By Nazmin Saikia
India’s rapid infrastructure expansion and corporate-led projects are reshaping land use across states. Alongside promised jobs and connectivity, a widening pattern of contested land transfers, large-scale tree felling, and local resistance has emerged — and with it, fierce debates about who benefits, who loses, and how dissent is treated. This article surveys recent, on-the-ground developments: government-backed land allotments to large firms (notably Adani group projects), allegations of giveaway land rates and mass deforestation, the response of affected communities, and the increasing tendency to brand protesters or NGOs as “anti-national.” Where possible, the piece sticks to reported facts and indicates when claims remain allegations under investigation.
1. The claims: giveaways, ₹1 leases and new projects
In September 2025, the opposition in Bihar accused the state government of allotting around 1,050 acres in Bhagalpur to Adani Power for a 2,400 MW plant at a token rate — reported by several outlets as Re 1 per year for 33 years. Congress leaders called it a “gift” and alleged coercion in how villagers parted with land. The state government and Adani have pushed back: Adani published a media release announcing a Power Supply Agreement (PSA) with Bihar for 2,400 MW, and the state government denied that land had been “gifted” in the manner alleged. The story prompted protests in Patna and intense political debate. (The Economic Times)
Why this matters: across India, governments sometimes offer long-term leases or concessional land to attract investment. But when such transfers affect farmland, forests or community commons, the optics and impacts differ sharply from transactions on industrial estates — and local communities, opposition parties and environmental groups demand clarity on valuation, consent and compensation.
2. Trees, forests and alleged clearance without consent
Several recent reports document large-scale tree-felling and forest-land diversion linked to projects slated for private or public-private developers. In Chhattisgarh’s Raigarh/Hasdeo Arand area and surrounding districts, officials and campaigners reported clearances and recommendations affecting thousands of hectares — with media and civil society highlighting potential impacts on hundreds of thousands of trees and on tribal livelihoods dependent on forest commons. One reporting thread noted official recommendations to divert 1,742.6 hectares of forest land for coal mining — an action implicating the potential loss of many lakhs of trees. Local gram sabhas and Adivasi groups said these clearances were pursued without proper consent or adequate consultation. (TaxTMI)
In Madhya Pradesh, opposition leaders including Jairam Ramesh publicly alleged that tree-felling had begun at certain Adani-linked sites without legally mandated clearances and without Gram Sabha consent, prompting protests and political attention. The state government pushed back with fact-checks and official rebuttals in some cases; nonetheless, images and local testimony of felled trees and bulldozed tracts circulated widely. (Deccan Herald)
Legal context: the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and rules under the Forest Conservation Act require gram sabha consent, rehabilitation and compensatory afforestation. When authorities proceed with felling or diversion, courts, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and central agencies often become the forum for challenges — but these procedures can be slow relative to the pace of on-ground change.
3. Local resistance: protests, arrests and claims of coercion
Across states — Assam (Kokrajhar), Chhattisgarh (Raigarh), Rajasthan (solar project protests), Maharashtra (Kalyan cement objections), Bihar (Bhagalpur) — communities have mobilized to protest land transfers, tree-felling or project siting. Media coverage records thousands of objections in public hearings (for instance in the proposed Ambuja/Adani cement unit near Kalyan), arrests during sit-ins (e.g., Jaisalmer solar protests), and mass demonstrations in district headquarters. Often protests focus on fears of loss of livelihood, groundwater depletion, pollution, or the end of commons that sustained communities for generations. (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre)
Protesters say they are frequently pressured to accept agreements, or that authorities fast-track land records changes. Local reports from ground-level outlets have included allegations that villagers were “forced” or misinformed into signing land transfer documents; state authorities routinely deny coercion and say due procedures were followed.
4. The legal and media response — injunctions, takedowns and “anti-national” rhetoric
A striking part of the contemporary landscape is how resistance and reporting are being policed through both law and public discourse.
Courts have issued interim restraining orders in some cases: for example, a Delhi court recently restrained certain activists and journalists from publishing alleged defamatory material about a corporate group, directing removal of unverified content. Such injunctions can curb the spread of unverified allegations but also raise questions about chilling effects on public interest journalism. (www.ndtv.com)
Governments and agencies have at times framed NGOs opposed to projects as improperly funded or as acting at foreign behest — charges that have led to raids, regulatory scrutiny, and criminal investigations in certain previous high-profile cases. Such actions raise legal issues about foreign funding rules, transparency and whether these measures are proportionate. (www.ndtv.com)
Politically charged language — branding protest as “anti-national” or equating criticism of a project with obstructionism — has appeared in debates and public statements. In some protests against Adani group projects, demonstrators have been detained; in parliamentary and media exchanges, political leaders have used strong rhetoric that casts dissent as destabilizing. While security concerns can justify measured enforcement, critics argue language that delegitimizes dissent narrows democratic space.
5. Corporate and state narratives: jobs, investment and due process
State governments and corporations argue that major projects bring significant benefits: long-term employment, power or transport infrastructure, local investment and ancillary development. Adani’s public statements emphasize PSAs, job creation pledges and long-term power supply contracts (for example, the PSA with Bihar for 2,400 MW). Government spokespeople in several states said the projects underwent statutory clearances and were necessary for regional development. (Adani)
Where the controversy centers is at the intersection of scale and safeguards: when very large tracts are leased or when leases are on highly concessional terms, or when forest land is reclassified as “barren” for industrial use, communities and opposition parties demand robust evidence of due process — independent environmental impact assessments (EIAs), certified consent under FRA, clear valuation and transparent competitive bidding for public land.
6. What the reporting shows — and what remains contested
From the recent reportage the picture is mixed but clear on key facts:
Projects are proceeding rapidly in several states; formal announcements, PSAs and MOUs appear in the public record. (Adani)
Communities and civil society report large-scale tree felling and land conversion, alleging that statutory processes like gram sabha consent were bypassed in places; these claims have triggered protests and, in some cases, police action. (The Wire)
Political opposition has seized on apparent concessional terms (the “₹1” narrative in Bihar), turning allocation terms into a major campaign issue; state governments have, in turn, publicly denied improper gifting. (The Economic Times)
Courts and regulators are active: some injunctions have limited speech or reporting in specific cases, while tribunals are hearing environmental challenges; outcomes are pending, and litigation timelines are long. (www.ndtv.com)
What is harder to assert categorically — and must await independent audit or judicial findings — is whether any given land transfer involved criminal corruption, or whether procedural lapses stemmed from administrative haste rather than malfeasance. Several high-profile allegations (including questions about earlier corporate-state linkages) are politically explosive and under continuing investigation or debate.
7. Why this matters for democracy
Land and forests are not merely economic assets: they are the material basis for community life, identity and food security for millions of Indians, particularly tribals and smallholders. When large projects override local consent, two democratic risks arise:
Erosion of procedural legitimacy: If people feel decisions are taken over their heads — especially for Commons and forest land — the social licence for projects collapses, making conflict likelier and governance costlier.
Shrinking civic space: When activists, journalists or local leaders face gag orders, criminal probes, or are publicly vilified as “anti-national,” the democratic forum for airing grievances shrinks. Robust debate, transparent adjudication of grievances, and timely remedy mechanisms are the lifeblood of accountable governance.
8. Paths forward: transparency, consent and accountability
To reduce conflict and protect both livelihoods and legitimate development needs, three measures recur in expert and civil-society recommendations:
Full, accessible disclosure of land deals: deeds, lease terms, valuations, and benefit-sharing arrangements should be available in public portals so affected communities and independent auditors can verify fairness.
Gram Sabha and FRA compliance: where forest and tribal lands are involved, strict adherence to Gram Sabha consent and statutory safeguards must be non-negotiable. Independent verification of consent should be possible.
Independent environmental audits and fast judicial review: EIAs, compensatory afforestation plans and biodiversity impact statements should be independently audited, and environmental tribunals should be empowered to issue rapid interim relief when communities face displacement.
Reaching durable solutions requires not just legal remedies but political will to treat dissent as a democratic right rather than a security threat.
Conclusion
India’s development pathway need not be binary — either growth or tribal livelihoods. But current flashpoints — from Bhagalpur to Raigarh, from Kokrajhar to Kalyan — show what happens when governance processes, community consent and environmental safeguards are perceived to be weak. That perception fuels protest; how the state responds — with transparency, remediation and respect for dissent — will determine whether democracy is strengthened or further strained.
Sources & further reading (selected)
Congress alleges 1,050 acres given to Adani at Re 1; Bihar government rejects charge. Economic Times, India Today, Adani PSA. (The Economic Times)
Reports of massive tree felling and forest-land diversion (Hasdeo Arand / Raigarh). TaxTMi / reporting on official recommendation; The Wire coverage of on-ground actions. (TaxTMI)
Jairam Ramesh and reports of tree-felling in Madhya Pradesh sites. Deccan Herald. (Deccan Herald)
Protests and local resistance: Kokrajhar/Assam and other local reports compiled by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre)
Injunctions and court orders on activists/journalists: Delhi court interim restraining order reported by NDTV. (www.ndtv.com)
Broader legal challenges and Adani projects in tribunals: Reuters reporting on Adani legal and environmental challenges. (Reuters)
