Village that took on cement giant awaits execution of NGT orders

It has been over a month since the Central Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ordered the Rajasthan government to set up a committee to rehabilitate the entire village, holding UltraTech Cement Ltd responsible for environmental damage and health hazards here. The ruling came after a three-year-long struggle but residents claim not much has changed on the ground.

“Even after the order, the blasts haven’t stopped,” says Lalita Devi, a member of the Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti, which filed the petition in the NGT. Responding to queries, UltraTech said it “cannot comment specifically as the matter is currently sub-judice”.

“Our mining operations are being conducted in full compliance with the statutory permissions,” it told The Indian Express, adding that it had filed a review petition before the NGT over its November 3 order.

Calls to SDM Ramavtar Meena on implementation of the order went unanswered.

Located on the foothills of Aravallis, Jodhpura is one of seven villages witnessing limestone mining operations — and one of two fighting a legal battle against them.

The conflict in Jodhpura stems from a limestone mining lease spread over 548.78 hectares. Jodhpura was once part of the larger Mohanpura-Jodhpura revenue village. While Mohanpura was rehabilitated to another nearby location to accommodate mining operations there, Jodhpura remained where it was.

Soon, the effects of the operations became clear — tremors, structural damage to houses, pollution, and a litany of health problems.

Citing a February 2024 letter from the Chief Medical Officer of the Government BDM District Hospital Kotputli, the NGT order states that 298 people from the village have been treated, most of them for “suffering skin rashes, asthma, nose irritation, joint pain, deafness, allergy, breathlessness, etc”.

“Almost every house in the village has cracks,” says Kailash Yadav, president of the Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti, “There’s not a single house without allergies,” says Lalita.

What is remarkable about the agitation is that a number of protesters are women. “A lot of men are working as contractual labour in the company and don’t speak out,” says a resident, Geeta Devi.

For three consecutive nights earlier this week, over 200 residents of Jodhpura village staged protests against operations at the quarry to demand closure of the operations. They dispersed after the police promised that operations would stop.

In its NGT application last year, the samiti argued that the mine and its two 1,600-tonne stone crushers violated Pollution Control Board guidelines requiring a 1.5-km buffer between villages and such projects. Represented by Delhi-based environmental lawyer Rahul Choudhary, villagers submitted evidence including a Google Earth image showing the 82-metre distance between the crusher and the school, and Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System data indicating high pollution levels.

The NGT’s order was sweeping: besides directing the Rajasthan chief secretary to prepare a rehabilitation plan, it banned blasts within 500 metres of the village, required the company to pay Rs 50,000 for structural damage and Rs 20,000 for health-related harm, and mandated creation of a green belt within six months.

“The most important aspect of this judgment is the reliance on the ‘absolute liability’ principle,” says Choudhary. “The NGT held that once cracks are found in the vicinity of mining using blasting, and there is no other identified reason, the lack of scientific certainty cannot be a ground to deny relief.”

The road to the ruling, however, was littered with administrative apathy. Residents began flagging structural damage in February 2016.

With no response, the agitation coalesced into the Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti, which launched an indefinite dharna in December 2022. “We knocked on every door, from the tehsildar to the CM, but got no relief,” Satya Pal Yadav, a samiti member, says. “That is when we decided to approach the NGT (last year).”

An order rehabilitating an entire village is rare in environmental jurisprudence. But even with a favourable ruling, residents remain cautious. There’s also criticism that the compensation is “too little”.