Solar Park on Grazing Land: Livelihood, Wildlife and the Subsidy Deadline
The state has approved a 900 MW solar park on 4,600 acres of revenue land in a dry district. Of this, 1,700 acres are recorded as grazing land used by 11 maldhari families with about 2,400 head of cattle and sheep; 900 acres are under cultivation by 220 households that have farmed it for 12 years. The site lies on a minor flight path of the Great Indian Bustard, and the state wildlife institute recommends putting three 220 kV transmission lines underground at an additional cost of 48 crore rupees. Commissioning is fixed at 20 months because the central subsidy is tied to that deadline. The maldharis refuse cash compensation and demand grazing land within 5 km; the nearest alternative is 23 km away on a compensatory afforestation site. Thirty-four panchayats have passed resolutions supporting the park because 1,200 jobs have been promised, but no job letter exists yet.
1. How will you reconcile the maldharis' demand with the project timeline?
Read the worked answer
The deadline binds the state, not the maldharis, and the two claims must be separated: compensation for loss of access, and continued access. The first can be paid. The second cannot be replaced by cash, and 23 km is not a substitute for daily grazing of 2,400 head.
Options, in order of preference:
- Designate the non-array portions of the 1,700 acres - boundary strips, internal roads, inverter and substation yards, unbuilt area - as a managed pasture with an agreed rotation and water points, written into the lease.
- Develop 150-200 acres of the compensatory afforestation land as pasture with a borewell and cattle troughs, with a written right of access.
- If neither suffices, a monthly fodder allowance indexed to market price for a fixed period, plus priority in the 1,200 jobs, with the job commitment converted from a promise into a written condition in the developer's agreement.
Secure the schedule by starting construction now on the 2,900 uncontested acres. Sequencing work around the dispute is not a concession on consent; it protects the deadline without forcing a decision under duress.
2. Will you accept the wildlife institute's recommendation at an additional 48 crore rupees?
Read the worked answer
Accept it, but test it first.
Ask the institute for the flight-path data, collision records and the alternative of bird diverters on the lines. If the data are site-specific, undergrounding three lines at 48 crore rupees is a small fraction of a park of this size and is the right decision under the precautionary principle. A project challenged after commissioning on wildlife grounds can be stopped or penalised, and that risk is larger than the mitigation cost.
If the data are not site-specific, still budget the mitigation, but negotiate the cost share with the developer and the transmission utility and require a monitoring protocol with published collision data.
Do not let the subsidy deadline decide the question. A deadline is a commercial term; the survival of a critically endangered species is not a commercial term. Record the reasoning in the file so that a later audit or court sees that the decision rested on evidence rather than on pressure. Note also that diverting or undergrounding a line later is far costlier than doing it at the design stage.
3. How will you deal with the 220 households cultivating 900 acres?
Read the worked answer
First, conduct a socio-economic survey and publish the list: date from which each household has cultivated, family size, whether they are landless, and what they cultivate. Eviction without that record will be stayed, and rightly so.
If the 900 acres is not required for the array - boundary, green belt, drainage - regularise it under the state's policy for long-standing cultivation, with a premium and a condition against further construction. That is the cheapest, most durable outcome and it reduces the compensation bill.
If it is required for the array, proceed by a rehabilitation and resettlement award rather than by summary eviction: pay for standing crops, offer a developed plot or a monetary package, and issue a written notice with a hearing. Do not deploy police until that process is exhausted.
Because these are cultivators on revenue land and not encroachers on forest land, the legal route is the state land policy read with the acquisition framework; confirm the exact provision with the law department in writing before any notice is issued, since a wrong provision will undo the whole exercise at the first hearing.