Inconsistent Resettlement Policies Leave Evicted Families in Debt and Despair in Chennai

By Vanessa PeterIn 2019, *Selvi, a single parent, was evicted from the banks of Korattur Lake, along with other residents to Perumbakkam, a resettlement site constructed by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (TNUHDB). She was told that her “beneficiary contribution” for a housing unit was `80,000. As she had lost her employment due to relocation and later the pandemic, she was unable to pay. Fearing she would lose her house, she borrowed `40,000 at a high interest rate and is now trapped in debt, struggling to meet her children’s needs. It was only recently that she got to know that many families evicted from other areas were provided with free housing and subsistence allowance, while she was not. However, families resettled under the restoration projects of the Chennai Rivers Restoration Project (CRRT), who were also evicted by Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) and the Water Resources Department (WRD) and resettled by the TNUHDB, were provided with subsistence allowance.Selvi, along with other resettled families, did not receive a monthly subsistence allowance (about `2,500 a month for a year) meant to mitigate the livelihood loss caused by resettlement.Selvi’s is among the tens of hundreds of tales from the resettlement sites, where they were treated differently while their neighbours were handed additional entitlements. More than 70,000 families (2.8 lakh people) have been displaced in Chennai since the 1990s, often resettled in unsafe, peripheral, isolated and remote locations, accessing different entitlements.The difference in their resettlement lays bare the inconsistencies in the approach and practices being adopted by the state govt. Instead of a standard policy and procedure, the benefits depend on the evicting department and the policy of the funding agency. Families evicted under different projects, even if resettled in the same block, are treated differently. The inconsistent and non-uniform implementation of this provision undermines the purpose of ‘rehabilitation’.At the Navalur resettlement site, families evicted from the banks of the Adyar river in Chennai district, received free housing. But families displaced from the same Adyar river in the neighbouring Kancheepuram district were made to pay “beneficiary contribution” for their units. Such location-based disparities fuel tensions among families in the resettled sites and violate the principle of equal treatment.There are instances when the same department evicting families has adopted a different approach within a span of a few months. In July 2024, 36 houses in Retteri were demolished by the Greater Chennai Corporation, among other agencies, but they were not given alternative housing. A few months later, in Sept 2024, 114 houses in Annai Sathya Nagar near Villivakkam lake were demolished by the same agencies, but housing was provided in Moolakothalam. In these two cases, the same implementing agencies have adopted two different approaches to R&R.TNUHDB introduced an R&R framework in 2023. But other frameworks also apply. The Tamil Nadu Urban Infrastructure Financial Services (TNUIFSL) has an environmental and social framework that has a social regulatory framework, including an entitlement framework and the provisions for evolving social assessment reports and resettlement plans. International development institutions such as the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank also have their respective resettlement framework (they are financing some projects in Tamil Nadu).While some of the above frameworks provide for benefits such as subsistence allowance, cash compensations, among others, the rest do not have scope for them. Even in the resettlement of families evicted following court orders, only some received such benefits while others did not. The application of pre-eviction processes is not followed in evictions following court orders and post-disaster rehabilitation. The inconsistencies in the application of pre-eviction and post-eviction procedures affect the resettled families that have not received benefits but had to make their beneficiary contribution.In the Assembly in May 2022, the chief minister announced the formulation of a resettlement policy with provisions for ensuring welfare of the people. Currently, there is only a framework instead of a policy, and one that lacks clarity on scope, jurisdiction and non-negotiable responsibilities of the line departments. The framework is also selective as its application is left to the govt’s discretion.The adoption of multiple standards emerging from multiple frameworks for the resettling and rehabilitation of the evictees is not methodical. In the absence of an equitable approach to R&R, the impacts of the govt’s interventions might not only not yield intended results but may also lead to increased economic vulnerabilities. To break this cycle, the govt must adopt a standard R&R policy applicable across Tamil Nadu; prioritise in-situ or nearby resettlement to protect livelihoods and service access; embed protections for women, children, persons with disabilities, and other marginalised groups; and create a grievance redressal mechanism to resolve all issues arising during or after evictions.In June, the CM wrote to his Delhi counterpart regarding the demolition of “Madrasi Camp” in Jangpura, describing it as a “humanitarian crisis”. He urged the immediate provision of infrastructure, transport and basic amenities, also highlighting that their absence would lead to unemployment among women and disrupt children’s education. Addressing the concerns of the evicted families, the Tamil Nadu govt provided assistance with relief materials to address their urgent needs. Camps were organised to open bank accounts for those who did not have bank accounts, which was required for the cash transfer. Transportation was provided for the families to access the relief, and surveys were taken up to ensure that no one was left behind.The CM’s perspective of ‘dignified resettlement’ for Tamil-origin families in Delhi could be incorporated in the existing TNUHDB’s R&R framework. Though following a framework is the first step, the state needs to evolve a policy that would be a guiding principle for all its departments so that people are treated equally.* Name changed to protect privacy(The writer is founder of the Information and Resource Centre for the Deprived Urban Communities)