situated on road removed,’ The Hitavada, 12 October 2018. Available at: http://thehitavada.com/Encyc/2018/10/12/Illegal-structures-situated-on-road-removed.aspx 20 ‘MIDC razes slum pockets in TTC area,’ The Times of India, 23 January 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/navi-mumbai/midc-razes-slum-pockets-in-ttc-area/articleshow/62624981.cms 21 ‘Homes in Hadapsar for 165 families evicted from Ghorpadi railway land,’ The Times of India, 28 January 2019. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/homes-in-hadapsar-for-165-families-evicted-from-ghorpadi-railway-land/ articleshow/67715659.cms 22 Primary research by HLRN. 23 ‘150 shanties that came up in Saraswati Kunj razed,’ The Times of India, 26 August 2018. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65546852.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst 24 Information from Madhya Pradesh Nav Nirman Manch. 25 ‘Major eviction drive to pave way for Steel City railway line, Bokaro airport,’ The Times of India, 1 December 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jamshedpur/major-eviction-drive-to-pave-way-for-steel-city-railway-line-bokaro-airport/ articleshow/66892439.cms 26 ‘Line-clear drive till Monday,’ The Telegraph, 13 September 2018. Available at: https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/bihar/line-clear-drive-till-monday/cid/1668116 27 Information from Centre for Housing and Tenurial Rights (CHATRI) and Montfort Social Institute, Hyderabad. 28 ‘150 poor families out in cold as huts razed for road widening,’ The Times of India, 30 December 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/150-poor-families-out-in-cold-as-huts-razed-for-road-widening/articleshow/67302718.cms Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 57 29 ‘Gurugram: HUDA demolishes 31 structures on Dwarka E-way before court issues stay,’ The Times of India, 26 May 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/gurugram-huda-demolishes-31-structures-on-dwarka-e-way-before-court-issuesstay/articleshow/64336010.cms 30 ‘Birsanagar residents threaten mass self-immolation,’ The Avenue Mail, 20 November 2018. Available at: https://www.avenuemail.in/jamshedpur/birsanagar-residents-threaten-mass-self-immolation/126038/ 31 ‘Anti-encroachment drive reclaims land from Sadarpur and Agahpur village,’ The Times of India, 30 August 2018. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65603637.cms 32 ‘Smart City Mission: Families displaced for construction of the smart road,’ The Free Press Journal, 23 July 2018. Available at: https://www.freepressjournal.in/latest-news/smart-city-mission-seven-families-displaced-for-construction-of-the-smart-road/1319955 33 A crore is a numerical unit used in South Asia; it denotes 10 million. 34 Information from Pehchaan and Beghar Adhikar Abhiyan, Mumbai. 35 Information from Narmada Bachao Andolan, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, and Paryavaran Mitra, Gujarat. 36 ‘District administration removes encroachments from water bodies,’ The Hindu, 8 October 2018. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/district-administration-removes-encroachments-from-water-bodies/ article25152740.ece 37 ‘Corporation evicts 315 families from Otteri slum,’ The Times of India, 28 May 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/corporation-evicts-315-families-from-otteri-slum/articleshow/64347933.cms 38 ‘Korattur lake restoration project: Evictions leave hundreds homeless,’ The New Indian Express, 13 October 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2018/oct/13/korattur-lake-restoration-project-evictions-leave-hundredshomeless-1884892.html 39 ‘Eviction drive carried out in Ripu-Chirang reserve forest,’ The Times of India, 16 October 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kohima/eviction-drive-carried-out-in-ripu-chirang-reserve-forest/articleshow/66237218.cms? 40 Information from Jeepal Krishak Sramik Sangha. 41 Information from Centre for Research and Advocacy Manipur and media reports. See: ‘74 houses demolished in eviction drive at Awaching,’ The Sangai Express, 3 July 2018. Available at: http://e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=1..030718.jul18 42 ‘Not even 1% of mangroves notified as reserved forests have been encroached,’ The Indian Express, 4 March 2019. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/not-even-1-of-mangroves-notified-as-reserved-forests-have-beenencroached-5609360/ 43 Integrated Cooum River Eco-Restoration Plan, Final Report, November 2014. 44 According to Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities, Chennai. 45 Information from Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan, Mumbai. 46 ‘150 poor families out in cold as huts razed for road widening,’ The Times of India, 30 December 2018. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/150-poor-families-out-in-cold-as-huts-razed-for-road-widening/articleshow/67302718.cms 47 Information from Centre for the Sustainable Use of Natural and Social Resources, Bhubaneswar. 48 ‘Homes in Hadapsar for 165 families evicted from Ghorpadi railway land,’ The Times of India, 28 January 2019. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/homes-in-hadapsar-for-165-families-evicted-from-ghorpadi-railway-land/ articleshow/67715659.cms 49 For example, see: Forced to the Fringes: Disasters of ‘Resettlement’ in India, Housing and Land Rights Network, New Delhi, 2014. Available at: http://hlrn.org.in/documents/Forced_to_the_Fringes_(combined).pdf Also see, From Deluge to Displacement: The Impact of Post-flood Evictions and Resettlement in Chennai, Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities, and Housing and Land Rights Network, New Delhi, 2017. Available at: http://hlrn.org.in/documents/Deluge_to_Displacement_Chennai.pdf 58 50 For more information, see, From Deluge to Displacement: The Impact of Post-flood Evictions and Resettlement in Chennai, Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities, and Housing and Land Rights Network, New Delhi, 2017. Available at: http://hlrn.org.in/documents/Deluge_to_Displacement_Chennai.pdf 51 ‘Tail end blocks at Perumbakkam suffering without water,’ The New Indian Express, 14 December 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2018/dec/14/tail-end-blocks-at-perumbakkam-suffering-without-water-1911293.html 52 ‘Lack of toilets in school leads to open defecation,’ The New Indian Express, 28 December 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2018/dec/28/lack-of-toilets-in-school-leads-to-open-defecation-1917405.html 53 Study by Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities, and Housing and Land Rights Network. 54 Case study provided by Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities, Chennai. 55 ‘Life and death in Mumbai’s human dumping ground,’ Mint, 28 September 2018. Available at: https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/Ki7VXzsgdtebWpHmXQPuMI/Life-and-death-in-Mumbais-human-dumping-ground.html 56 ‘IIT-B submits final report to HC: Mahul not conducive for human safety, security and decent living,’ The New Indian Express, 9 March 2019. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/iit-bombay-report-to-high-court-mahul-not-conducive-forhuman-safety-security-decent-living-5617816/ 57 Information from Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan, Mumbai. 58 ‘Homes in Hadapsar for 165 families evicted from Ghorpadi railway land,’ The Times of India, 28 January 2019. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/homes-in-hadapsar-for-165-families-evicted-from-ghorpadi-railway-land/ articleshow/67715659.cms Housing and Land Rights Network 59 ‘Korattur Lake restoration project: Evictions leave hundreds homeless,’ The New Indian Express, 13 October 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2018/oct/13/korattur-lake-restoration-project-evictions-leave-hundredshomeless-1884892.html 60 Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973 empowers an executive magistrate to prohibit an assembly of more than four persons in an area. 61 ‘Tamil Nadu budget: 38,000 tenements to be built to move those on Adyar river banks,’ The Times of India, 9 February 2019. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/tn-budget-38k-tenements-to-be-built-to-move-those-on-adyar-riverbanks/articleshow/67908049.cms 62 ‘Slum dwellers in SCB fear demolition of their homes,’ The New Indian Express, 9 November 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2018/nov/09/slum-dwellers-in-scb-fear-demolition-of-their-homes-1895790.html 63 ‘On Yamuna banks, drive to beautify has many worried,’ The Indian Express, 20 May 2018. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/on-yamuna-banks-drive-to-beautify-has-many-worried/ 64 ‘National Tourism Advisory Council considers steps to boost tourist footfalls for Statue of Unity,’ The Economic Times, 24 February 2019. Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/national-tourism-advisory-council-considers-stepsto-boost-tourist-footfalls-for-statue-of-unity/articleshow/68136762.cms 65 Data from the ‘Statue of Unity’ website: http://www.statueofunity.in/ 66 ‘The bullet train may trigger social conflict and have significant environmental cost,’ Mongabay India, 5 October 2018. Available at: https://india.mongabay.com/2018/10/the-bullet-train-may-trigger-social-conflict-and-have-significant-environmental-cost/ 67 ‘Resettlement Action Plan’ Mumbai–Ahmedabad High-Speed Railway Project, Final Report, 10 August 2018. Available at: https://www.nhsrcl.in/seia_files/Resettlement-Action-Plan-(RAP).pdf 68 ‘Mumbai–Ahmedabad bullet train project: Tribal villagers not ready to be fooled second time,’ The New Indian Express, 26 September 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/sep/26/mumbai-ahmedabad-bullet-train-project-tribalvillagers-not-ready-to-be-fooled-second-time-1877183.html 69 ‘Land woes slow down Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project,’ The New Indian Express, 23 September 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/specials/2018/sep/23/land-woes-slow-down-mumbai-ahmedabad-bullet-train-project-1875801. html?page=preview 70 ‘1,000 farmers oppose bullet train, put affidavits in Gujarat HC,’ The Quint, 19 September 2018. Available at: https://www.thequint.com/news/india/farmers-in-oppose-to-bullet-train-project-put-affidavit-in-court 71 ‘Stay on forest dwellers eviction: How states illegally rejected land claims,’ Business Standard, 2 March 2019. Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/stay-on-forest-dwellers-eviction-how-states-illegally-rejected-landclaims-119030200109_1.html 72 ‘Chhattisgarh’s ‘No-Go Area’ for coal mining faces the prospect of being opened up,’ The Wire, 5 October 2018. Available at: https://thewire.in/rights/chhattisgarh-coal-mining-hasdeo-arand 73 ‘Uttar Pradesh village fighting for forest rights razed to ground for third time: “Mysterious” fire led to the incident,’ Counterview, 19 March 2018. Available at: https://www.counterview.net/2018/03/uttar-pradesh-village-fighting-for.html 74 ‘We have been robbed of our dignity: Evacuated people in Hyderabad,’ The New Indian Express, 7 August 2018. Available at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2018/aug/07/we-have-been-robbed-of-our-dignity-evacuated-people-inhyderabad-1854379.html 75 What Does the ‘Human Right to Adequate Housing’ Mean? Housing and Land Rights Network, New Delhi. Available at: http://hlrn.org.in/documents/Human_Right_to_Adequate_Housing.htm 76 See, General Comment 4: ‘The right to adequate housing’ (Art. 11 (1) of the Covenant); United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1991. Available at: http://hlrn.org.in/documents/CESCR_General_Comment_4.pdf Also see, ‘Questionnaire on Women and Housing,’ Annex 3 of the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, A/HRC/4/18, February 2007. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/index.htm 77 See, ‘Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure for the Urban Poor,’ presented in the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, A/HRC/25/54, 2013. Available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/25/54 78 See, ‘Eviction Impact Assessment Tool’ developed by Housing and Land Rights Network. Also see studies using the Tool in Bengaluru [http://hlrn.org.in/documents/EvIA_Ejipura_Bengaluru.pdf] and in Kolkata [http://hlrn.org.in/documents/Deprivation_to_Destitution_Topsia_Eviction.pdf]. 79 ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement,’ presented in the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, A/HRC/4/18, February 2007. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Housing/ Guidelines_en.pdf 80 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Mission to India, January 2017, A/HRC/34/51/Add.1. Available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/34/51/Add.1 81 Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, A/HRC/36/10, 17 July 2017. Available at: https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/india/session_27_-_may_2017/a_hrc_36_10_e.pdf 82 Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act 2017. Available at: http://govtpress.odisha.gov.in/pdf/2017/1652.pdf 83 Madhya Pradesh Housing Guarantee (for Lower Income Groups and Economically Weaker Sections) Act 2017. Available at: http://govtpressmp.nic.in/pdf/extra/2017-03-23-119.pdf Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 59 60 Housing and Land Rights Network Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 61 62 Housing and Land Rights Network Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis 63 Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN)—based in New Delhi, India—works for the recognition, defence, promotion, and realization of the human rights to adequate housing and land, which involves gaining a safe and secure place for all individuals, groups, and communities, especially the most marginalized, to live in peace and dignity. A particular focus of HLRN’s work is on promoting and protecting the equal rights of women to adequate housing, land, property, and inheritance. Housing and Land Rights Network aims to achieve its goals through advocacy, research, human rights education, and outreach through network-building – at local, national, and international levels. In the absence of official data on evictions in India, HLRN established the ‘National Eviction and Displacement Observatory’ in 2015. The Observatory compiles information on forced evictions and displacement in urban and rural areas—through primary and secondary research—and also aims to assist affected individuals and communities with relief, redress, restitution, and access to justice, where possible. This report, titled, ‘Forced Evictions in India in 2018: An Unabating National Crisis’ presents the findings of HLRN’s research and analysis on the nature, scale, and magnitude of forced evictions and displacement across the country. It draws attention to the long-term and debilitating impacts of forced evictions, including increased poverty, destitution, and unemployment; loss of education, health, and security; hunger and malnutrition; and, mental, physical, and psychological distress. The report also makes recommendations to the central and state governments in order to resolve this critical but largely unaddressed issue. Housing and Land Rights Network hopes that this report will help highlight the unrelenting national crisis of forced evictions and home demolitions of the urban and rural poor, and that the proposed recommendations will be implemented in order to help bring justice to the millions of affected persons across the country. HOUSING AND LAND RIGHTS NETWORK G-18/1 Nizamuddin West New Delhi – 110 013, INDIA +91-11-4054-1680 | contact@hlrn.org.in www.hlrn.org.in 64 Housing and Land Rights Network ISBN: 978-8-935672-3-4