End uncertainty for Sharavathi land-losers

The Karnataka government’s decision to cancel denotification of nearly 10,000 acres of forest area in Shivamogga has brought cheer to environmentalists, but it has also raised a question over the future of about 3,000 farmers who had to give up their land for the Sharavathi hydel power project way back in the sixties. The forests were declared as ‘State Forest’ by two separate notifications in 1920 and 1926. The government had denotified a portion of the forest for non-forest purposes under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, in order to provide alternative land to the displaced. The government had issued 56 notifications for the purpose between 1994 and 2017. This was challenged before the High Court by environmentalist Girish Achar, who filed a PIL in 2019 on the ground that the denotification order was issued without the prior sanction of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The government notification was struck down by the court in March 2021. But the government failed to implement the order and was forced to withdraw the denotification only recently for fear of being hauled up for contempt of court.

This has become a politically sensitive issue on the eve of the Assembly elections as the affected families are already in possession of the forest land, though they have not been given ownership papers. Several bigwigs from the BJP, including former Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, who belong to this district have been trying their best to obtain central clearance, but in vain. The Congress, under whose rule the decision to denotify the forests was taken, has accused the government of failing to effectively represent the facts of the case and the ground realities before the court. According to Achar, a bigger issue than the denotification of the forest is the large-scale irregularities in the allotment of alternative land, which has largely benefited ineligible individuals rather than the deserving displaced. According to him, the government was forced to denotify the forest because the revenue land which was originally earmarked for the purpose was encroached upon by some influential people, including an MLA.

While forest land, no doubt, has to be saved, the rehabilitation of those whose lands were taken over for the hydel project is also important. It is indeed unfortunate that their future has been allowed to hang in balance for several decades now. Indeed, in many of these families, the uncertainty over their fate has been inherited by the next generation. This cannot be allowed to continue any more. The government should clear the encroachment of the designated revenue land or find other means to rehabilitate the affected people, while leaving our forests alone.