Land Acquisition for Development Projects and Impact of Double Displacement: A Case

Study

Dr. Jyotsnamayee Nanda [1] & Mr. Binod Chandra Mishra [2]

Introduction

Society is always in motion along with the growth of the economy. Undoubtedly, as the world
population grows, there is a need for infrastructural development, but it exiles people and objects.
Therefore, the applicability of Einstein’s statement “Nothing happens until something moves as
everything is connected” seems more relevant in the development process of today’s world rather
than physics. Development is a continuous and multi-dimensional process that is looked at from
different perspectives by different stakeholders. In development projects like large dams, irrigation
projects, industrial, mining, and power projects, the establishment of connectivity, networks,
urbanization, et al., are treated as the yardstick for economic development. In all these development
projects, a piece of land is the primary infrastructure that needs to be acquired first.

Nevertheless, land acquisition issues have always led to a hot cake debate at different levels as it
directly impacts the people and their livelihood. Critics and activists treat development by
acquiring land as a double-edged sword that, in their opinion, benefits few at the cost of the
majority. According to the World Bank estimate, around ten million people are being displaced
every year from their homes by significant development projects globally (Cerrnea, 1997). The
affected or displaced people are forced to relinquish their traditional way of living and lead a
development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR). The socio-economic-political life of
the displaced families is largely affected, and their social security is threatened. The policymakers
and government have taken steps to mitigate the multi-faceted impacts of the development-induced
displacement by addressing their livelihood to restore their living standards. However, power and
interest relationships among the affected community, project proponent, and government always
triangulate the issues and, in turn, suppress the voice of affected people as they fall in the least
powerful category. Though local communities aspire to determine what happens on their land,
their representation in decision processes lacks over resource extraction projects and others, in
general, so as to decide their development path effectively. (Conde & Le Billon, 2017).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

Without a doubt, setting up development and infrastructure projects like railways are inevitable
for the development of a State and a Nation, but for land Acquisition, the impact level is the same.
It is evident particularly in a state like Odisha, where more than three-fourths of the population
depends on agriculture and other land-based activities. Consequently, the dispossession of people
from their homesteads, homes, agricultural lands is likely to expose them to various
impoverishment such as landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity,
loss of common lands and resources, increased health risks, and social disarticulation [as enlisted
in the Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) Model of Prof. Michael Cernea (1997)].
Hence, the projects intended for the prosperity of the people turned into a necessary evil for them.

In addition, there is a need to understand the fundamental differences between dam-related,

industry-related, and other development-related displacements. In fact, for both the dam-related
and industry-related projects, people of the area need to be displaced from their own lands.
Furthermore, industrial displacement provides them a scope to grow with the industry, whereas
chances of multiple displacements also increase with the growth or expansion of the industrial belt
due to the development of ancillary industries. Thus, the impact of multiple displacements or
double displacement is more than just a project-induced involuntary displacement. Interestingly,
mining-induced displacements essentially end with multiple displacements due to faulty
rehabilitation policy.

At the same time, the constitutional provisions of the law safeguard the land rights through the
Law of Eminent Domain, such as:

“The Constitution originally provided for the right to property under Articles 19 and 31. Article
19 guaranteed all citizens the right to ‘acquire, hold and dispose of the property.’ Article 31
provided that ‘No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.’ It also
provided that compensation would be made to a person whose property had been ‘taken possession
of or acquired’ for public purposes. In addition, both the state government as well as the union
(federal) government were empowered to enact laws for the ‘acquisition or requisition of property’
(Schedule VII, Entry 42, and List III). This provision has been interpreted as being the source of
the state’s Eminent Domain powers. The power to take private property for public use by a state,
municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

can be exercised by payment of ‘just compensation’ to the owner of that property. The 44th
amendment of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights. A new
article, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution, which provided that ‘no person should be
deprived of his property save by authority of law.’ Thus, if Parliament or State Assembly makes a
law depriving a person of his property, it will not be unconstitutional. The aggrieved person shall
have no right to move the court under Article 32. Though the right to property is no longer a
fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. If the government appears to have acted unfairly,
a citizen can challenge the action in a court of law”.

To contextualize the issue and understand the concept of double displacement, discussing
Jharkhand’s farmer protest against the government’s core capital plan (Yadav, 2014) is pertinent.
The plan claimed the status of double displacement, which came to the limelight shortly after 22
days of applicability of the New LA Act 2013 (RFCTLARR Act 2013). The issues due to double
displacement were highlighted when 360 acres of land was purchased by a PSU named Heavy
Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi (HEC), during 1955-60 for industrial use. Later on, the
Government of Jharkhand wanted to purchase the land from the PSU for new capital planning.
However, the original landowners strongly objected to it by demanding the status of double
displacement following the provisions of Sec 39 of RFCTLARR Act, as many of them were
displaced at the time of first acquisition, but most of them still possessed the land that HEC brought
and kept it unused. Though it is a case of double acquisition of the same land, in possession of
original landowners due to legislative lacunae and implementation gaps, legally, it is not a case of
acquisition from the first landowner. HEC bought land from them at Rs 3200 per acre and did not
use it for the last 50 years. Later on, HEC planned to re-sale the land to government bodies and
even builders at Rs 55 lakhs per acre, as alleged, which was unacceptable to the original
landowners. The agitators came to the negotiation table when the government invited the farmers,
offering Rs 9000 as an annuity for five years per acre of land and new houses as compensation.
This sort of protest by farmers in an organized way against double displacement is found rare in
the land acquisition history as it cannot be visualized as double displacement as interpreted under
section 39 of RFCTLARR Act but cannot also be ruled out as a case of impact on people due to
further acquisition from HEC by the Government and other land users. As these cases of double
displacement are found in strewn involving most minor numbers of people, the affected ones did

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

not get a chance to raise their voice for their rights in a more significant forum like Assembly or
Parliament through the Public representatives.

Post-independence India witnessed development in hydro projects with many dams for
multipurpose requirements like irrigation, electricity, and fishery. Such projects inundated many
villages not only due to the reservoir but also the irrigation canals. Based on the agrarian economy
in the olden days, it was a practice that the civilizations developed around water sources. Hence,
to meet the land requirement for reservoirs of large dam projects, displacement of people who
settled for years near the rivers was inhabitable. In this context, Odisha’s Hirakud Dam built across
the Mahanadi River, about 15 kilometers upstream of Sambalpur town, is a bright example.

The dam happens to be the first post-independence major multi-purpose project in India.
According to the available information, 1.83 lakh acre of land was submerged to construct the
Hirakud Dam project, out of which 1.23 lakh acre was cultivable land, and it affected 249 villages
where 26501 families were displaced. Moreover, out of the displaced families, only 4208 families
were rehabilitated (2243 families in 18R.camps & 1965 families in 16R.camps). Nevertheless, the
reality is somehow different, and people claim that more than 1 lakh people were displaced without
proper rehabilitation and resettlement plan, and to date, the conflict is arising from different corners
about the unresolved rehabilitation issues.

At that time, no direction came from the Government as to where such a huge displaced population
would be settled. In fact, they finally stayed in the district of Sambalpur, spread over the entire
sub-divisions scattered, and were known for an extended period as people of inundation area
(budianchal basinda). Now, a high volume of water flows in Mahanadi, and plenty of
development-induced displacement has happened in and around the reservoir, and a sizable
number of people has been displaced multiple times, which may be next-generation for industry,
rail, and other infrastructure expansions. Likewise, Machkund Dam, Balimela project, Upper
Indravati Hydroelectric project, Upper Kolab project, and Dandakaranya project of Odisha have
evident multiple displacement issues, but records are not available against it. The authors have
tried to search the Government records, including the Parliament record, but nowhere was the
information on the exact number of double displacements. It may be because of not having a

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

significant impact or being highlighted or escalated in different forums. When we look at the
impact level of dam projects, we can envisage the impact of displacement that happened then, and
there is no record of the suffering of such neglected families due to dam projects in India.

Similarly, the mining belt in Odisha, specifically coal mines and iron ore mines, are spread over
four districts covering around 500 villages and forest areas. The area’s population is estimated at
around 100 lakhs as per Census 2011. The population of Talcher, which is in the coal belt of
Odisha, is 97,968 with 22,000 families, whereas Champua subdivision, a prime iron ore location
in Odisha, has a population of 18 lakhs. The people residing there have been exposed to mining,
and they depend on mines-related livelihood and traditional agriculture being originally agrarian.
The older population is primarily dependent on agriculture, while youngsters look to the profitable
businesses in mining and allied activities as various mines are being established by the public and
private sector entities. As most of these mines are open cast, displacement is a mandate for mining
operations. The general trend is that people, during displacement, mostly opt for rehabilitation
colonies in adjoining villages because they do not want to be away from their left-out lands and
the mines where they have jobs and livelihood opportunities. In many instances, they only change
their residence to a 5-10 kilometer radius location, falling in another virgin mine, and many times,
the same is reopened maybe after 15-20 years of resettlement. It looks as if they gained double
displacement with the promise of one more job, compensation for the developed land and house,
and a new resettlement package, but no system so far has captured the impacts of the change in
their family cohesion, livelihood, and social-economic life. The way double displacement has
impacted their psychological and economic lives, these people do not have a scope to place or
demand fair compensation. No government or non-government organization has captured such
injustice, and there are no statistics available on the number of double displaced families in India
and its post-displacement impact on them. When the authors wanted to verify the impacts of double
displacement, two cases were considered with different dimensions. One is from an irrigation
project, while the other is from a mining project, including a detailed study, a site visit with an
interview of displaced people and other stakeholders, and other findings that are narrated in the
other sections of this paper.

It is a fact that when discussions were carried out on involuntary displacement, due to a lesser
number of incidents of double displacement, it misplaced the importance of capturing the attention

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

of policymakers as a sensitive issue that needs to be addressed. LA Act(s) also remained silent to
such issues for a long time as the voice of double displaced families faded in the howl for justice,
being of ordinary displaced people. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, made a special provision
in the sections recognizing multiple displacements. Chapter V of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 deals
with the issues of Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R & R), where the collector of a district is
empowered to address the R&R issues as per the second schedule. This schedule elaborates in
detail various kinds of R&R compensation required for the displaced families that include fishing
rights, a one-time resettlement allowance, a one-time grant to artisans, small traders, transportation
costs, et cetera. The Act also states the provision of employment for at least one member per
displaced family. On resettlement of the displaced people, the Act also says that compensation
should be made at the rate of two times the market value in urban areas and four times the market
value in rural areas. Section 39 of Chapter V of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 clearly spells out that “the
appropriate government for the purpose of acquisition should not displace people already displaced
following LA Act, and if so displaced, shall be paid with an additional compensation amount
equivalent to that of the compensation determined under this act for the second or successive
displacements.” Besides, section 107 of the act gives freedom to the states to enact their laws to
enhance the compensation package and R&R. The additional compensation for double displaced
families was not a new concept as the payment of 75% of total compensation as additional
compensation was provisioned in Odisha R&R Policy, 2006. Later, it was recognized in the new
Act with 100% additional compensation to the double/multiple displaced families. Nevertheless,
as the cases of double/multiple displacements are very few, and issues center around it are not
coming to the limelight.

The issues due to residents’ displacement, resettlement, and agitation for a social change have
drawn attention from many scholars as it intertwines with many factors. It is evident, especially
when it is hammering to the internal dynamism of the society and emerging with new challenges
for the project-affected families by depriving them of their socio-cultural milieu and livelihood.
Several studies are available on displacement and resettlement issues relating to land acquisition,
but there is a paucity of literature on the issues concerning double/multiple displacements. Hence,
this study tries to throw light on this grey area of land acquisition.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of this study include:

(i) To examine the impact of double displacement on the affected people of the studied area. (ii)
To analyze the scope of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to address the issues of double displacements.
(iii) To recommend a just, fair, and acceptable people-centric compensation for restoring their
socio-economic loss. (iv) To provide a holistic mitigation plan for a sustainable resettlement
approach for the double/multiple displacements.

Data and Methods

This is an empirical study based on exploratory design. The data for this purpose was collected
from primary as well as secondary sources. The study has been executed in two districts, i.e.,
Nayagarh district and Angul district of Odisha. It focuses on two different development projects:
rail link projects and mining projects, affecting some of the villagers and landowners of
Rayatiodasara village (under Daspalla block of Nayagarh district) for Khurda-Bolangir new BG
Rail link project and land acquisition in Madanmohanpur village (under Talcher block of Angul
district) for a mining project. To elicit the data, the stakeholders were interviewed, followed by a
focussed group discussion in the area. In the process, about 36 double displaced families were
taken into consideration as part of sampling.

Studied Area and the People

Rayatiodasara: The village has 369 hectares of geographical area located under Sariganda Gram
Panchayat of Daspalla block under Nayagarh district of Odisha. The village is situated 10km away
from Daspalla and 50km away from district headquarters. Based on the 2011 census, the village
has 184 houses with a population of 660, where 348 are males and 312 are females. The average
sex ratio of the village is 897, which is lower than the state average of 979. Besides, 43.3% of the
total population is dominated by Scheduled Caste (28.9%) and Scheduled Tribe (14.4%), whereas
the overall child population between 0-6 years of age contributes 12.88% (85), and the child sex
ratio is 977, higher than the state average of 941. The literacy rate of the village is 61.57% (72.87%
in Odisha and 71.5% in Nayagarh), where the male literacy rate is 71.48% and the female literacy

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

rate is 50.37%. The dialect of the locality is Odia and people belong to the Hindu religion. The
majority of the village’s inhabitants are engaged in agriculture and fishing activities.

Madanmohanpur: The village is medium-sized, with 93 households under Talcher block of

Angul district. As per the 2011 census, 402 people reside in the area, where 214 are males and 188
are females while 51 (12.69%) belong to the 0-6 years of age group. The average sex ratio of the
village is 879, whereas the child sex ratio is 645. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
contribute 42.79% of the total population (SC - 42.04% and ST - 0.75%). The village’s literacy
rate is 74.64%, where the male literacy rate is 78.69% and the female literacy rate is 70.24%. The
people of the area speak Odia and belong to the Hindu religion, and most of them work in the non-
agriculture sector, while dependency on agriculture for livelihood seems zero.

From the above analysis, it is clear that both the villages have different socio-economic dynamism.
Therefore, any developmental approach for them should not be uniform. Though the new Act gives
a framework to develop a people-centric plan for the project-affected families, the planners
designing the R&R need to be visionary considering the geographical location as well as the
people.

The Unfold Stories of 1st Phase Displacement

Case I: Kuanria Irrigation Project

The Kuanria irrigation project is located near the village Odasar of Daspalla, having an earthen
dam of 1576 meters long with a maximum height of 21 meters at the deepest section. The top bank
level (TBL) of the dam with 5 meters top width is 18 meters, maximum water level (TBL) or flood
reserve level (FRL) of the reservoir is 135.7 meters, and the dead storage level is 130.3 meters.
The gross command area is 4800 hectares, and the cultivable command area is 3780 hectares.

The project took shape in 1980, affecting and displacing the inhabitants of five villages, i.e.,
Rayatioadasara, Paikaodasara, Narajpada, Dalipadar, and Badakamiti. Out of the project-affected
five villages, Paikaodasar was submerged within the dam while Rayatioadasara (featured in this
study) was severely affected. In the process, those who possessed more than three (3) acres of land
were only provided with cash compensation. Out of 63 displaced families, 45 families moved from
Rayatioadasara were provided with three acres of land each (2.40 acres for agriculture and 0.60

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

acres for homestead) for rehabilitation and resettlement purposes during 1984 at Buguda, 15
kilometers from the original habitation (dam site). The land provided had forest growth and seemed
unfavorable for human habitation at that time. The displaced families were not given the minimum
facilities required for habitation by project proponents; instead, the patta (Record of Rights) that
they received was mentioned as Asthayi Patta. (Temporary RoR).

Interestingly, there is no provision of temporary RoR in the system of the revenue administration
of Odisha. Besides, they had no scope for the subsistence of life in the new patch of land, whereas
the dam provided scope for fishing as an alternative livelihood option for those who lost their
lands. Therefore, the displaced families did not go to the allotted lands, which remained abandoned
for years. The people are Scheduled Caste, poor as well as illiterate, and preferred the easy way of
livelihood through fishing than developing the land suitable for agriculture. Due to a lack of
follow-up support like managing the fund received and encased long-term benefit out of it, those
who received compensation spent away the whole amount against consumable or pecuniary
articles. As an impact of land acquisition, they lost their agricultural land but could not benefit
through the resettlement policy of the project proponent; instead, they were forced to lead a very
miserable life in the absence of alternative livelihood. This failure to monitor the proposed R&R
program and ensure employment opportunity or alternative livelihood is a visible gap in the post-
rehabilitation scenario. Out of the 45 displaced families whose lands under resettlement were
allotted in village Buguda, six families would be affected due to subsequent acquisition of their
allotted land for the newly planned Khurda-Road Bolangir New Broad Gauge Rail link project.

Case II: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd (MCL) Mining Project

Talcher coal-field is situated at the South-Eastern extremity of the Lower Gondwana basin within
Mahanadi Valley Graben. The coal-field areas span over 1860 square kilometers with a coal-
bearing area of about 665 square kilometers. The primary part of the coal-field falls in the Angul
district of Odisha, where the MCL plays a crucial role in coal mining. The village Madanmohanpur
belongs to the Lingaraj Open Cast Coal Mining of MCL, operating since 1993. The Coal Bearing
Act notified that 198.230 acres of land would be acquired in four phases. Out of this, 115.43 acres
was private land, and among the private land, 5.250 acres was habitation area, which came under
second phase land acquisition. Madanmohanpur village was acquired in the second phase by

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

Lingaraj Open Cast Mines in 2000, and 35 displaced families were provided with cash
compensation at the rate of Rs 35,000 per acre and Rs 60,000 against the rehabilitation plot.
Besides, as per the resettlement policy, the company had employed one person from each displaced
family. However, later on, the said payment was found inadequate in the price index to compensate
for the land loss. As the cash compensation was significantly less, about 12 displaced families
(now extended to 30 families) resettled in their own lands nearer to the acquired land, hoping for
a better employment opportunity in the company. While interviewing some of the stakeholders of
the area, we came to learn that during the resettlement, nobody from the government or the
company informed them that the land is demarcated under the coal block and subsequently going
to be acquired. The irony is that when the land was planned to be acquired for coal block, the
development program of the Government continued to be implemented in the resettled habitation
with social as well as food security services to them like approach road, tube well, PDS, et al. It
has created assurance to the families of a long term settlement in the area.

Issues of Double Displacement and Challenges

The displacement and rehabilitation discourse has been centered on the political, economic,
psychological, and emotional issues emerging from and affecting the entire process. However, the
marginalization of affected families is even more acute in the case of double displacement. It also
affects the food security measures of the displaced families in the relocated area. In addition, their
lifestyles, children’s education, and the health of elders in the families are badly impacted.

In this study, 36 double displaced families were surveyed. Six families from the Rayatiodasara
village and 30 families from Madanmohanpur village are covered in the survey. The studied
respondents are between the age group of 25–50 years, and most of the respondents have up to
middle school education. Data reveals that respondents of the Madanmohanpur village are more
educated than Rayatiodasara village with technical educations like ITI and Diploma degree.
Besides, the landholding status of the surveyed families shows that except for three families, all
others are marginal farmers. The respondents of Rayatiodasara currently depend on the daily wage
and fishing as the source of subsistence. In contrast, the livelihood of respondents of
Madanmohanpur centers around the employment provided to the project-affected families (PDFs)
of the MCL under the mining development operators (MDOs), mainly in the unskilled sector. The

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

annual income of the surveyed displaced families of Madanmohanpur varies from Rs 50,000 to Rs
2,00,000, and the annual income of families of Rayatiodasara is less than Rs. 50,000.

During the discussion with the double displaced families of the Khurda-Road Bolangir New BG
Rail link project, it is found that at the outset of the project design, 17 families were going to be
displaced. However, as per the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the people had the opportunity to share
their views during the social impact assessment study and public hearing meeting. Their
suggestions were taken into consideration by the project proponent, and they have changed the
designed alignment of the project. The change in the project design reduced the number of families
from seventeen to six, only those required to be double displaced. Nevertheless, the plight of the
project displaced families (PDFs) remained unaddressed. As discussed earlier, the PDFs under the
Kuanria irrigation project were not settled in the allotted plots due to inaccessibility and lack of
infrastructure facilities on site, as well as alternative livelihood options. The area remained
abandoned and encroached by outsiders. The concerned administrative personnel did not settle the
issue of Asthayi Patta. Only one PDF residing in the allotted plot since 1997 who was engaged in
petty business has access to Daspalla Tehsil to get a confirmed patta way back in 2017. He received
Sthayi Patta only because of his efforts, whereas others were deprived of the benefit due to
ignorance and inaccessibility to the concerned offices. At the time of double acquisition, they could
realize that they are pressed to the arena of uncertainty to get their rights as a landowner of the
homestead land in the absence of right title and interest recognised through Record of Rights over
the land allotted years back. The first acquisition has taken away their bread and butter without
providing any alternatives except for a patch of unused land as a token of assurance for the
generations to come, which will be acquired without ensuring their possession right. James A
Garfield, the then president of the United States, has rightly said once, “Man cannot live by bread
alone; he must have peanut butter as well.”

The people of the area jointly have given a petition for settlement of the issue and provide them
Sthayi Patta (permanent title), but the issue was found unsettled at the time of publishing this
article. As per the record of the project proponent, only one PDF will get the compensation and
other benefits against the land. Hence, the issue becomes more prominent when the LARR Act
talks about the utmost care to restore the livelihood status of the displaced families, but those who
lost their lands along with the displaced six families of the Kuanria irrigation project under study

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

are going to be further marginalized due to double displacement. It relates well to the famous quote
of Philipp Meyer, a well-known fiction writer from the USA, that “No land was ever acquired
honestly in the history of the earth.”

Further, in the case of displaced families of Madanmohanpur village, 30 PDFs are subjected to
double displacement by the same Company. As discussed, the company did not rehabilitate them
at the first phase of displacement but provided cash compensation at the rate decided during the
initial phase of land acquisition. It compelled some families to settle in their own agricultural lands
available nearby, while five families migrated to other areas. Besides, they have also settled at the
adjoining locations, keeping an eye on coal mine expansion for employment opportunities and
livelihood options. Though they apprehended that the mining area may further expand in the future
and the people might be displaced again, they prefer to settle in the close vicinity of the company
to ensure their livelihood. It is also noticed that by residing close to the coal mine areas, people of
the area suffer from health hazards like respiratory problems, asthma, kidney problems, cancer, et
al. and the problems are increasing day by day in the area. The displaced people were sandwiched
with the question, whether they need better health or better livelihood while choosing their
resettlement site and often end up choosing the assured income for livelihood.

Issues Elicited During the Discussion With the PDFs in Both Cases

From both the studied cases, it is understandable that the issue due to displacement for irrigation
purposes is quite different from mining. While the first one squeezes the livelihood option of the
Displaced, the second one shows a ray of hope for the financial assurance with a threat of health
hazards and multiple displacements with the expansion of mining activities. Holistically when we
look at the issues due to double or multiple displacements, it indicates the plight of the displaced
people in the vicious circle of marginalization. (a) At the outset of the acquisition, the affected
people lost their land for generations, making the food producer the dependent wage laborer,
whereas the food security of the forth-coming generations remains at stake. (b) Family
disintegration starts as the first issue. It is common in mining displacement that when the
employment opportunity is created for one family member, they try to settle outside the village. In
other cases, they search for alternative livelihood, and the potential members go outside. (c) The
young generation’s behavior towards dependent parents has changed. (d) Unmarried minor sons

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

of the PDFs also suffer a lot as the compensated money and job opportunities were availed chiefly
by the elder child. (e) The education of the children of PDFs was disturbed. Due to the threat of
multiple displacements, they could not plan for higher studies. (f) Getting a residential certificate
for children’s higher education due to the non-availability of RoR of the rehabilitated or allocated
plots becomes another challenge for them. (g) Improper financial management of compensated
money by the PDFs forced them to lead a poor socio-economic life. Only a few elite groups could
manage their money with a proper investment plan, while the poor and illiterate PDFs spent it
within years. (h) The PDFs lost their village identity, which impacts their social status. (i) The
livelihood options adopted in the rehabilitated area were uncertain. The respondents shared that
the issues due to multiple displacements were a nightmare to them. (j) The most vulnerable were
the women who face adjustment challenges in the form of exploitation, uncertainty, anxiety, and
insecurity in a new environment.

Recommendations and Conclusion

(1) Looking at the long term impact on the people who are badly affected due to multiple or double
displacement, which RFCTLARR Act 2013, Sec 39 tried to capture with double compensation (an
additional compensation equivalent to that of the determined compensation), the impact of socio-
economic disjoint is to be measured through a developed parameter. It must be mapped with
computation in terms of money and other benefits on a case-to-case basis with more parameters
for mapping the losses. Instead of making a blanket rise in compensation, it will be appropriate to
address fair compensation, which the new Act intended to provide.

(2) The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 has provided a broader scope to the state bodies by empowering
them to formulate their own rules based on the demand of the state. Hence, to bridge the gap
between implementing the R&R plan and its follow-up, a stringent monitoring mechanism can be
established and regular social audits can be organized. Furthermore, the feeling of abandonment
by the displaced can be addressed by integrating a special development program for them, which
must be focused on micro-planning.

(3) The scope may be created to ensure the participation of multiple or double displaced families
to raise their issues in the district level forum before the planners. It would give them an
opportunity to be a part of the development.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

(4) When the RFCTLARR Act 2013 supports share for people who have lost their lands in various
development and industrial projects, a mandatory provision of benefit or profit-sharing for the
multiple or double displaced families can mitigate some of their social and economic loss.

(5) The Government can also propose a policy, declaring government jobs for each double
displaced family as a special package to compensate for the sufferings of the family (families) as
overall responsibility and welfare.

(6) The Government may set up a committee to identify the number of families facing multiple
and frequent displacements to maintain statistics and monitor the post-displacement impacts for
long-term, effective support for their social and economic growth.

References:

1. Cernea, M.M. (1997). The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced
population, World Development, Vol. 25 (10).
2. Conde, Marta and Philippe Le Billon (2017). Why do some communities resist mining
projects while others do not, the Extractive Industries and Society.
3. Lobo, Lancy and Shashikant Kumar (2009). Land Acquisition, Displacement and
Resettlement in Gujarat 1947- 2004, Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.
4. Ota, Akhil B. (2001). Reconstructing Livelihood of the Displaced Families in Development
Projects. Cause of Failure and Room for Reconstruction, Paper presented at the conference
on livelihoods and poverty reduction: Lessons from Eastern India, 25-27 Sept.
5. Ray, Parsuram (2000). Development Induced Displacement in India, SARWATCH Vol 2
(1).
6. Sahoo, Kedarsen (2019). Changing pattern of the livelihood of the displaced households:
A case study of Dhamra port project in Odisha, Indian Journal of Economics and
Development, Vol 7(5).
7. Sharma, R. N. (2003). Involuntary Displacement: A Few Encounters, Economic and
Political Weekly, March.
8. Vanclay, Frank (2017) Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from
impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, Vol. 35(1).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930

 9. Wilson, Sigismond A. (2019) Mining-induced displacement and resettlement: The case of
rutile mining communities in Sierra Leone, Journal of Sustainable Mining 18.
10. Yadav, Anumeha (2014). Jharkhand farmers protest ‘Double Displacement.’ The Hindu
(Ranchi Edition), 22nd January.

***************

Authors:

[1] Dr.Jyotsnamayee Nanda works as a Research Associate in State SIA Unit, Nabakrushna
Choudhury Centre for Development Studies, Bhubaneswar.

[2] Mr. Binod Chandra Mishra has worked in the Government of Odisha in Land acquisition
and, later on, joined the private sector. He has vast exposure in Land Acquisition, R&R, and
Displacement in Industrial, Mining, and Irrigation projects and has participated in policy
planning for R&R in Odisha.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874930