Guwahati Airport and the villages of Azara, Garal and Mirzapur. Satellite imagery: 03/04/2024
A land acquisition notice for a proposed Aerotropolis near Guwahati Airport – the primary airport of northeast India located in the west of Assams’ largest city and also known as Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport (LGBI) – met with anxiety, anger and opposition from many affected residents. Issued on 25th July 2025 by the Kamrup Metropolitan District Administration the notice encompassed 400 bighas (101 hectares) of inhabited and uninhabited land in the villages of Azara, Garal and Mirzapur and impact upon more than a thousand families. Many villagers had given land for construction of Guwahati Airport decades ago and feared loss of their homes and livelihoods. An Azara resident said, “We have already given away vast stretches of land. Now this fresh move will leave many of us homeless.” In Garal village, where the district administration moved to acquire 70 bighas (17.7 hectares) of land for the Aerotropolis project, over 100 pattadars (landholders) were named in the land acquisition notice. Critics of the project claimed the land acquisition process lacked transparency, consultation or a clear plan to rehabilitate affected people and that the main beneficiary would be a private company. Guwahati Airport is owned by Adani, one of India’s largest multinational conglomerates. A local committee member said, “Guwahati Airport is now under Adani’s ownership. So the land being acquired in the name of an airport township will ultimately go to Adani.”
Affected families began to protest the land acquisition process, demanding transparency, a thorough impact assessment and guarantees that they would be rehabilitated. “We are not against development”, said an affected farmer, “But we deserve clarity, transparency and fair compensation. Right now everything feels juggled up and a lot is hidden from the public.” Protests took place in many affected areas. Leader of the Opposition Debabrata Saikia described the move to acquire land for the ‘Aerocity‘ as anti-indigenous and serving corporate interests. He said more than 1,116 families were affected, some of which had held land titles for nearly 200 years. He also warned that, in addition to the families facing displacement, local entrepreneurs in the area running guesthouses and restaurants would be adversely impacted. The location of the project site, near the Deepor Beel freshwater lake, a Ramsar site (designated as of international importance under the Ramsar Convention) raised environmental concerns.
Land acquisition for the aerotropolis had been requested by the managing director of the Assam Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC). Akan Chandra Das, president of Mirzapur Anchalik Bhumi Suraksha Samiti, the committee representing affected residents of Mirzapur, Azara and Garal villages, said, “Already nine to ten times, our families gave land to the government post-independence, for development of the airport, adjacent roads, and defence establishments near the Guwahati airport. If the remaining land is also taken for development projects, where will we go? How will our children survive if they don’t get jobs in other sectors?” Basudev Mali, a retired teacher and owner of 10 bighas (2.53 hectares) of land near the airport, in Mirzapur, said, “If the government continues to take over our lands for airport expansion or for aerotropolis development now, who will ensure the survival of our children? The remaining farmlands were our only hope, but the government wants to take that also.”
A residents’ delegation met with Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Samra, but his attempts to reassure them that only vacant land would be used, for public projects were unsuccessful. Locals remained reluctant to give up their land for either government or private projects. Villagers attending a public meeting in Mirzapur unanimously resolved not to give their land to the government under any circumstances, declaring, “Our land is our identity and livelihood. We will not give it away at any cost.” At the beginning of September 2025 the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) suspended building permits and land sales in the proposed aerotropolis area around Guwahati Airport. Additional restrictions were also imposed. The suspension affected Azara, Garal and Mirzapur villages where hundreds of indigenous families were unwilling to vacate their land for the aerotropolis project. They also opposed the notice issued by GMDA as it restricted their rights as landowners.
Satellite image of Lucknow Airport (Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport) dated 20/10/2024. Location of Terminal 3 and some of the villages affected by land acquisition for airport expansion are shown.
Lucknow Airport (also known as Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport), located 14km southwest of the capital city of Uttar Pradesh, is already the 11th busiest airport in India and traffic will increase with recent and ongoing expansion. A third terminal began operations on 30th March 2024, with capacity for 8 million passengers per year, set to rise to about 13 million upon completion of phase two. Land from Bhaktikhera village was used for the third terminal and runway extension and in March 2018 the Airports Authority of India (AAI) agreed to pay Rs 32 crore for relocation of about 600 residents. Compensation for acquisition of 70 acres of land from Bhaktikhera, Gurera and Aurangabad Jagir villages, for runway extension and other facilities, was still being negotiated in June 2018. Airport expansion had been stalled for a decade due to difficulties with land acquisition. But in June 2019 the AAI announced that ‘decks are cleared for the construction of the wall around the airport and expansion of the runway’. The district administration committed to helping AAI build the wall to keep out people ‘trespassing the area’ and stray animals posing safety risks.
Demolition notices and farmers protest boundary wall construction
Construction of houses near Lucknow Airport also raised safety concerns. At the end of August 2024 authorities served demolition notices on 50 houses which had been built next to the airport boundary without authorization. A Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) official said a builder had posed as a contractor without obtaining the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the airport administration, acquired land directly from farmers and pocketed the money. A month later construction of the airport boundary wall led to a clash between a group of farmers and police. After commencement of excavations works, with two JCBs in the presence of police, a large number of farmers, between 150 and 200, gathered and began to protest, saying the airport administration was forcibly occupying their land. The farmers, from Rahimabad and Mohammadpur Bhakti Kheda villages, said a disputed land petition was pending adjudication in the Allahabad High Court. The protest forced authorities to temporarily halt land reclamation operations for airport expansion. Farmers argued that the land had been cultivated for many generations and that land acquisition notification in the 1950s lacked important details including plot numbers, land area and the names of the landowners, thus raising questions about the legitimacy of the acquisition process.
In response to the protest the district administration postponed the land reclamation drive until 15th October. The owner and operator of Lucknow Airport, Adani, one of India’s largest multinational conglomerates, plans to reclaim approximately 260 acres on the southern edge of the airport for extension of the runway to 3,500 metres to accommodate large, wide-body aircraft and construction of two parallel taxiways. Speaking anonymously, an official stated that a total of about 400 acres owned by the airport for over 70 years would be reclaimed for airport expansion and a survey would be conducted to compensate farmers with crops growing on the land. The principal petitioner against the land reclamation said the farmland had not been legally acquired, farmers had not received any compensation and Adani was attempting to forcibly construct the airport boundary wall.
Boundary wall construction continues and Aero City plans
On 25th October the Supreme Court dismissed the farmers’ plea against expansion of Lucknow Airport, allowing LDA to proceed with the project. Lucknow Development Index announced on X that, after deployment of a ‘heavy police force’ in response to resistance, ‘work is still progressing amid farmers clashes’. A ‘massive area’ was being reclaimed and construction of the boundary wall had re-commenced. An official source said a 400-acre area was being reclaimed and a fourth terminal and an Aero City was planned on the land.
Few months previously, on 5th February 2024 Times of India had reported ‘ambitious plans’ for Lucknow Aerocity, a 1,500 acre development with ‘an array of upscale amenities, such as world-class convention centres, large parks and seven-star hotels’, announced by Uttar Pradesh finance minister Suresh Kharna. The LDA was tasked with identifying land for the project, likely to be located in Rahimabad and Gahru villages. In addition to Lucknow, Adani owns several airports in India including Mumbai, Mangaluru, Jaipur, Ahemedabad, Thiruvanthapuram and Guwahati. Plans for aero cities adjoining Adani’s airports were reported in July 2022. The Economic Times stated that Adani plans to develop ‘aero cities’ on more than 500 acres at all its airports, with hotels, convention centres, retail, entertainment, healthcare, logistics, offices and other real estate sectors.
Locals resisted eviction for Guwahati Airport expansion
At the beginning of September 2021, a month before operation of Guwahati Airport (the busiest airport in northeast India) was handed over to Adani, there were reports of locals resisting eviction to make way for expansion. An eviction notice was served to 54 households, outside the walled area of the airport in Koitasidhi village. An airport official said the land, adjacent to the runway, was to be developed as an approach area, especially for larger aircraft on international flights. Villagers said that several plots of land had been acquired for construction and expansion of the airport since 1962. Some villagers said, “We would rather give our blood than give up our land”. Continuing protest was reported on 8th September; a local person said “We heard that the Adani group which has been given charge of the Airport for 50 years under a lease agreement by the Government of India wants to do expansion work here. But we want to clarify that we will not leave our land even if we are given adequate compensation”. Some other locals said they would not give their land to Adani. On 15th September 2021 the Times of India reported that villagers were fiercely resisting giving up land for airport expansion. A tearful farmer in his late 70s said his family had been compelled to give up land for airport expansion in the 1960s, which if sold today would fetch a much higher price. His family was left with ownership of just one residential plot. More recently, in June 2024, announcing the schedule for opening of a new terminal at Guwahati Airport in April 2025, Chief Airport Officer Utpal Baruah said plans for subsequent expansion phases included a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facility, aerocity and helipad.
A study focussing on three villages affected by land acquisition for expansion Mohali Aero City, southwest of Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport, raised concerns over threats to rural livelihoods.
Proposed acquisition of 5,438 acres (2,200 hectares) of land from 14 villages – Bakarpur, Naraingarh, Kishanpura, Safipur, Rurka, Matran, Bari, Chatt, Saini Majra, Seon, Kurari, Chau Majra, Manauli and Paton – for AeroCity expansion, called ‘Aerotropolis’, was confirmed by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) in 2017. A 2021 article in the Journal of Land and Rural Studies by Thomas Reuter, Sarbjeet Singh, A.K. Sinha and Shalina Mehta, Land Grab Practices and a Threat to Livelihood and Food Security in India? A Case Study from Aerocity Expansion Project from S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab, analyses the project as an example of large-scale acquisition of highly fertile agricultural land. The authors describe ‘blatant land grab practices by the state authority in the name of development, which act as barriers to the food security and threaten the livelihoods of those whose land will be acquired’. The study focussed on three affected villages – Patton, Kurari and Seon. Fieldwork conducted in April 2019 included in-depth interviews with 50 displaced farmers.
A consolidated demographic profile of Patton, Kurari and Seon from the 2011 census showed that the total number of affected people was 3,031. A significant number, 955, belonged to the scheduled caste population, the most marginal rural people, many of them landless labourers, some of whom farm on leased land and other providing menial services. Land acquisition renders them homeless and they receive no compensation. The scheduled caste community of Patton village were marginal farmers owning only 1-2 acres of land. Scheduled caste people of Kurari and Seon did not own any land and depended entirely on agricultural activities. The working population was divided into two categories. ‘Main workers’ included marginalised individuals regularly hired by affluent farmers to work in their fields and people engaged in pastoral activities in a more favourable economic situation. ‘Marginal workers’ comprised migrant workers primarily from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar along with seasonal workers from other states coming to the area for work harvesting paddy and wheat. Agriculture was the primary economic activity in the three villages. Several farmers had modern equipment such as tractors, tillers and adequate irrigation with tube wells for which free electricity was provided by the state. Farmers getting cash compensation for surrendered land tend to lose these subsidies, along with minimum price support for cereal crops.
Narratives from three affected farmers
The article includes narratives from three farmers affected by land acquisition for the Aero City Expansion. A 59-year old man from Kurari village grieved that the pace of urbanisation would convert lush green fields into a concrete jungle. He worried that wheat, rice, maize and other cereal crops would disappear. GMADA and private builders offered different compensation packages, causing friction among those surrendering prime agricultural land and also between farmers and the state, resulting in litigations and delays in land acquisition and launch of construction activities. A respondent from Patton said that a decade ago the land was unsuitable for farming and nobody wanted to settle in the village. Residents worked hard and within two years had made all the available land suitable for agriculture. Most farmers grew vegetables and cereals which they sold at nearby farmers’ markets. When GMADA notified the village for land acquisition for the Aero City Expansion project farmers feared compulsory acquisition and sold their land to private builders. He said that when the government acquires land compensation is inadequate and the payment process often gets trapped in legislation. He had worked hard on the land he was forced to sell and was unsure of the productive capacity of new land he had purchased. A Seon villager whose land was acquired by GMADA for the Aero City Expansion had not been paid adequate compensation. He retained six acres but there was a possibility this would also fall under the proposed land acquisition, leaving him without any means of livelihood.
Loss of pastoral activities and social stability
Livestock provided an important subsidiary source of income in the three villages. Cows and buffalo were reared mainly for milk and cows also for manure. Pastoral activities in the three villages were mainly pursued by women waking up early to milk cows and buffalo. Land acquisition can deprive women of this primary economic activity making them far more vulnerable, especially when they run single-parent households. The case studies suggested that animal rearing as a livelihood became unviable because land used for pasture was no longer in villagers’ possession. Loss of agricultural land can cause cessation of pastoral activities, as most displaced households are not compensated with sufficient land to accommodate dairy animals.
Residents of the villages were content with acquisition of small portions of land along roads as it brought them improved connectivity. But acquisition of their fertile land for development of housing for wealthy urbanites and creation of infrastructure in which they were not equal stakeholders left locals feeling cheated. Their lives were marked with upheavals and displacement threatened close-knit social networks. The authors conclude that the Aero City Expansion project was ‘an ambitious ideas but executed without due diligence and groundwork’. Land acquisition brought revenue to the state but measures to support the interests of local residents were inadequate. Urban planners failed to foresee the risks of social tensions and the Aero City epxansion led to social and political instability. The article warned of agricultural decline and the prospect of food insecurity.
Airport development features heavily in a plan for tourism-oriented megaprojects on Little Andaman Island, the southernmost island of the Andaman archipelago. Graphics below, from the 58-page ‘Sustainable Development of Little Andaman Island – Vision Document’, show: Zone 1, on the eastern coast, featuring an Aerocity, housing an international airport, envisaged as ‘the catalyst for development of the district’; Zone 2, on the southern coast, including a Leisure Zone and Tourism SEZ (special economic zone) with casinos, theme park and beach hotels; Zone 3, on the western coast, a Nature Zone containing super-luxury resorts and hotels, with an airstrip for private charter flights.
Map of Little Andaman plan indicating developable areas
Little Andaman plan map showing 3 zones
Zone 1: The Aerocity is the catalyst for development
Sudden news of the plan, in January 2021, alarmed conservationists. The ‘Vision Document’, thought to have been finalised a few months previously but not in the public domain, is included in ‘A MONUMENTAL FOLLY: NITI Aayog’s Development Plans for Great Nicobar Island (An evolving archive of reports, information and documents)’, compiled by Panjaj Sekhsaria and published by Kalvpavriksh Environmental Action Group. The total project area is nearly 240 sq km, 35% of the island; the three zones would take up 107 kilometres of the island’s coastline. Development of this scale would have major impacts on indigenous people and the island’s unique biodiversity and forests. Little Andaman is home to the Onge tribe, living on the island for more than 50,000 years, the population dwindling since 1900. Now numbering an estimated 125 people the Onge tribe is categorised as one of India’s Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG). According to the plan the Onge Tribal Reserve would be reduced by 31%; the Vision Document states that steps would be taken to relocate and protect Onge people but no detail is given. An anthropologist pointed out that bringing areas where Onge, with nomadic origins, do not live into the proposed development would still impact them, saying “the Onges have a close attachment with their territory be it inhabited or not”.
The Divisional Forest Officer of Little Andaman raised concerns that the major diversion of forest land for the project would cause irreversible damage to the island’s forests, entailing the loss of more than 2 million trees. An official source said there are over 2.4 million trees in the “vast tract of forests” in the areas where development is proposed. Removal of trees would cause topsoil erosion and reduce rainfall, impacting on the small area of the island with cultivable soil. Uprooting more than 2 million trees for the Little Andaman plan would also result in carbon emissions and carbon stock losses. Carbon pools were calculated for the four forest types in the development areas: nearly 136 sq km of Evergreen/Semi Evergreen and smaller areas of Deciduous, Swamp/Mangrove and Plantation forests. A study estimated that implementation of the ‘Sustainable Development of Little Andaman – Vision Document’ would result in carbon stock loss of 2,996.286 tonnes from five categories of carbon pools: 55% from woody debris and soil organic matter, 32% from above ground living biomass, 9% from below ground biomass, 3% from dead mass of litter and 1% from dead wood.
Nesting sites of Giant Leatherback Turtles, the world’s largest turtles growing over 6 feet in length, with many populations in precipitous decline, are threatened by the Little Andaman plan. South Bay and West Bay on Little Andaman are both high-intensity nesting sites and among the most important in the entire island chain. Along with other nesting beaches on the islands, the two sites are specifically mentioned as ‘Important Marine Turtles Habitats in India’ in the National Marine Turtle Action Plan. There are fears that implementation of the ‘vision’ would push the leatherback turtles to the brink of extinction. A 2019 report on a long-term monitoring programme at Little Andaman island identified previously unknown migratory routes of Great Leatherback Turtle nesting in the region, highlighting their dependence upon foraging and nesting sites that are thousands of kilometres apart. Nine tracked turtles traversed much of the Indian Ocean, as far southeast as Western Australia and towards the eastern coast of Africa. The turtle travelling the furthest, close to the western coast of Mozambique, covered 13,237km in 266 days; it was also the fastest, travelling an average of 49.8km per day.
More information about the Little Andaman plan has been published on EJatlas, the world’s largest, most comprehensive online database of social conflict around environmental issues: Little Andaman Development Plan
Thousands of farmers and residents have urged the Tamil Nadu state government and Central government of India not to implement a proposed second Chennai airport in Parandur that would destroy their agrarian activities and livelihoods. Parandur is an agricultural area in the Kanchipuram district and the State government plans to acquire land in 12 villages for the airport project. The proposed site in Purandur is approximately 57 kilometres eastwards of the existing Chennai Airport and to the north of the Chennai-Bangalore national highway which is being constructed in stages. Below is a slideshow of a map of the proposed airport site and Google Earth satellite imagery showing several of the villages that might be impacted by land acquisition.
A Times of India article states that the 12 villages from which land for the airport will be acquired are: Parandur, Valathur, Nelvoy, Thandalam, Polavur (Podavur), Madapuram, Ekanapuram, Akkammapuram, Singilipadi, Mahadevi Mangalam, Gunakarambakkam and Edayarpakkam. Other villages to be impacted by land acquisition are listed in other sources referenced in this blogpost, namely Nagapattu, Koothavakkam, Uthyarpakkam and OM Mangalam.
Concerns over acquisition of farmland and environmental issues
On 1st August Union Minister of State for Civil Aviation Vijay Kumar Singh announced that the Parandur site has been finalised after consultation with the Tamil Nadu government. Some Purandar residents demanded suitable replacement land and employment from the government in return for acquiring their land; others said that acquisition of their agricultural land will render them jobless as it is the only work they have known. Some villagers have spoken to media outlets about reluctance to give up their land and uncertainty over provision of compensation:
Ramasamy, from Ekanpuram village, said “A huge tract of our agricultural land would come under this project. We don’t want to lose our agricultural land for this project because farming is our sole source of livelihood.”
Jayakumar, a farmer from Singilipadi, said, “We have been living here for generations. We didn’t know that the airport is coming up here. No one has informed us. If the government suddenly takes away our homes and land, what would we do? Even if they provide compensation, we don’t know what that would be. I am shocked.”
Rajendran, a resident of Thandalam, said, “We are ready to give up land if needed. But we need assurance from the government about good compensation and employment.
Selvaraj from Parandur village said, “We’ve been here in the village for the last 50 years. As per the map released by the government, 5 villages would be destroyed for constructing a new airport. Even if the government gave us compensation for our land, we don’t know what to do for a living, since we know only farming. All of us are shocked by this decision and are planning for a big protest soon. Even last month, the district collector assured us that the airport would not be constructed in Parandur.”
Nachiyappan, a farmer from Koothavakkam, said, ”We are living by farming and if the government acquires our land what will we do for a living? I have small children and want to educate them and am the sole breadwinner for the family. The government will make all sweet talking, but in reality, nothing will happen and we will be the losers. We will protest strongly against this project that will destroy our livelihood as well as the flora and fauna of the area.”
A postgraduate in Economics from Koothavakkam, R. Bindu, said, “Around 800 houses would be demolished in the area and the agrarian economy will be totally destroyed. There are many people in this village who don’t have the patta or the legal rights of the land and they will be totally on the streets.”
Many villagers are employed by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) and are concerned that their livelihoods could be destroyed along with the agricultural fields.
An environmental expert pointed out several hydrological problems that might arise from construction of the airport, from decreased recharge of groundwater to deterioration of water quality and possible flooding during the monsoon. The 4,791-acre site is dotted with water bodies and a large proportion, 2,605 acres, is wetlands. A large number of migratory bird species, especially from eastern Europe, visit the site. Some of the birds fly south to Vedanthangal which would pose a bird strike risk to air traffic. Building a stable structure on wetlands would be challenging. Parandur has a lake where migrant birds – tufted ducks, flamingos and common pochards – are frequently spotted.
An airport on a 4,791-acre site, with a huge aerocity
The proposal is for the new airport, with two runways, to have capacity to handle 100 million passengers annually, almost five times higher than the capacity of the existing Chennai Airport, at 22 million passengers per year. Capacity at Chennai Airport is being increased to 35 million in a seven-year expansion project. The runways at the airport in Purandar would be larger than at Chennai Airport, enabling it to handle larger aircraft carrying more than 600 passengers. Tamil Nadu chief minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin said the initial estimated cost of the proposed airport is Rs20,000 Crore, more than USD2.5 billion. Details of the break-up of this sum, and the funding route, have yet to be made public.
A Times of India article states that ‘The plan is to develop a huge aero city with facilities for maintenance and repairs, aviation ancillary units, and commercial establishments’. Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Tamil Nadu Chapter chairman Satyakam Arya has pushed for an aerocity around the new airport, which in addition to aviation related facilities could have a convention centre for global conferences and exhibitions. Shankar Vanavarayar, vice-chairman of CII Tamil Nadu, said the state may introduce special schemes and incentives for industries in order to spur industrialization from Chennai towards Parandur.
The proposed site for the Parandur airport, 4,791 acres (1,939 hectares), is certainly large enough to allocate a significant portion of the site for non-aviation facilities. It is larger than the world’s largest airport, Hartsfield Jackson in Atlanta USA, which, with five parallel runways and a site of 1,902 hectares, handled more than 110.5 million passengers in 2019, before traffic reduced worldwide due to the response to Covid-19. In addition to the 4,791-acre site a further 200 acres of land is required for construction of two airstrips, for which the process of surveys and land acquisition is likely to start soon.
Difficulties acquiring thousands of acres for the airport
Land availability has been the main hurdle stalling the second Chennai airport project since it was first mooted, in 1998. Many attempts at large-scale land acquisition failed until authorities zeroed in on Parandur and an article in The Hindu provides a timeline. In November 2000 a ‘futuristic terminal’ was anticipated on a 3,000-acre site likely to be at Porur in west Meenambakkam, north of the existing Chennai Airport. In May 2007 the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Muthuvel Karunanidhi, said that 4,820 acres would be acquired for the airport in Sriperumbudur. In 2016 the proposed greenfield airport, still planned in the vicinity of Sriperumbudur, was mired in land procurement problems. Union Minister of State for Civil Aviation Jayant Sinha said the thousands of acres required for the new airport were difficult to procure.
In January 2022 the Airports Authority of India (AAI) began to study four potential alternative sites identified by the State government: Pannur, Parandur, Padalam and Thiruporur. Subsequently this list was narrowed down to Pannur and Parandur. On 1st August 2022 Minister of State for Civil Aviation Vijay Kumar Singh said the Tamil Nadu government had shortlisted Parandur as the site for development of a second Chennai airport. The State government will now submit a proposal to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for ‘grant of site clearance’ for the finalised site. The State is also set to begin preparation of a detailed project report. Land acquisition is likely to begin once the State receives approval from the Centre. State government officials have confirmed they will conduct sittings in all affected villages allowing people to express their views to officials.
2010 protest against land acquisition in Sriperumbudur
The article with the project timeline in The Hindu does not mention that the 2007 identification of land for the airport in Sriperumbudur triggered mass protest by villagers resisting land acquisition. In 2010 Moverment against SEZs in Tamil Nadu reported that a 6,921-acre (2,800-hectare) site in Sriperumbudur, located eastward of Parandur and just 30 kilometres from Chennai’s existing airport, had been earmarked for a greenfield airport. The proposed land acquisition for the new airport threatened to displace 2,800 families, about 37,000 people, from 20 villages. Village representatives opposed the airport project and were not interested in compensation from the government. They said agriculture was viable in the proposed site where they cultivated rice paddies, mangos, jasmine trees and vegetables. The site also containing 77 lakes, 120 ponds and 10,000 trees which would be felled. Six village panchayats – Thirumanaikuppam, Vadamangalam, Vayalur, Thirupandiyur, Kottaiyur and Kiloy – passed resolutions opposing land acquisition in a gram sabha meeting.
Proposed site for a 2nd Chennai airport in Sriperumbudur, triggering mass protest in August 2010. Image: Down to Earth, 15/09/2010
Villagers drove away officials sent to survey the land on at least three occasions. On 12 August 2010, 3,000 people from 26 villages demonstrated against the project. Police attacked them with a lathi (baton) charge. Villagers who went to meet the District Officer and attempted to present a petition were beaten and around 20 of them had to be admitted to hospital. A jet fuel pipeline to Chennai Airport, routed through Sriperumbudur, seemingly hardwired the area for development of a new airport. Inaugurating the fuel pipeline in 2009 Praful Patel, Minister of State for Civil Aviation from 2004 to 2011, said, “This (pipeline) also passes through Sriperumbudur where another airport is planned. Once it comes up, the pipeline will be extremely useful.”
A plan for a major city extending over up to 600 square kilometres around a new airport in Navi Mumbai diverges from the aerotopolis model of development; the land area and number of villages included in the jurisdiction has reduced.
NAINA (Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area) originated when the Indian government granted clearance for a second Mumbai airport, in Navi Mumbai. One of the conditions for approval of the new airport was ‘that the Master Plan, Development Plan of Navi Mumbai shall be revised and recast in view of the Airport development and to avoid unplanned haphazard growth around the proposed airport’. Factors considered in assessment of the Influence Zone around the new airport included ‘the requirements of International Airport as per the aerotropolis concept’, connectivity and operation of various planning authorities in the region. Appointment of a ‘Planning Authority for a Planned and orderly development within a radial distance of about 25km from the proposed International Airport site’ was deemed necessary. On 10th January 2013 City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) was appointed as the Special Planning Authority.
Even at this stage it was evident that NAINA (the pink shaded areas on the map) diverged from the aerotropolis model of development. The designated NAINA area was fragmented and not even contiguous with the Navi Mumbai International Airport site (shown on the map as an orange rectangular area to the west of NAINA). The new jurisdiction, encompassing 270 villages in six talukas in the Raigad and Thane districts, a mix of peri-urban and rural areas, was not the recilinear greenfield site of an archetypal aerotropolis.
A large land area was designated for NAINA, estimated at between 550 and 600 square kilometres (1.5 times larger than the city of Mumbai). Inception of NAINA transferred planning powers to CIDCO; notification specified that all proposals for development permission would henceforth be processed by CIDCO. Land acquisition for the initial phase met with opposition. In 2014, while a survey was being undertaken, residents of the 23 villages notified for development in phase 1 of NAINA (to the east of the Navi Mumbai International Airport site) voiced strong objection saying they were not informed about the project which would adversely affect agriculture, their main source of income.
A spokesperson for the 23 villages said people did not trust CIDCO because farmers who lost their land in the 1970s, for development of Navi Mumbai city, had still not been compensated. Affected families had been promised employment but many were still doing odd jobs to make ends meet. Villagers also raised objections to CIDCO’s practice of providing information in English, a language most of them did not understand. A hearing was rocked by protest and villagers claimed that developers’ land was being treated preferentially, left untouched while theirs was earmarked for public utility purposes.
In an article published in Economic & Political Weekly ‘Fragmentary Planning and Spaced of Opportunity in Peri-urban Mumbai‘ Malini Krishnankutty describes how the Interim Development Plan (IDP) prepared for the first phase of NAINA, encompassing 23 villages, ‘reinforces the planners’ lack of deep engagement with the rural’. NAINA’s role of amassing land for implementation of its master plan exemplified modern urban planning’s disregard for rural areas. Such planning interventions viewed land merely as a resource, the rural as a ‘tabula rasa’ destined for urban development, villages from ‘the narrow perspective of providing very specific social amenities or transport infrastructure’, thus rural villagers and their ways of life were rendered invisible. With regard to NAINA she writes:
‘Once again what is visible here is a superimposition of a vision of a city on these villages, a view of urbanisation that is a foregone conclusion, and a lack of engagement with the future of the villagers, once they are divorced from their lands and livelihoods. There is also no engagement of planners with any idea of conservation, tangible or intangible or of productive farmlands’.
NAINA’s proximity to the Navi Mumbai International Airport site had given impetus to speculative interest in the area. The airport and several major road and rail projects in the pipeline – Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL), Delhi-Mumbai Insustrial Corridor (DMIC) and a road + rail corridor extending from Virar to Alibaug linking peri-urban regions in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) – all require land acquisition by the government that ‘inevitably means dispossession and loss of livelihoods’. In addition these infrastructure projects activate the ‘highway urbanisation’ that is prevalent throught India and the global south. Announcement of new infrastructure triggers commodification of land, opening up rural areas for urban development.
During June, July and August 2015 journalist Rahul Batia travelled along the path of the Virar – Alibaug road and rail corridor running through NAINA, talking with people affected by land acquisition for the project. The route of the road, a transportation corridor 126 kilometres in length and 120 metres wide, stretches from the city of Virar to the north of Navi Mumbai, running southwards through NAINA then curving easwards to the coastal town of Alibaug. On the interim development plan the transportation corridor appeared as ‘a thick white strip snaking through residential areas, growth centres, forests, and urban villages’. Twelve kilometres of the road were within NAINA phase 1 and impacts upon the 23 villages within this area loomed.
NAINA map showing route of road through Nere and other villages. Source: cidco naina
The poorest locals were the most perturbed by the ‘corridor of uncertainty’, believing it would ‘hit them hardest’; some were convinced that they had been ‘singled out for some kind of punishment’. There were allegations that the route being marked out for the road curved to avoid homes and land owned by rich and influential residents. Adivasis at a hamlet in Nere, one of the affected villages, came across a mark painted into an approach road and thought it was connected with the new transport corridor. The sarpanch (head of village) of Nere knew little about the road except that people would be relocated to make way for it, and did not know where they would go to. He had not seen the map of NAINA. Pointing out a notice with a yellow diagonal stripe marked ‘CH 51554’ he said, “They came here, made markings, and left. Nobody told us anything.” Inhabitants of the 23 villages in the first phase of NAINA lived in uneasy uncertainty. NAINA officials were holding consultations but many affected residents complained of a ‘disconcerting lack of information available about exactly what shape NAINA will take’ and said that rates for people wanting to build on their land were ‘exhorbitant’.
Opposition to land-pooling scheme
Unrest over NAINA plans continued into in 2016. In February farmers of 111 villages opposing NAINA united to form a committee, Shektari Utkarsh Samiti, and marched from Khargar to Panvel. They voiced many demands for changes to NAINA policy, including that the amount of their land to be given to CIDCO under the land pooling scheme, whereby groups of land owners hand over their land to a government agency for development of infrastructure, with a proportion of the land being returned to the landowners, be decreased from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. In September representatives of 36 villages in the Panvel taluka (administrative district) immediately to the east of the Navi Mumbai International Airport site, said they did not want to be part of NAINA and wished to be excluded from the plans and instead be included in the Panvel municipality. Together these villages cover 69.6 square kilometres, a substantial proportion of the total NAINA area.
Rajendra Patil, a representative of one of the villages, Kolkhe, said that waiting for finalization of NAINA plans had stalled development in their villages, and that the development model was tilted in favour of big developers whilst working against the interests of local farmers. Anesh Dawale, a former head of Shivkar village, said of NAINA’s land pooling scheme: “It is just a garb to release farm lands held by villagers to the builder lobby”. In particular, local people were of the view that the minimum land pooling norm of 18 acres favoured construction magnates. Dawale also said that the curbing of village council powers under NAINA had a negative impact on civic services, a view shared by Panvel’s MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly), Prashant Thakur.
In December 2016 it was reported that 14 villages on the outskirts of Navi Mumbai and included in NAINA feared losing their land due to the project. Community representatives said that authorities were reserving plots of land without consulting local people and that inclusion in NAINA was blocking development in their villages, in contrast with surrounding areas that were flourishing. The 14 villages repeated demands first made in July 2015 to be merged with the civic body NMMC (Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation) instead.
NAINA area reduced
NAINA was described as ‘potentially the biggest smart city in India‘ at approximately 600 square kilometres in November 2014 but by May 2016 CIDCO appeared to favour polycentric urbanisation, in the form of ‘30 smart cities‘, Special Economic Zones and growth centres. CIDCO officials estimated that, in its initial years of operation, the new airport would handle two to three million passengers, a fraction of the widely publicised projection of 20 million passengers per year in the first phase, rising to 90 million when expanded to full capacity. By July 2017 many parcels of land in the 1st phase of NAINA had not been acquired due to opposition from villagers. The state urban development department had approved development of the 23 villages three months previously but the development plan was still not publicly available.
Map of NAINA, reduced to 474 sq km, September 2017. Source: CIDCO
CIDCO’s Modified Draft Development Plan for NAINA, published in September 2017, anticipates an inflow of passengers from the new airport, but there is no mention of mulitiple millions of passengers annually. The plan does not include the aviation-dependent tourism or freight facilities that form the mainstay of an aerotropolis. The plan details a substantial reduction in NAINA’s footprint and a map shows further fragmentation of the designated areas. Several villages were transferred to other jurisdictions, becoming part of Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (MSRDC – a development plan for the area along the Mumbai-Pune Expressway), Matheran Eco-Sensitive zone (MESC) and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Thus the number of villages incorporated in the NAINA plan decreased to 224 and the land area was reduced to 474 square kilometres.
The voluntary land-pooling scheme was causing delays, so, in April 2018, at the request of CIDCO, the state government moved to fast-track the NAINA project by way of invoking town planning scheme (TPS) provisions for compulsory participation of villagers residing in areas encompassed in the development plan. Participation in the project was made compulsory for the 23 villages in Phase 1 of NAINA. A draft plan for this 37 square kilometre pilot area was published, giving villagers just 30 days to make suggestions and objections, enabling CIDCO tosanction the scheme in three months. CIDCO also moved to expedite road building, using a fast-track TPS process, allowing a total of 21 months from announcement to execution.
Diverting water to NAINA
NAINA will take up water as well as land. CIDCO’s September 2017 Modified Draft Development Plan for NAINA calculates NAINA phase 1 water demands to be 8.33 MLD (millions of litres per day) in 2021, rising to 29.75 MLD by 2031 then reaching 45.07 MLD by 2041. New sources of water are anticipated to meet the increasing demands of NAINA and other CIDCO projects: the Balganga dam from which 150 MLD would be available for NAINA and Khopta Area (another CIDCO project) and the proposed Kondhane dam from which CIDCO expects to receive 250 MLD. The state transferred the Kondhane dam project from the water resources department to CIDCO in August 2017. The dam will draw water from the Ulhas river.
Shortage of water supplies is a perennial problem in many areas of Mumbai. In 2018 water scarcity was exacerbated by construction activity for Navi Mumbai Airport, which put pressure on water supplies impacting on surrounding communities, including those within NAINA. By May 2018 Panvel had been suffering a severe water crisis for three months. Every summer water scarcity forced residents to rely on water tankers. But in 2018 the situation was more serious. Many areas in Panvel were only receiving water on alternate days. Villages under NAINA were only getting water every three or four days. A resident of Khanda colony, Vishnu Gavali, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) requesting the court to direct civic authorities to resolve the issue. The PIL states that, under the constitution, all citizens have the right to food, water and a decent environment, and that CIDCO was failing in its duty to provide basic amenities. Gavali said “As airport work has started, a lot of water is being used for the construction activities but sadly, the locals have been neglected.” A resident of Roadpali said “Cidco has given permissions for so many upcoming projects in the city, I don’t understand how they would fulfill water needs of so many projects.”
In March 2019 residents of Panvel gathered near the CIDCO water tank premises in protest over poor and erratic water supplies, denying their fundamental rights to a basic amenity. Leader of the delegation, Apoorva Prabhu, said they had suffered water scarcity for six months and were requesting regular water supplies of least two hours daily. In September 2019, with many areas facing water shortages, CIDCO took measures to ensure that NAINA would not be affected by the water crisis. A detailed project report (DPR) on Kondhane dam, to help ensure adequate water for NAINA, was expected to be completed within a year and revive the project.
Objections to NAINA plans
On 28th June 2019 the Times of India reported that the urban development department would publish the final approved plans for NAINA and Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited MSRDC after the monsoon season. Citizens demanded the government publish the report of the planning committee on the objections and suggestions made by the public in order for there to be transparency over whether or not these concerns raised were addressed or not. Pankaj Joshi, architect and executive director of the Urban Design Institute said “Objections were raised to the government proposing industries in green zones in the metropolitan regional plan. The entire green belt will become brown if it is approved.”
Map of NAINA September 2019, area shrunk to 371 sq km. Source: Times of India
By September 2019 NAINA, promoted as India’s largest planned city in 2014, had shrunk to just over half its original size. The plan for a new city, spread over up to 600 square kilometres of land, had shrunk substantially, now occupying a 371 square kilometre plot. The map indicated further fragmentation of the NAINA area and the number of villages incorporated in the plan had reduced from 270 to 175. The most recent government notification granted sanction for the development plan for the remaining 152 villages covering 334 square kilometres, along with the 23 villages included in the 37 square kilometres allocated for phase 1.
Unrest among farmers affected by land acquisition for NAINA was reported again in January 2020. A protest against CIDCO had already taken place and farmers were planning further agitation. Several local leaders were raising their voices against the scheme. By 17th March CIDCO was reportedly ‘going ahead aggressively’ with implementation of NAINA, in the face of unrest by impacted people. About 10,000 farmers from the 23 villages of the first phase of NAINA were planning a demonstration. The farmers alleged that the town planning scheme was not beneficial to them and demanded a review. Vaman Shelke of NAINA Prakalpbadhit Shetkari Utkarsh Committee (NPSUC) said they were given notice if carrying out any construction work on their land, leaving them with no option but to accept the scheme. “This is a participatory scheme and we cannot be forced to join” said Shelke, explaining that farmers were demanding return of 50 per cent of developed land under the land pooling scheme instead of 40 per cent, along with additional benefits for loss of their agricultural land.
Six more aerotropolis-type developments have been added to the Global Map of Aviation-Related Socio-Environmental Conflicts. All the projects – in the USA, Canada, Jamaica, India and China – have met with opposition from affected communities and/or environmental groups. In each case the site, or proposed site, covers a large land area. Launched in July 2019, the map is a joint project by the EnvJustice project and the Stay Grounded network. There are now 67 cases on the map. The new aerotropolis-type additions are listed below. Please click on the links to read the case reports which contain a wealth of information on the environmental and social justice impacts of the aerotropolis projects, the government bodies and firms that are responsible and how affected communities are fighting for their rights.
Northwest Florida Beaches Airport
In the USA, a private landowner stands to benefit from industrial, defence, retail and hotel development on land it owns around Northwest Florida Beaches Airport. Construction of the airport, located in the midst of forested wetlands providing a haven for black bears, red-cockaded woodpeckers and the endangered gopher tortoise, caused a decline in in spite of six environmental lawsuits. After the airport opened in 2010 a 404 hectare ‘airport city’ began taking shape on adjacent land. In December 2019 the landowner broke ground on a hotel next to the airport.
In California, a massive air cargo project, Eastgate Air Cargo Facility, is planned in San Bernardino, an area where residents already suffer health problems caused by high levels of air pollution from a concentration of logistics traffic. The site is 41 hectares and the project also entails new taxiways and an aircraft parking apron at San Bernardino Airport, construction of new driveways to the project site and two bridges. Hundreds of people have attended a church gathering and a hearing on the project. Workers, community and environmental groups, united under the banner SB Airport Communities, are campaigning for a ‘community benefit agreements guaranteeing well-paid, secure jobs along with measures to limit air pollution’.
In Ontario, Canada, groundbreaking for Hamilton Aerotropolis, identified by authorities as a strategic priority in 2005 and subsequently re-named Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD), has commenced. A 555 hectare area of productive farmland around Hamilton Airport has been allocated to the project, which was approved in spite of local opposition, over many issues including the costs to taxpayers and availability of alternative sites on brownfield land, sustained over a long period.
Vernamfield Aerotropolis and Logistics Hub project
In Jamaica communities are concerned they may face forcible eviction for the proposed Vernamfield Aerotropolis. A letter sent to residents in December 2019 gave residents the impression that the “stage had been set for a massive land grab”. The total site area is 2,428 hectares of land, some of which is among the most fertile in the country and had been used to cultivate sugarcane, is a key component of a broader Logistics Hub plan which spans the southeast coast of the island.
Vernamfield Aerotropolis is a key component of the Jamaica Logistics Hub project. Image: Jamaica Logistics Hub, 9th February 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v5hWd9tcLc
Shivdaspura Aero City
In the Jaipur District of Rajasthan, Northern India, residents of 20 villages have organized major protests against plans for an aerotropolis-type development called Shivdaspura Aero City, a ‘greenfield airport’ (on undeveloped land) along with hotels, shopping malls, cinemas, restaurants and a cargo hub. A series of protests by farmers affected by land acquisition began in January 2018. Landholders say they have been left in lurch” unable to develop or sell their land. The site is about 2,100 hectares and approximately 80,000 people are affected by land acquisition.
Sanya Hongtangwan International Airport, Hainan, China
Scheduled to cover an area of 26 square kilometers on an artificial island Sanya Hongtangwan International Airport is expected to be a gateway to Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. In addition to the airport and to support its operations an aviation economic zone, seaport operation area, international aviation CBD (central business district) and industrial zone will be built. Environmental activists raised concerns over damage to wildlife including coral reefs and Chinese white dolphins, listed as ‘vulnerable’ in the on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. They achieved a partial victory, halting the airport island reclamation project for more than two years.
3,500 families struggle for fair rehabilitation for displacement to make way for Navi Mumbai International Airport. Mangroves and other bird habitats will be lost and pre-construction blasting work has damaged houses and caused injuries.
Approximately 3,500 families residing in 10 villages face displacement from their homes and land for a new airport in Navi Mumbai, in the Kovar-Panvel area 40 kilometres to the east of Mumbai on India’s west coast. First proposed in 1997 and approved by the government in 2007, the response of affected people, resisting land acquisition and demanding improved rehabilitation assistance, is just one of many factors that stalled the Navi Mumbai International Airport project. The inevitability of environmental damage led to delays in being granted government clearances. Biodiverse wildlife habitats encompassed within the site will be destroyed: 121 hectares of forest, 162 hectares of mangroves and 404 hectares of mudflats. Environmental groups have long criticized the airport site selection, saying that the government refused to consider possible alternatives. Waterlogged and low-lying, the site will need to be raised from 2 metres to 5 metres above sea level, posing construction challenges.
A mega-airport is planned, handling 10 million passengers annually upon completion of the first phase, rising to 60 million passengers per year upon commencement of full commercial operations with two parallel runways, which is scheduled for 2030. If this traffic projection proves accurate Navi Mumbai will be India’s busiest airport. The airport core area, allocated for aeronautical activities, is 1,160 hectares of land. In addition to the core airport site, three areas have been earmarked for non-aeronautical activities (airport-linked commercial development such as hotels and retail), taking the total airport area to 2,268 hectares. Three plots of land have been allocated for rehabilitation and resettlement for the affected villagers.
Levelling the site and diverting rivers
Villagers have not yet relocated to the resettlement areas. Yet, in October 2017, as they remain in their homes, massive earthworks preparing the site for construction of the airport began, a work programme that is expected to take between 18 and 24 months. The course of Ulwe river which runs north-south through the site is to be re-routed by 90° and the Ghadi river running alongside the northern boundary is also being re-channelled. Hills are being blasted away with explosives to make way for the airport runway, the soil and stones being utilized for filling in and levelling the site. The height of Ulwe hill, the largest hill on the site, is being reduced from 90 metres to 10 metres. Vast volumes of loose earth and stones will then have to be compacted down to make it stable enough to withstand airport operations.
Difficult terrain brings serious construction difficulties. The land is swampy and flood-prone, large areas are frequently waterlogged, especially during the monsoon season. “Even from a simple engineering point of view, building an airstrip on reclaimed land, mudflats and mangroves – it is going to be very unstable,” predicted Debi Goenka, executive trustee of the Conservation Action Trust. As of December 2017 most of the site was underwater. Critics of the airport project also point out the high level of state expenditure on pre-construction earthworks that are necessary to make the fragile coastal zone sufficiently resilient to withstand the new airport, an estimated ₹2,345 crore (US$370 million).
CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation), a city planning agency formed by the Maharashtra state government, is responsible for implementing the airport project. GVK, an Indian conglomerate with interests in energy, resources, transport and other sectors, has been awarded the contract to build and operate the airport. By May 2018, CIDCO expects to hand the project over to GVK for completion of pre-construction groundwork on the airport site before the building phase begins. Predictions of project cost escalation have proved well founded. By 2017 CIDCO’s cost estimate for the project had more than tripled, escalating from US$753 million to US$2.5 billion.
As earthworks In November 2017 two thousand residents of the villages of Targhar, Pargaon, Ulwe, Kolhi, Kopar, Ganesh Puri, Chinchpada, Dungi and Manghar gathered to step up their demands for fair compensation and rehabilitation from CIDCO for vacating their land and homes to make way for the airport project. The villagers discussed many concerns including unnecessary land acquisition and united their struggles to form a new organization: Navi Mumbai International Airport Affected Peoples, which will take up their demands with CIDCO.
The villagers’ meeting followed a major protest by residents of six villages on 12th October, which brought pre-construction work on the airport site to a halt. An article on the mid-day.com news website stated that 5,000 people attended the protest. Only 10 per cent of the affected families had vacated their homes, over 3,200 families were still living on the site and they resolved to remain in their homes until the plots of land allocated for resettlement were developed. On 27th October it was announced that, following a meeting between CIDCO officials and affected residents, attended by 500 people and with a heavy police presence, work on the Navi Mumbai Airport site would resume under heavy police protection. CIDCO reported that four platoons of state reserve police had been made available.
Blasting damages houses, injures workers and villagers
The state is protecting the airport from people with legitimate grievances, but failing to protect people from construction of the airport. Blasting work caused residents to complain about tremors affecting their houses and has caused injuries. At the time of the October 2017 protest explosives were being set off three times per day, loosening the ground in order to cut and level Ulwe hill to make way for the airport runway. Taking place at a distance as little as 100 metres from people’s homes blasting sent stones flying distances of up to 200 metres, including into a nearby school. Vibrations from the blasting had caused cracks in the walls of houses in the village of Ulwe, making some people afraid that their houses might collapse.
On 6th January 2018 five engineers working in the site were injured, two of them severely, by supposedly ‘controlled’ blasting work that was underway 300 metres away from them. Explosions had triggered a landslide and the workers were hit by falling rocks. Villagers in Siddhart Nagar which is situated at the foot of Ulwe hill suffered injuries too; five women were bruised by stones coming through their roofs and a seven-year old boy who had been playing outside his house needed two stitches to his head. Affected residents, who had argued that blasting should not commence until they are rehabilitated, organized a protest march opposing blasting on the airport site and called for an atrocity case to be registered against CIDCO and GVK. Two days after the landslide, as GVK signed the concession agreement with CIDCO, the men of the village stalled work at the blasting site while the women made an unsuccessful attempt to meet with CIDCO officials at their offices. The father of the boy injured in the landslide, said “My wife and a few other women went to meet CIDCO officials, but they were not entertained. Why is it difficult to rehabilitate us when crores are being spent on the project?”
After the blasting injuries CIDCO officials ordered Siddhart Nagar residents to vacate their homes to get them out of the way while blasting work takes place, for two hours every day 1-2pm and 5-6pm. Villagers voiced strong objections to this disruption of their daily lives and being forced to stand in scorching sun. CIDCO’s lame excuse for undertaking the dangerous blasting work with people still in the vicinity is a claim that Siddhart Nagar villagers have not been rehabilitated because more than half of of the households were established after the 2013 cut-off date for eligibility. A representative of the villagers insists this is not the case and that they have documents proving their residency in the area for the past seven to eight years.
Residents’ long struggle for fair rehabilitation
Residents being displaced for Navi Mumbai Airport, facing loss of their homes, communities, land and livelihoods, have sustained a long-term struggle for fair rehabilitation. Back in 2010 a public hearing was boycotted by residents of all 18 affected villages standing to lose their land. Approval of the airport project appeared to be a foregone conclusion; journalist Nidhi Jamwal wrote that the hearing was ‘wrapped up in hour’, with the few journalists that attended having been told by their employers that negative stories would not be published. There was not much to report anyway as a recently completed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a study on the diversion and channeling of rivers were not made public. People from the affected villages stood outside the meeting waving black flags in protest, demanding due compensation.
Villagers being displaced for the airport, referred to as project affected persons (PAPs), are dissatisfied with the rehabilitation and resettlement areas and say that the offers of land and cash sums to build new houses in these designated areas are in sufficient to compensate for what they will lose. PAPS are being offered construction aid to build their new houses, but say that the amount, calculated in 2011, is low. Their request that construction aid be increased to reflect current costs seems particularly reasonable in the light of CIDCO’s repeated upward revision of airport construction costs.
At the time of the 12th October 2017 protest, which was precipitated by apprehensions over CIDCO’s looming 17th October deadline for villagers to vacate their homes, Nata Pratil, president of the committee of MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly) which is demanding justice for the 3,500 families facing displacement, said that the deal offered to villagers to give up their land was altered after they had agreed to it, the allocation of space for a new house being reduced. CIDCO claimed that the plots for displaced families were ready, but PAP representatives disputed this, saying that schools, utilities, streetlights, roads and a crematorium had yet to be developed. And PAPs said nothing had been done to make provision for replacing temples that will be lost to the airport. CIDCO had committed to allocation of plots of land suitable for relocation of ten old temples, along with compensation for rebuilding. In November 2017 some PAPs alleged that records proving their land ownership had been destroyed by CIDCO.
Loss of mangroves and the risk of bird-strikes
A significant regulatory hurdle to building Navi Mumbai airport, pertaining to the mangrove forest in the airport site, was removed in 2009. Coastal Regulation Zone notification, ensuring tight controls over construction, was amended in order to allow conversion of mangrove forest to an airport. Replacing mangroves with the impermeable concrete and tarmac of an airport will disrupt the water balance in the wider region. Mangroves are a natural buffer between land and sea, the interwoven roots preventing coastal erosion, absorbing rainfall and tidal surges. Excess water has to go somewhere and removal of mangroves for the airport could make the surrounding area more susceptible to flooding.
CIDCO’s suggestion of compensatory plantation to make up for loss of mangroves, about 200 kilometres distance from the airport site in Dahuna, met with criticism that these complex, locale-specific ecosystems, richly biodiverse and taking time to evolve, cannot be created instantly. CIDCO then suggested a mangrove sanctuary close to the airport site, commissioning a study of wetland bird habitats that was conducted by Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). The study highlighted the conflict between airport operatiosn and birds. Dr. Deepak Apte, director of BNHS cautioned that “A mangrove park within the perimeter of aircraft takeoff and landing zones can be an extremely serious aviation hazard”. Mangroves are an attractive habitat for many bird species, so a mangrove sanctuary poses a risk of bird strikes, collisions with aircraft that can cause fatal accidents.
In 2015 the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change National Board for Wildlife withdrew the requirement for a mangrove sanctuary as part of the project. The developer will be required to make the area designated for the mangrove sanctuary unattractive to birds to reduce the risk of bird strikes. An environmentalist from Vanashakti, an NGO focused on forest, mangrove and wetland protection, questioned the sincerity of CIDCO’s promise of a mangrove sanctuary, wondering if it was known to be unfeasible due to the bird strike risk, and merely a ruse to help get clearance for the project.
Airport operations are likely to impinge upon birds habitats beyond the site – coastline, creeks, mangroves and inland wetlands. A survey conducted BNHS showed an estimated 266 bird species living within a 10 kilometre radius of the airport site, including the Karnala Bird Sanctuary. Aviation experts advised that a plan for a bird sanctuary to protect migratory flamingos, in the Panju-Funde wetlands, 20 kilometres from the airport site, would be under the take-off and landing flight paths and a bird strike disaster waiting to happen. Large birds such as flamingos pose the most significant bird strike risk. Debi Goenka criticized the airport authorities’ opposition to the Panju-Funde bird sanctuary: “In the name of development, we cannot simply kill all the beautiful birds and destroy their wetlands’ habitat. They could have easily shifted the proposed airport to some other place 10 years ago”
Interlinked megaprojects and car dependency
Construction of another megaproject, the Mumbai Trans-Harbour Link (MTHL), the longest bridge in India – is to be speeded up, for completion in time for it to be linked with Navi Mumbai Airport. Stretching across Mumbai Bay, six lanes wide and 22 kilometres in length, the new bridge will link the mainland with Sewri on the eastern edge of South Mumbai. Like the airport, the bridge is set to destroy birdlife habitats. First mooted in the 1970s it met with opposition because of the impact on Sewri mudflats, an area containing mangroves and providing an important feeding ground for the thousands of flamingos flocking there every winter. MTHL’s starting point in Sewri, extending along 5 kilometres of coastline, poses a threat to an estimated 20,000 – 30,000 flamingos and 38 hectares of formerly protected mangroves will be lost, along with 8.8 hectares of protected forest at the Navi-Mumbai end.
The shoreline sections of MTHL will impact on people as well as the environment. A 2016 assessment survey revealed that the homes of 229 families, 53 business premises and 10 commercial structures in Sewri will be demolished to make way for MTHL and an official outlined a plan to resettle then in Bhakti Park, Wadala, in southern Mumbai. Artisanal fisherfolk from nine villages whose livelihoods are impacted by MTHL will receive a one-time compensation fee. As of July 2017 over 3,000 compensation claims had been submitted and the Mumbai Metropolitan Development Authority (MMRDA) was about to begin sifting through the applications to identify ‘genuine claimants’. The cost of the MTHL bridge is comparable to Navi Mumbai International Airport at US$2.6 billion. Since 2005 when bids for the MTHL were first invited the cost has escalated significantly, by 350 per cent, due to delays, rising input costs, mandatory environmental and rehabilitation and design changes. Citizens will foot the bill directly through tolls and indirectly through various taxes.
A 5.8 kilometre coastal road connecting the MTHL bridge with Navi Mumbai International Airport is a megaproject in its own right; large stretches of the road will be elevated with a 1.76 kilometre section over mangroves to be built on stilts. The coastal road is just one of a proliferation of road infrastructure projects enabling traffic growth to support the new airport: new roads, widening of existing roads up to 8 and 10 lanes, loop roads and interchanges. Journalist Sanjay Banerjee envisages these ‘speed corridors’, described by CIDCO as enabling “smooth and seamless vehicular movements”, having an ‘octopus-like grip‘ across Mumbai. The airport-centric road building programme is designing in a high level of dependence on cars, it is based on a projection that 85% of air travellers will use private vehicles.
The ‘Airports in India’ report by Equitable Tourism Options (Equations), is a useful critique of government plans for massive airport expansion. Published in May 2015, the report is skeptical regarding the viability of plans to construct 200 new airports over the next two decades, when most of India’s established airports operate at a loss. Vast amounts of public expenditure on airport infrastructure would benefit only a small wealthy minority, in a country where 22 per cent of the population live below the poverty line.
In many instances new airport plans are rushed, without proper consultation of the local community and the requisite environmental clearances. Several Indian airport projects have met with opposition from affected communities. The Bhogapuram airport project has seen massive protests by farmers (also see GAAM blogposts from 15th April and 17th April 2015). Airports in Sikkim and Aranmula have been stalled by community protests. There has also been vigorous opposition to privatization of Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai airports. Chennai Airport is thought to have 2,000 acres of land which the private operator can lease for facilities like five-star hotels. The report urges the government to reconsider new airports in favour of upgrading existing airports.
This article was written by advocate Jogi Naidu KV Allu. It is an insightful and informative summary of key concerns over the planned aerotropolis at Bhogapuram, in the district of Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. GAAM is very grateful for his contribution:
Proposed Green Field Airport in 15000 acres of ‘agriculture land’ at Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, India.
1. The project would wipe out approximately 10,000 families property, livelihood causing huge displacement.
2. The distance between the proposed Project and existing Visakhapatnam Airport is less than 25 nautical miles and is against all established norms. There should be a minimum of 150 nautical miles distance between any two airports.
3. The project would effect environment and cause ecological imbalance in the area. “Champavathi River” runs in the area.
4. The project directly effects fishermen villages who depend on both the agriculture holdings and also on the sea. Their life cycles are directly related to location. Displacing them would only nullify their fundamental rights under the constitution of India.
5. Right to property could be deprived only by authority of Law and the relevant Law for land Acquisition is the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. BUT the Government of Andhra Pradesh is adopting a novel unconstitutional method “Land Pooling” to avoid the implementation of 2013 Act. In other words, the Government is trying to take land without spending a single rupee.
6. There was or is NO DEMAND made by anyone from any quarter for the proposed airport at Bhogapuram.
7. The real requirement for an airport is between Viziawada and Nellore. Whereas, the Government is unnecessarily proposing airport in a region where there are five air strips in a distance of 300 KM range.
8. The existing Visakhapatnam Airport is operating at below 50% of its capacity and could take air traffic for another Twenty years. Moreover, Government has invested more than Rs.200 crores for its expansion and there is scope for further expansion with additional runway and new terminal.
9. The Government of India may think of establishing a New Airport between existing Visakhapatnam Airport and Bubaneswar Airport in Odisha. 10. The requirement of 15000 acres of Land for Green Field Airport itself stinks of interests and motives beyond establishing a mere airport. All concerned with good governance, environment, human rights and constitutional propriety should closely examine the developments of this proposed Green Field Airport at Bhogapuram.
A.K.V.JOGI NAIDU ADVOCATE
The map below includes the fertile farmland area where the aerotropolis is planned. An article in the Times of India states that the government plans to acquire land from the following villages: A Ravivalasa, Gudepuvalasa, Chepalakancheru, Kouluwada, Tudem, Basavapalli, Mujeru, Chakivalasa, Kongavanipalem, and part of Bhogapuram village. I assume ‘Mujeru’ is misspelled and actually the village of Munjeru. Amatam Ravivalasa, Gudepuvalasa, Munjeru, Chakivalasa, Kongavanipalem can be seen on the map.
A mega-airport is planned, handling 10 million passengers annually upon completion of the first phase, rising to 
antiaero.org 