At Dhauragotha village in Angul, a central Odisha district, Dola Sasmal, 49, surveys the land. His misty eyes, clouded with memories, scan the horizon for the greenery he once knew. Now, he is in a place where over 90 acres of land is lined with rows of concrete houses and crisscrossed by kuchha roads. A gust of wind, thick with dust, is another reality check.
Sasmal longs for his old village, Tuluka, on the periphery of the forest that had nurtured generations. “In 2023, we were forced to leave Tuluka, because they said tigers would come to the Satkosia forest,” he says. “The government wants our land for tigers. As if we no longer belong to the places of our birth.”
About 150 kilometres from Odhisha’s capital Bhubaneswar, 112 families from two villages — Tuluka and Asanbahal — were resettled from the periphery of the Satkosia Tiger Reserve (STR) in the newly created Dhauragotha settlement. This is the second resettlement colony around Satkosia, a 10-km drive from the boundary of STR.
The Satkosia Tiger Reserve (STR) is one of 53 tiger reserves managed by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) in India. It has the job of protecting 65% of the global tiger population, at 5,660 in 2024, as per the Global Tiger Forum. However, STR is one of four notified reserves in India that does not have a single tiger.
In 2017, up to 78 families from Raigoda village were paid to shift out of the core area, to prepare for the arrival of two tigers from Madhya Pradesh. While this project failed, the Odisha government is keen on resuming its tiger reintroduction programme. “We have submitted a detailed project report outlining the prey base and safety measures for resuming the tiger supplementation program,” said Saroj Kumar Panda, Divisional Forest Officer of Satkosia (Wildlife).
After the first relocation, the pace of migration from STR has gained momentum causing discontentment. The Forest Department says that villagers from Kataranga opted to move out in 2022 because of the rehabilitation packages offered. Tuluka and Asanbahal followed in 2023, Bhurkundi in 2024. To date, 674 families have been relocated, many displaced across districts, where they don’t know their neighbours.
Families from Gopalpur are in the process of being resettled. Meanwhile, proposals to relocate Salar, Purunakot, Chhotkei, Majhipada, and Tikarpada are under consideration by Odisha’s Forest Department. However, villagers feel threatened about relocating from a forest they say is part of their identity.
The reserve without tigers
The Satkosia Gorge Sanctuary was established in 1976 over 795.52 sq. km, spanning the districts of Angul, Cuttack, Boudh, and Nayagarh. In 1981, the Baisipali Sanctuary was notified in the southern part of Nayagarh district. In 2007, the two sanctuaries were combined to form the Satkosia Tiger Reserve. The STR covers 1,136.70 sq. km with a core zone of 523.61 sq. km.
The reserve has a unique biodiversity, with elements from the Deccan Peninsula and Eastern Ghats with some from the Western Ghats. It has a 22.5 km long gorge with the Mahanadi river passing through it. Designated a Ramsar site, a wetland classified as being of international importance, Satkosia has over 400 plant species, 183 fish species and more than 200 species of birds.
In 2007, the State government census recorded 12 tigers in STR, but by 2018-19, only one remained. The 2022 census found no tigers in Satkosia. Their disappearance remains a mystery.
To restore the tiger population, India’s first inter-State tiger relocation programme was launched in 2018, bringing a male tiger from the Kanha Tiger Reserve and a tigress from the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh. However, one tiger died in a poacher’s trap, and villagers resisted the presence of the other after it strayed into human settlements. Eventually, the tigress was sent back to Madhya Pradesh.
The Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of Tiger Reserves that has been done since 2006, with its latest report in 2023, had pointed to the presence of four villages in the forest core, 131 villages in the buffer, and 234 villages in the surrounding impact zone. This, the fifth report said, “is highly detrimental to the effective management of the reserve”.
While the Odisha government has put in its proposal, the NTCA has set 15 preconditions for the project, particularly in light of the 2018 debacle in Satkosia. One key requirement is making forest areas within the reserve inviolate. The project must also secure consent from locals and public representatives, with voluntary relocation of villages being a crucial prerequisite.
Villagers at their temporary houses at a newly relocated village after being shifted from the Satkosia reserve forest.
| Photo Credit:
BISWARANJAN ROUT
Saroj Kumar Panda, Divisional Forest Officer of Satkosia (Wildlife) clarifies that the Forest Department is not forcing anyone to relocate: “Whoever desires to shift will be provided assistance as per NTCA guidelines.”
In an order issued last year, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) refused to halt the relocation process saying since relocation is purely voluntary, the department could not issue any order to stop or to go ahead with the process.
Giving up the forest
In 2016, Odisha’s Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department issued guidelines extending financial assistance under NTCA norms to families willing to relocate from sanctuaries, national parks, and tiger reserves — beyond core and critical tiger reserve areas. The State later enhanced the relocation package and expanded the scheme to include families from inaccessible forest areas, including wildlife corridors.
Sasmal of Tuluka village was content with the eight-room concrete house he and his four brothers had built by pooling their resources. However, in January 2023, officials from the Satkosia Forest Division arrived in the village, urging residents to relocate. A palli sabha (a village-level assembly) was convened to inform villagers about the financial package being offered for relocation. But 46 families strongly opposed the idea, and the meeting ended without a resolution.
“In the following months, forest officials began approaching landless and less-informed families in secret, offering ₹20 lakh to each adult over 18. Many, having never seen even ₹1 lakh before, readily accepted the offer, unaware of how deeply their livelihood and socio-cultural practices were tied to the forest,” says Sasmal.
Around 30 families moved out, and soon after, their homes were demolished. Those who remained began to feel insecure. “Our anxiety soared when the forest department verbally threatened to cut off all amenities. They refused help in case of wild animal attacks, and created fear that other benefits would also be withdrawn,” says Girish Jani, a member of the Kandha tribe from Tuluka.
Villagers in New Raigoda village complaint about forest department officials’ pressure over shifting them out of the reserve forest.
| Photo Credit:
BISWARANJAN ROUT
He says they felt they had no choice, and accepted the resettlement package — ₹15 lakh in cash and 10 decimals of homestead land. However, compensation for their agricultural land was just ₹1.5 lakh per acre. No reimbursement was provided for the concrete houses they had built.
Chhabi Sahu, 48, from Asanbahal village, says similar tactics were used there to get people to move to the Dhauragotha resettlement colony, where there are no roads and the homes are temporary structures.
Prasanna Behera, an Angul-based lawyer advocating for environmental issues, criticized the relocation of villagers from sanctuary areas. “The villagers cannot be uprooted merely because they happened to reside in forests that were later designated as tiger reserves. Offering a few lakhs in compensation does not justify their displacement,” he says.
Behera emphasises that the government must adhere to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and clearly state the purpose of relocating these communities. “Displacement cannot be arbitrary, especially when awareness among the affected people is minimal,” he added. Behera has challenged the relocation policy in the Orissa High Court and the State Human Rights Commission, one of 40 petitions challenging the relocation plan.
The first village
Seated in a plastic chair in New Raigoda, the resettlement colony built for his community, 75-year-old Dibyasingh Dehury wants to return to his ancestral village, Raigoda, deep within the core area of STR. Even if it means trekking over 10 km through dense forest, he yearns for the life he once lived. “Nature provided for us, and we never had to rely on others,” he says.
Back in 1998, the villagers of Raigoda first appealed to the government for relocation from the isolated Satkosia Gorge Sanctuary. It took nearly two decades for authorities to act. Finally, 78 families were resettled outside the sanctuary, each receiving ₹10 lakh, four decimals of homestead land (almost 440 sq feet), and a house under the Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana. At that time, the relocation was hailed as a model for others.
Unfinished house are seen at New Raigoda village.
| Photo Credit:
BISWARANJAN ROUT
Eight years later, many resettled villagers have nearly exhausted the ₹10 lakh. With no extra land for even a kitchen garden, survival remains a challenge. “We were promised 17 acres for the new village but received barely five. Our demand for an all-weather road is still unmet. The resettlement was so poorly planned that we don’t even have a designated cremation ground for last rites,” says Dehury.
Adding to their woes, the compensation money was deposited in a private bank located inside an industrial complex, nearly 80 km away. Every banking transaction costs a day’s labour, making access to their own funds a struggle.
The threat
Purunakote, a village on the outskirts of STR, may also see a relocation. For Naba Kishore Bisoi, an 80-year-old veteran of public life — having served as both sarpanch and block chairman — the idea seems absurd. “We live outside the sanctuary limits. The rule about relocating villages in inaccessible forest areas doesn’t apply to us, as our village is well-connected, with 14 government offices nearby,” says Bisoi.
Just half a kilometre away, Gopalpur — a village situated along a wide blacktop road — has been partially vacated. Akshya Kumar Prusty, 62, and his brother Pravakar, 60, have taken the fight to the Orissa High Court, challenging the forest department’s relocation plan.
“Their sole aim is to turn Satkosia into a tourist hub at the cost of indigenous communities,” says Bisoi, who also leads the Satkosia Abhayaranya Praja Surakshya Samiti, representing the people, most tribal. “State Highway 23 runs right next to Purunakote. The government is spending huge sums on infrastructure, building roads and bridges. Clearly, Satkosia won’t become people-free with these developments. Yet, they insist on displacing us, all in the name of making it suitable for tigers.”
A case has been filed with the police as the villagers of Salar, proposed to be relocated, allege that their signatures were forged by the Forest Department and their agents.
The unsettling of settlements
Geetanjoy Sahu, professor and chairperson of the Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, asserts that displacing villagers from their ancestral land within sanctuary limits or tiger habitats without settling their rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, is illegal.
“The government must first establish that coexistence between wildlife and humans is not feasible, which requires the formation of a high-level expert committee,” says Sahu, who is involved in an ongoing all-India study on village relocations from tiger habitats. He also emphasises that a fully developed resettlement colony, along with sustainable livelihood opportunities, must be in place before villagers are asked to relocate with compensation.
Biswajit Mohanty, a former member of the National Board for Wildlife, believes the forest department’s sole focus on promoting tiger tourism is “a mistake”: “Satkosia has a fragile ecosystem that should be protected from tourism pressure,” he warns. He also points out that the idea of relocating villages to make way for tigers is impractical. “More than 100 villages have progressed significantly — residents have become farmers, invested heavily in their lands, and have access to markets. You cannot ask them to leave the forest so tigers can thrive,” Mohanty argues.
Published – March 09, 2025 08:03 pm IST
