Article

Resettlement of Urban Journal of Land and Rural Studies

4(1) 97–110
Poor in Chennai,  2016 Centre for Rural
Studies, LBSNAA

Tamil Nadu: Concerns SAGE Publications

sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2321024915616675
in R&R Policy and Urban http://lrs.sagepub.com

Housing Programme

Dilip Diwakar G.1

Vanessa Peter2

Abstract
In Chennai alone, over 21,000 families have already been removed from their
primary livelihood area and ghettoised in the peripheral areas of the city like Kannagi
Nagar, Semmencherry and Perumbakkam, which are 25 to 30 kilometres from their
original habitation. Another 31,912 families are in the process of being removed to
these resettlement colonies. The R&R processes adopted by the government for
the urban communities have unleashed gross human rights violations including right
to adequate housing, food, water, education, health, work/livelihood and security
of the person and home. There are no prescribed standards or policy in place for
urban resettlement, yet government is constructing more houses in these sites.
This article intends to document the human rights violation faced by the resettled
communities in Kannagi Nagar, Chennai, and calls for an urgent attention to bring
in necessary changes in the R&R policy for urban resettlement.

Keywords
en masse resettlement, R&R policy, Tamil Nadu, urban poor, rights to life,
livelihood

Introduction
As India is treading in the paths of development, there is an unprecedented rise of
displacement of the poor from their habitats both in the rural as well as in the
urban areas. Apart from the natural disaster and war, the development-induced
1
Department of Social Work, Central University of Kerala, Kasargod, Kerala.
2
Independent Researcher.

Corresponding author:
Dilip Diwakar G., Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Central University of Kerala,
Kasargod, Kerala.
E-mail: dilipjnu@gmail.com
98 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1)

displacement has increased and occupied a central position in the policy debate in
the end of 20th century and still continues (Chakrabarti & Dhar, 2010). At present,
projects and programmes involving huge investments for urban renewal, setting
up of industries, earmarking special economic zones, massive infrastructure
development projects, setting up of ports, dams and mines have indiscriminately
uprooted communities from their homes and habitats (Chatterji & Jenson, 2004;
Coelho & Raman, 2010; IDMC, 2008; Nayak, 2008). Deprived communities from
the rural and urban areas have been affected because of lack of adequate
rehabilitation plans exposing them to multiple vulnerabilities and abject poverty
situation bought forth by exacerbated migration, homelessness and loss of
livelihoods (ActionAid, 2004; Banerjee, 2008). The worst affected in the inadequate
rehabilitation packages designed for the communities are the women, children,
persons with disability, indigenous communities, minorities and other marginalised
communities, as inadequate rehabilitation can result in violation of human right to
food, water, health, livelihood, education and human dignity (Babu, 2014; Coelho
& Venkat 2012; Diwakar, 2010; HRLN, 2014; PUCL, 2010; Roy, 2000).
Rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) of the poor is a cause of concern as
the socio-economic impact of displacement has a significant effect on these
communities. However, rehabilitation of the urban-deprived communities has
become a crucial area of research agenda because of the following reasons:

• Rapid urbanisation resulting in increased transition of communities from

rural to urban citizens;
• Unlike the rural poor, the poor in the urban areas are construed to be illegal
and often referred as ‘squatters’ or ‘encroachers’ irrespective of the fact that
slums are ‘declared’ or ‘recognised’;
• Whereas the government to some extent recognises the traditional livelihood
linkages to the land in the rural areas, the linkage between area of residence
and livelihood still remains delinked in the urban areas;
• In the urban areas, the major intervention that is adopted for alleviating
urban poverty is that of housing and hence in the post-displacement
phase, the R&R is also highly restricted to that of housing, where as
the other components including livelihoods, basic amenities, education,
land titles, social security and community participation are not taken into
consideration; and
• The existing legislation/policy at the national level related to R&R has a
rural focus where as the issues specific to the urban areas are not taken into
consideration.

As R&R for the deprived urban communities in the country and in Tamil
Nadu (TN) is restricted mostly to housing, there is a need to look into the various
resettlement housing projects implemented by the state. The analysis of the
various resettlement housing projects clearly reveals the fact that R&R domain
should expand beyond housing or alternative accommodation. It should take into
consideration the rights of the community over the land (security to tenure),
Diwakar G. and Peter 99

quality of the accommodation provided, concerns related to livelihood, access to

education and social security measures, optimised community participation, access to
information, effective and participatory impact assessments, compensation, grievance
redressal and legal assistance. R&R should be viewed as the right of the community
and not as a service delivery mechanism to address the issue of displacement. There
is also an emerging need to explore R&R from the lens of the urban poor as the
popular discourse is restricted to the rural domain (Banerjee, 2008).
As the debate related to R&R is primarily related to housing in the urban
sector it is important to document the process and identify the gaps both at the
policy as well the implementation level. This first section of the article will
examine the housing policy and the initiatives of the Government of India as
well as the initiatives of TN government to meet the housing needs. The second
section traces the dispossession of the urban poor to the margin in TN. The third
section examines the condition of the people in the resettlement colony. The
fourth section explores the state’s position on the R&R policy and the urban
housing programme.

Housing Policy and Initiatives of Government of India

The housing initiatives by the Government of India can be traced back before
independence by the Bombay Province by establishing Development Authority in
1921 (Cherunilam & Heggade, 1987, p. 61). The shift in the housing policy and
the initiatives taken by the government are very important to understand the urban
housing programme for the poor in India (Diwakar, 2012). After independence
government through Five Year Plans (FYP) initiated many housing development
programmes.3 During Second FYP, when initiatives were made to shift/relocation
people to far-off places it was restrained by the people as it affected their basic life
and livelihood. So the government focussed on in situ development of the urban
areas till the Fifth FYP rather than relocating to distant places. In 1972, the central
government initiated the Environment Improvement in Urban Slums scheme; it
aimed to provide seven basic amenities to slum households. During Fifth FYP,
with the help of the master plan prepared by the states, the Integrated Urban
Development Programme was initiated. It focused on water supply and sanitation
in both rural and urban areas.
However, during the Sixth FYP there was a clear shift from housing being a
state responsibility to a private/individual responsibility. This shift of housing
from government to private has brought huge distress to the poor. The city
plan and the training of urban local bodies (ULBs) were all made only to serve
the rich and the industrialist but not to serve the poor and the middle class.
The privatisation of housing sector and government role as only a moderator
of financial institution has constraint the housing of poor and marginalised.

3
Government of India, Planning Commission, ‘Five Year Plans’. Downloaded
from http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html
100 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1)

The Housing and Urban Development Corporation was promoted to channelise

the private investment for the need of the urban poor. The EWS housing was
the most significant component of social housing scheme, as part of the
20-Point Programme during the Eighth FYP.
Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) commenced
in Tenth FYP to meet the urban infrastructure needs and reform at city and urban
and local body levels. JNNURM activities continued, with aim of providing
affordable shelter and decent living and working conditions to the poor and for
helping them to develop self-employment enterprises. But under JNNURM, the
displacement of the urban poor outside the city limit has increased. JNNURM has
promoted the concept of satellite towns to restrict city congestion which has only
contributed to ghettoisation of urban poor as in the case of TN. Promoting private
players to engage in public housing programmes poses the risk, violating the
principles of community accountability and transparency as the private players
are not mandated to do so. Although the Eleventh FYP and the Twelfth FYP talks
about the inclusion of the poor and the marginalised, the urban housing programme
is exclusionary in nature, it excludes them from access to basic amenities and
violates the basic human rights.

Dispossession of the Urban Poor to the Margins

in Tamil Nadu
The Government of Tamil Nadu addresses the housing need of the urban poor in
the metropolitan cities through the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB).
In Chennai, the people have settled in the slum for generations. The TNSCB from
its inception in 1970 till the early 1990s identified the congested slums which
lacked basic amenities and provided in situ tenement housing with basic amenities
or provided housing near to their settlements within the city limits (Dorairaj,
2009). However, after liberalisation, land had become a major commodity, the
steep raise of the land price in the city pushed the urban slum dwellers outside the
city limit. The housing programme undertaken by the government went through a
rapid change aligning with the neoliberal agenda as the government increasingly
depended on World Bank funds for state housing programmes.
The World Bank funds in India were designed to create new housing finance
institutions with a main concentration of developing housing sector as a whole in
India. It was designed to contribute to urban economic development and the growth
of nation; however, it had a negative impact on the lives of the urban poor. In TN
the earliest funding for urban development especially for Chennai city can be
traced back to 1977. Under the earlier projects of the World Bank the Slum
Improvement scheme had a focus on in situ housing under the ‘As-is-where-is’
scheme. About 45,000 slum dwellers benefited from the scheme but the entire
housing was not a subsidy but was based on hire purchase scheme. The poor
people who were living in the lands for ages now had to pay rents.
With the inception of the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project-I (TNUDP-I)
the funding was expanding from Madras Metropolitan Areas to all municipalities
Diwakar G. and Peter 101

and municipal corporations based on their previous experimentation of Madras

Urban Development Project. This initiative of the World Bank had clear
implication on the macroeconomic reform further alienating the rights of the
poor. For example, Under TNUDP II, pre-feasibility study on ‘Identification of
Environmental Infrastructure Requirement in Slums in Chennai Metropolitan
Area’ for TNSCB in 2005 was conducted. As per this study, the slums were
classified into those living in objectionable and unobjectionable areas. It was the
World Bank funded study that resulted in the evolution of newer classification
of slums that rendered them ‘illegal occupants’ and ‘encroachers’ bypassing
the classification of slums under the Slum Act of the state. The funding of the
World Bank transformed the housing schemes of TNSCB, the board that once
emphasised on rehousing the slum families in ‘self-contained hygienic tenements’
in the same place adopted housing at alternative locations.
The World Bank funded projects promoted the involvement of private players
in urban development and the role of the state was reduced to that of a facilitator
for promoting involvement of the private players catering to the market economy
based reforms. There was also a shift from ‘project financing’ to ‘policy-oriented
lending’ in the urban sector funded by the IFIs. This policy shift resulted in the
government adopting a market-friendly approach pushing the poor from the cities
to the fringes. From late 1990s till the end of late 2010 more than 100,000 people
from Chennai slum were forced to settle in the relocation settlement built in the
Kannagi Nagar, Semmencherry, Tondiarpet and Thilagar Nagar. Even after lot of
resistance and struggle by the people in all these years, still the government has
not changed its policy and it is evicting the people and shifting/relocating them in
the far-off places.
The housing programmes implemented for the urban slum dwellers in TN
continues to uproot the communities from their place of life and livelihood to
‘settlements’ located in the fringes of the city. The marginalised communities of
the cities are being uprooted in the pretext of being provided affordable housing
under the various R&R programmes designed for those who are ousted for
various development, beautification and larger public interest infrastructure-
related projects.
The state’s existing relocation and resettlement housing programmes often
endorses the existing view that the poor are ‘encroachers’ and ‘squatters’ of
government lands in the cities and hence could be dispossessed from their place
of habitation as their very existence in the cities are construed to be illegal.
A prime example of the perception of state can be summarised by the following
statement that is mentioned in Volume III, Sectoral Background, Shelter, Second
Master Plan For Chennai Metropolitan Area, 20264 of the Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority (September 2008), ‘The Government of Tamil Nadu hold
4
Approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 190 H&UD
dated 2 September 2008. Notification was made in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette Extraordinary No. 266, Part II-Section 2 dated September 2, 2008)
September 2008. Available at http://www.cmdachennai.gov.in/Volume3_English_
PDF/Vol3_Chapter06_Shelter.pdf
102 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1)

the view that slums are not acts of God, but of human folly and that they can be
banished by wise planning and resolute action.’
In the recent past, there is a proliferation of R&R housing programmes across
the state. In Chennai alone, over 20,820 families have already been removed from
their primary livelihood area by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the development
projects. Another 31,912 families are in the process of being removed to large
resettlement colonies. These 52,912 families evicted from various locations
across the city would be ghettoised in the peripheral areas of the city like Kannagi
Nagar, Semmencherry and Perumbakkam ranging from 25 to 30 kilometres (km)
from their original place of habitation (Ramya & Peter, 2014). Across the state
of TN there are nearly 44,870 high rise tenements worth of 2,434,670 million
being constructed by the TNSCB under the Integrated Township Programme
funded by JNNURM to resettle those ‘objectionable locations’ from the cities.5
Massive resettlement sites are promoted under this programme of which 13,440
tenements constructed in Ukkadam and Amman Kulam in the city of Coimbatore.
It is also to be noted that in Ukkadam, the Government of Tamil Nadu decided to
demolish top two floors of nearly 20 buildings after some of the constructed six-
floor apartment caved in.
The increased plans for constructing housing at alternative locations
for implementing various development project and relocating the slums in
objectionable locations calls for understanding the impacts of the existing R&R
housing projects on the communities and to bring to the notice of the government
the various emerging concerns.

Impacts of R&R on the Lives of Resettled Communities

To understand the impact of the R&R housing projects on the lives of the deprived
urban communities, the award winning model as well as the largest of the existing
occupied settlement in TN, Kannagi Nagar (Chennai), is selected for the purpose of
analysis. Kannagi Nagar is one of the largest resettlement sites in the state of TN
initially located in Okkiyum Thoraipakkam Town Panchayat and incorporated under
Corporation of Chennai since 2011. The site was constructed in a phased manner
commencing with 3,000 houses in the year 2000 and now currently has 15,656
occupied houses. The site is ever expanding; construction of additional 8,048
tenements is now nearing completion in Ezhil Nagar (an annex of Kannagi Nagar)
(Ramya & Peter, 2014). It is to be noted that Kannagi Nagar in the year 2002 was
awarded the third prize in the All-India Low Cost Housing Competition on Squatter
Settlement. TNSCB was conferred with the award for the model because of it was
perceived as a ‘solution that could be replicated in terms of cost and benefits for
people and government’ (Ahmed, 2002).

5
Demand No. 26, Housing and Urban Development Department, Policy Note
2014–2015, Government of Tamil Nadu. Available at http://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/
default/files/documents/housing_urban_d26_e_2014-15.pdf
Diwakar G. and Peter 103

A decade after the inception of the settlement, there were several research
studies undertaken in this settlement that challenged the claimed impacts of the
project also shattering the myth that the model could be replicated.
One of the major adverse impacts of the project is the loss of livelihoods.
The study conducted by Housing and Land Rights Network reveals that 79.3
per cent of the respondents had lost their employment immediately after the
relocation because of the increased distance of Kannagi Nagar from their
places of work. Some of them looked for jobs in the nearby locality and many
continued to work in the previous place, eventhough they have to commute
for more than 25 km (Ahmed, 2002). Another study shows about 17 per cent
left unemployed in Kannagi Nagar of which about 11 per cent were previously
employed (Coelho et al., 2012). There was decline in formal jobs and household
work after relocation to Kannagi Nagar and they have shifted to either informal
or self-employed. The working condition of women in the formal sector jobs has
also become worse (Coelho et al., 2012). The resettlement colony is becoming
a ghettos of scheduled caste and other socially marginalised community in one
place. More than half (55 per cent) in Kannagi Nagar resettlement colony are
Scheduled Caste (SC), if we include Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Most Backward
Community (MBC) the percentage increases to more than 70 per cent (ibid.).
It  shows the urban housing policy is exclusionary in nature throwing out the
SCs, STs and MBCs out of the city limit (Dorairaj, 2009).
About 13 per cent of children in the age group of 6–14 years are out of school.
35 per cent of children in the age group of 15–18 years are school dropouts. The
school dropout rate has increased by 30 per cent since the families were relocated
to Kannagi Nagar. Prior to the relocation, only 1 per cent of the respondents
reported using bus services to commute to school. After the relocation, 42 per cent
of children are commuting by bus to their schools that are located close to their
original sites of habitation (HRLN, 2014). The fact-finding report by People’s
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the study conducted by Housing and Land
rights Network (HLRN) reveals that increasing school dropout can be attributed to
the inadequate number of schools within the settlement. The lack of transportation
facilities and the distance required to travel to schools resulted in increasing
number of girl children dropping out of schools.
The lives of the resettled communities have further worsened because of lack
of basic amenities in the settlement. The site should have nearly 80 Integrated
Child Development Services (ICDS) centres based on the population norms;
however, there are only seven centres in the settlement (Diwakar, 2010). The
number increased to 18 centres but it is still less than what is required (HRLN,
2014). Till 2010, there was no government health centre in Kannagi Nagar.
There were only two sub-centres which only provided immunisation (Diwakar,
2010). The nearby Primary health centre was at 5-km distance, but it does not
cater to their needs, so, instead of wasting their time they go to the tertiary hospital
directly. People from both these places have to travel 20–30 km to reach general
hospital, Stanley and Kosh Hospital, for their treatment (Babu, 2014; Diwakar,
2010). Now there is only one government-run health care unit for a population
104 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1)

of over 80,000. This has resulted in increased reliability on private agencies for
health care services that results in increased cost of living and also many are
taking debt to meet the health expenses (Babu, 2014). The study conducted by
HLRN reveals that over 98.3 per cent access health care services from private
agencies because of the non-availability of government-run health care services
within the settlement.
Visits to the settlement and discussion with the communities reveal that water
and electricity facilities have improved only after several actions taken by the
people demanding for these facilities. These facilities have been improved only
after 2011 after the site was incorporated into the city limits. Till 2010, residents
received only four pots every 3–4 days (Diwakar, 2010). Even this water is not
potable as it contains coliforms, faecal streptococci, E. coli, faecal coliforms and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. They have to use this water for the drinking, cooking
and cleaning purposes. To get extra water they have to pay `4 per pot to the people
who bring metro water tank and provide water. They have to walk for a kilometre
to procure a pot of water (Neeraja, 2009).
Kannagi Nagar consists of both one-storey and three-storey houses. The size of
the houses ranges from 195 square feet to 235 square feet. This has recently been
increased to 310 square feet under JNNURM-funded housing projects. Since the
average size of the household in Kannagi Nagar is more than four persons, the flats
are too small for each family to live comfortably and to store their belongings. The
flats in Kannagi Nagar do not have water connections. This increases the burden
on women and girl children, as they are generally responsible for fetching water
for household purposes from the taps in front of their homes. Those who reside on
the second and third floors find it more difficult, as they have to carry by climbing
stairs, especially the pregnant and old aged people suffered more.
The one-room design of the houses in the settlement leads to restricted
family life and lack of privacy. The young girls do not have privacy. Children
are exposed to sexual activities of their parents because of the lack of space and
privacy. So the children become sexually active at a very young age. The parents
are scared to keep the young girls at home, so they marry their girls at a very
young age. The girl children are the worst affected in these relocation sites because
of lack of safety and security. There were many houses unoccupied and in those
locked houses there was organised sex work carried out (Diwakar, 2010). This
was also a reason that contributed to the early marriage of the girls. Secondly, they
lived together in the previous settlement for many years, so they had developed a
sense of belongingness and helped each other in the time of need and emergency.
That social connectedness has been destroyed in the new settlement. People from
many places are evicted and put together and there is no community feeling and
sense of belongingness. The interpersonal relationship and social fabrics have been
destroyed.
There is also a failure to provide long-term legal security of tenure for the
residents of Kannagi Nagar. The flats in Kannagi Nagar have been given under
the ‘Hire Purchase Scheme’ of the TNSCB, which provides residents with an
‘allotment order’ for which they have to pay `150 to `250 on a monthly basis
Diwakar G. and Peter 105

for a period of 20 years. These allotment orders are subject to cancellation on

various conditions, including non-payment of monthly dues. At the end of 20 years,
residents have been promised ‘sale deeds’ over the flats, but these will also not
provide complete security of tenure.
The failure of the state to provide affordable, habitable houses with legal
security of tenure, access to basic services in appropriate location has violated
the international human rights safeguards including the ‘human right to adequate
housing’ framework provided by Article 11.1 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; General Comment 4 (The right to
adequate housing) of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. Moreover, the failure to issue eviction notices and provide
prior information regarding eviction; absence of public consultation processes;
inappropriate timing of eviction including forcefully uprooting the communities
during monsoon and mid academic year; forceful demolition resulting in loss of
property and possession and the absence of policy guidelines or programmatic
mechanisms to measure as well as provide adequate compensation results in the
violation of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-
based Evictions and Displacement.

The State’s Position on the Existing R&R

Housing Projects
Although National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 (NRRP) clearly
states that in all cases of involuntary displacement of 400 families or more en
masse in plain areas, comprehensive infrastructural facilities and amenities
notified by the appropriate government shall be provided in the resettlement
area(s). Such facilities and amenities shall, inter alia, include roads, public
transport, drainage, sanitation, safe drinking water, fair price shops, post offices,
electricity, health centres, child and mother supplemental nutritional services,
children’s playground, community centres, schools, institutional arrangements for
training, places of worship, burial/cremation grounds- and security arrangements.
But the people lack many of these facilities in the resettlement colony. The worst
thing is that even in villages these services are available but in the relocation
settlement they were denied all these services, it makes their living condition
worse than the village.
Despite the fact that NRRP 2007 emphasised on preparation of Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Kannagi
Nagar has EIA prepared only for 5,166 but the World Bank funded houses of
15,656 houses. It is also to be noted that the SIA prepared was not in accordance
with what has been prescribed under NRRP 2007, which mandates inclusion of
community participation. The failure to adhere to public disclosure of information,
constitution of an independent multi-disciplinary expert group to examine the
SIA, non-availability of public hearings and the failure to provide flats of 538
square feet further violates the guidelines laid out in the NRRP.
106 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1)

It is to be noted that the Government of Tamil Nadu, as early as 2005, in one

of its report has accepted that

upgrading slum has two significant advantages, viz. it is not only an affordable
alternative to clearance and relocation (which cost more than 10 times more as
upgrading), but it minimizes as well the disturbance to the social and economic life of
the community; and the results of upgrading are highly visible, immediate and make a
significant difference in the quality of life of the urban poor.6

Yet the government had continued with its relocation housing programmes without
assessing the situation of the settlements already constructed and under
occupation.
However, after constant struggle by activist groups by projecting the human
right violation in resettlement colony by media and through research studies.
In 2010, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government
of Tamil Nadu called the concern officials for a meeting, in reference to the en
masse housing programme in Kannagi Nagar and Semmenchery, and clearly
pointed out, ‘This kind of concentration of slum population in one place is not
desirable and that future programmes should ensure that they are more distributed
and there is mixed development.’ He requested that smaller plots of land should
be provided to the TNSCB for R&R schemes at different places for this purpose.
The Managing Director TNSCB also stated that when such huge resettlement
projects are taken up:

There is a need for service delivery; otherwise it brings a bad name to the government
as well as renders the entire process in-fructuous given that these people are the most
disadvantaged sections who have been deprived of their livelihood and also have been
moved out of their homes within the city.7

In this meeting, the chief secretary to the government, commissioned the

formation of a high-level committee,8 to prepare a policy/set of guidelines/norms
to be followed whenever a rehabilitation and resettlement scheme comprising
around 5,000 households is to be provided. He stated, ‘Given that there are

6
Pre-Feasibility Study for Identification of Environmental Infrastructure
Requirement in Slums in Chennai Metropolitan Area by Tamil Nadu Slum
Clearance Board, Tamil Nadu Urban Infrastructure Financial Services Limited)
Sept 2005.
7
Minutes of the meeting held by the Chief Secretary to the Government, in
the Chief Secretary’s Conference Hall, at 3:30 pm on 1 March 2010. The meeting
was about infrastructure facilities to be provided in Okkiyum Thoraipakkam,
Semmenchery and Perumbakkam by TNSCB.
8
The committee was officially formulated by Government Order (MS)
No. 117; dated: 26 August 2011, Housing and Urban Development (SC 1 (2))
Department.
Diwakar G. and Peter 107

more than 5,000 households (25,000 population), all the facilities necessary/
infrastructure, funding, staffing, operation and management issues related
to this and delivery of services by the local bodies and all other departments
should be included as part of the package, and the committee should come up
with a set of norms for this purpose.’ Despite having established a high-level
committee in the year 2011 to formulate a policy, there is still no clear policy or
guidelines at the state level to govern rehabilitation and resettlement in TN. The
current resettlement and rehabilitation practices of the government continue to
be diverse in nature.9
In the minutes of the meeting10 convened by the Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu on
8 October 2014, in connection to the issues relating to Comprehensive Child
Development in Kannagi Nagar, one of the points discussions as well as the
decisions taken, related to the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
was to frame a ‘Housing and Habitat policy for the state’ and ‘Resettlement Policy
to be framed’.
Government of Tamil Nadu has been replicating these massive R&R housing
programme citing non-availability of land within the cities as a reason. Mahadevia
and Abhijit (2014) noted that the land requirement for slum rehabilitation
as proportion of Chennai city’s total area according to census 2001 data is
2.43 per cent (FSI = 2) and 1.95 per cent (FSI = 2.5) and the land required for
rehabilitating slums within the city based on the slum population as per cities data
is 3.20 per cent (FSI = 2) and 2.56 per cent (FSI = 2.5).11
Upgradation of slums is possible if lands could be made available by ensuring
reservation of land for the poor in the urban master plans. If the land mapping
exercise is not carried out effectively it will further result in excluding the poor
from the cities alienating them from their source of livelihood and residence. The
linkage between location specific livelihoods and the area of residence of the
deprived communities are clearly established in the Draft Master Plan that states
that over 78.47 per cent of those living in informal settlements walk to their work
place. Despite understanding the integral linkage of the place of habitation to that
of livelihood and survival of the communities, massive R&R housing programmes
are being replicated. This can be related to the fact that the state does not have a

9
This minutes of the meeting was made available to the Office of the Special
Commissioner of the Supreme Court of India (in W.P.No. (c)196/2001) by
Government of Tamil Nadu as a response to the study titled ‘Child Care—Remains
uncared for’ by Dilip Diwakar G.
10
Letter No 20617/M.C.I/2014-6; Dated (30 October 2014) quoted in Ramya
and Peter, 2014.
11
FSI is the floor space index. Municipalities and governments allow only a
certain FSI. Otherwise very tall buildings in a narrow space would be constructed
leading to parking and various other problems. FSI of 2.0 would indicate that the
total floor area of a building is two times the gross area of the plot on which it is
constructed, as would be found in a multiple-story building.
108 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1)

policy on R&R or on housing, despite the fact that the National Urban Housing
and Habitat Policy 2007 mandates the state governments to prepare a State Urban
Housing and Habitat Policy.

Emerging Concerns and Conclusion

The pressure from activists, media and research work in the resettlement colony
has put a lot pressure on the government to take corrective measures. The
government has responded positively and formed high-level committee and
took measures to provide the necessary basic amenities and services. Especially,
the Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply and the
Corporation of Chennai has taken corrective measures to improve the living
conditions of the displaced urban communities in the resettlement housing
settlements. However, the policy concerns still reamin unaddressed as there is
no policy or guidelines put in place for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to follow
during construction of tenements.
The government should focus on the slum upgradation wherever it is possible
rather than evicting the people and relocating them to distant places. The TNSCB in
coordination with the other departments including the Corporation of Chennai, the
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and other land owning departments
should take measure to reserve land for the poor in the urban master plans. There
should be a proper land mapping exercise to be carried out effectively to identify
the available land for the urban poor within the city limit and nearer to their original
habitation so that they will not face much problem. The urban housing programme
should understand the integral linkage of the place of habitation to that of livelihood
and survival of the communities. As per the mandate of National Urban Housing and
Habitat Policy 2007, the state governments should prepare a State Urban Housing
and Habitat Policy, wherein it should take proper measures to address the issues of
resettlement colonies.
Since the formation of the TNSCB in the year 1970s, there were several policy
and programmes put in place to address the need of the urban housing. There were
different departments created to cater the needs of the urban poor. However, all
these programmes and departments are horizontal in nature as there is not much
connection between one department and other. Moreover, the Tamil Nadu Slum
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, which governs the TNSCB, does not
have any specific provisions related to land, security of tenure, housing, R&R,
community participation, or standards for ensuring adequate and affordable houses
that are relevant for the poor in the urban areas. Many of the above-mentioned
components do not have standard guidelines and are varied according to the
programmes and projects. As issues related to these are not dealt with in the Act,
there are no checks and balances to monitor the introduction and implementation
of various schemes, projects and programmes. Therefore, there should be a
comprehensive legislation with policy guidelines that should ensure fulfilment of
the basic need of the urban poor and ensure their rights to life and livelihood.
Diwakar G. and Peter 109

However, the emerging concern is that the government is continuing to

construct a growing number of large-scale sites across the state with no human
rights-based comprehensive Housing or Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy
in place. Clear-cut policy guidelines are required so that preventive actions are
undertaken to improve the living conditions of the deprived urban communities
rather than relocating them and then trying to sort out the emerging issues.

References
ActionAid. (2004). A report on homeless people in Chennai. Chennai: ActionAid
(Unpublished).
Ahmed, F. (2002, April 25). TNSCB Thoraipakkam model bags low-cost housing
prize. The Hindu. Retrieved 12 March 2015, from http://www.thehindu.com/
thehindu/2002/04/26/stories/2002042604270300.htm
Babu, R. M. (2014). Barriers in access to health care among the urban poor in a resettlement
colony: A case study from Chennai (Dissertation). Centre of Social Medicine and
Community Health, New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Banerjee, R. (2008). Reconciling displacement and rehabilitation. Social Action, 58(3),
246–253.
Chakrabarti, A., & Dhar, A. (2010). Dislocation and resettlement in development: From
third world to the world of the third. UK: Routledge.
Chatterji, A., & Jenson, R.. (2004, September 22). Large dams in India—Temples or
burial grounds? Countercurrents.org. Retrieved 7 July 2015, from http://www.
countercurrents.org/en-jensen220904.htm
Cherunilam, F., & Heggade, O. (1987). Housing in India. Delhi: Himalaya Publishing
House.
Coelho, K., & Raman, N. (2010). Salvaging and scapegoating: Slum eviction on Chennai’s
waterways. Economic & Political Weekly, 45(21), 19–23.
Coelho, K., Venkat, T., & Chandrika, R. (2012). The spatial reproduction of urban poverty:
Labour and livelihoods in a slum resettlement colony. Economic & Political Weekly
(Review of Urban Affairs), 48(47–48), 53–63.
Diwakar, G. D. (2010). Child care remains uncared for: Situational assessment of the ICDS
centres in the relocation settlements of Chennai district. Bangalore: Book for Change.
———. (2012). Is eviction of urban poor a way for inclusive development? In R. B. S.
Verma, R. K. Singh, & Pooja Verma (Eds.), Shades of inclusion and exclusion in India
(pp. 170–190). Lucknow: New Royal Book Company.
Dorairaj, S. (2009, May 9–22). On the margins. Frontline, 26(10). Retrieved from
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2610/stories/20090522261009800.htm
HRLN. (2014). Forced to the fringes, disasters of ‘resettlement in India’. Report 2-Kannagi
Nagar, Chennai. Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities. New Delhi:
Housing and Land Rights Network.
IDMC. (2008). Economic, social and cultural rights of internally displaced persons (IDPs)
in India. Submission from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) of
the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) to the Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights: 40th session.
Mahadevia, D., & Datey, A. (2012). The status of pro-poor reforms in Indian states. Centre
for Urban Equity (CUE) (Working paper: 17, p. 30). National Resource Centre for
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India.
Nayak, A. K. (2008). SEZs and displacement. Social Action, 58(3), 254–263.
110 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(1)

Neeraja, S. (2009, July 28). City’s suicide point. The New Indian Express.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (PUCL-TN) (2010).
Report of Fact Finding Team on Forced Eviction and Rehabilitation in Chennai.
Chennai: PUCL.
Planning Commission. (n.d.). Five year plans. New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved
17 July 2015, from http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html
Ramya, S. P., & Vanessa, P. (Eds.). (2014). Forced to the fringes, disasters of ‘Resettlement
in India’ Report 2, Chennai and New Delhi: Housing and Land Rights Network,
in Collaboration with Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban
Communities.
Roy, A. (2000, February). Cost of living. Frontline, 17(3), 5–8.