In my view India and the states in 2026 are well equipped and endowed with sufficient resources to commence work on relocation of villages that are facing serious and imminent threat especially in view of increased incidents of extreme weather activities due to climate change. A premium needs to be placed on saving lives of all citizens, writes former IAS officer Sunil Kumar
Periodically news of villages and villagers being affected by natural disasters hit the headlines especially if entire villages are wiped out as unfortunately happened in the case of Chooralmala and Mundakkai villages in Wayanad district of Kerala on July 30, 2024 or in Irshalwadi village in Raigad district of Maharashtra on July 19, 2023. More often than not, affected survivors receive ex-gratia payment announced by the government and immediate relief assistance as per the criteria laid down in the Relief Manual and are then left to fend for themselves.
However, three different stories appearing in the newspapers in the last few months caught my attention. The first news item related to Bahraich district in Uttar Pradesh.[i] It mentioned that the UP CM had ordered immediate relocation of all residents of Bharthapur village located on Indo-Nepal border and surrounded by Kaudiyala and Girwa rivers on three sides after five residents died on October 30 in a boat tragedy. Petitions by residents over the last 15 years, including one to the present CM about five years ago in his Janata Darshan in Lucknow, had yielded no results. Following the CM’s direction, the district administration quickly identified a 4.2 acre plot in Semrahna village about 50 km away. Each one of the 135 families identified for relocation were to receive a 700 to 800 sq. feet housing plot and 2.5 bighas of farmland. Families were expected to construct houses and toilets under government housing schemes. The proposed new settlement would reportedly have 8 foot wide road, water and sewer pipelines, streetlights and a dedicated space for keeping animals apart from electricity, drainage and road facilities. The state government has also quickly approved Rs.21.55 crore for the project.
The other story was from down south.[ii] It mentioned how the Kerala government was developing a Rs.299 crore township project over 64 hectares of land acquired from Elston Tea Estate in Kalpetta in Wayanad district for housing about 1600 persons affected by the landslide in July 2024. The township would have 410 houses. Each house was being constructed on 3049 sq. ft. of land (seven cents) with a master bedroom, two additional rooms, a sit-out, a living room, a study room, a dining area, a kitchen and storage space. The foundation allowed owners to construct another floor if they wanted. It would also have public roads, a health centre, an anganwadi, a market, playgrounds and space for recreation. The July 30, 2024 landslide had killed 298 people of Chooralmala and Mundakkai villages, completely destroyed 59 houses and left hundreds of other houses unfit for habitation. The new township is over 20 km away from the former site.
The third story is from Maharashtra. Irshalwadi village in Raigad district was devastated in a landslide in July 2023 wherein 29 villagers died and 87 went missing.[iii] The survivors were provided container homes in nearby Chouk village straddling the highway in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. Their cattle which survived were left behind in the devastated village as there was no space for them. The state government through CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation) is constructing 48 houses with built-up area of about 300 sq. ft. on a 6.5 acre plot of land in Chouk Manivali. The new site includes infrastructure such as concrete roads, drinking water, street lighting, and a protection wall to ensure safety from future landslides. However, there has been considerable delay in completion of the project. What is certain is that these villagers would no longer be able to lead the kind of life they were used to: living in the lap of nature and weekend trekkers to Irshalwadi fort providing a steady stream of income as they worked as guides and provided home-stay facilities and cultivating enough to meet their requirements.
A striking feature of all the aforementioned three stories is that a large number of villagers and villages are in ‘disaster prone’ area. With climate change, wherein frequency of extreme weather incidents is going up and unchecked construction activities (whether of roads or buildings) aggravating the situation in fragile eco-sensitive zones, lives of crores of persons are seriously endangered. It is estimated that about 15 to 20 percent of Indian villages (90,000 – 120,000) are located in flood, river-erosion and landslide prone areas. The very high risk regional clusters include the Brahmaputra valley in Assam, the Kosi-Gandak basin in North Bihar, Ganga floodplains in eastern Uttar Pradesh, Sunderbans delta in West Bengal, coastal Odisha and Andhra Pradesh, hilly regions of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and the Western Ghats spread over Kerala, Maharashtra and Karnataka. These areas are home to about 20 crore Indians.
Secondly, villagers in all three locations were willing to relocate. In Uttar Pradesh, the villagers were demanding relocation for long but without success. In the other two, there was no other option left other than relocation in the aftermath of the natural disaster.
Thirdly, response of the state authorities varied in all three cases where relocation was ordered. In Uttar Pradesh, the district administration was unmoved by the deaths in the boat tragedy. Nothing had been done in the past fifteen years on numerous petitions submitted by the villagers. The decision for relocation was taken by the Chief Minister and then within a month land was identified, detailed project report prepared by the PWD and forwarded to the state government and the DPR was approved and project sanctioned. Given the fact that the majority of the villagers belonged to the Maurya caste (an OBC group) and the heightened political activity in the run up to the Assembly elections in early 2027, the response of the state government is understandable. The construction of houses would be undertaken by the owners with funds provided under the Pradhan Mantri / Mukhya Mantri Awaas Yojana. The pace of implementation of the relocation project remains to be seen.
In Kerala and Maharashtra, the decision to relocate the villagers from the affected villages was announced almost immediately after the disaster. While Kerala has been the most prompt in completing the first phase of the project and handing over possession to 178 families in early March 2026 (perhaps the implementation was expedited keeping in view the impending Assembly elections in April 2026), the pace of construction has been lax in Maharashtra (although it went to polls in late 2024).
Fourthly, the decision regarding the layout, size of plots, amenities to be provided were perhaps all taken by the bureaucracy depending upon the availability of different schemes from which resources could be tapped for the purpose. There is no evidence in the public domain about whether the proposals were discussed with the affected villagers, the Gram Panchayat or in the Gram Sabha. Hence, the size and design of houses in all three states show significant variations. In Uttar Pradesh, the size of houses would be around 250 sq. ft., 300 sq. ft. in Maharashtra and almost 1000 sq.ft. in Kerala. Kerala alone seems to be coming close to providing anything which meets the approval of the villagers. In Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, the affected villagers have no choice in the matter.
Fifthly, in all three cases, the decision was taken in the aftermath of a tragedy. Despite the State Disaster Management Policies providing for relocation, the decision is still taken as a ‘reaction to disaster’and after precious lives have been lost rather than as response to their being ‘vulnerable to disasters’. This is especially galling as the National and State Disaster Management Authorities have mapped out in considerable detail areas that are in ‘disaster prone’ areas and also those which are seriously vulnerable. Yet the primary focus remains on acting after disaster has struck rather than saving lives before disaster strikes.
This is a crucial difference. In my view India and the states in 2026 are well equipped and endowed with sufficient resources to commence work on relocation of villages that are facing serious and imminent threat especially in view of increased incidents of extreme weather activities due to climate change. A premium needs to be placed on saving lives of all citizens.
In Uttarakhand, only 44 villages have been relocated in the last 15 years although 465 villages have been identified as vulnerable.[iv] Odisha has successfully relocated inland the maximum number of about 500-600 villages in the aftermath of the 1999 cyclone. Gujarat relocated 40 villages after the devastating Bhuj earthquake in 2001. In all other states the number remains small and pace of actual relocation rather lethargic. The actual difficulties highlighted in reports and studies mention, inter alia, difficulty in locating suitable land, funding constraints, local resistance and legal issues relating to land ownership. Permanent village relocation still remains rare.
A beginning needs to be made in states like Assam, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakahnd, Maharashtra, Kerala and Karnataka to begin with which have areas falling under ‘very high risk’ zones. In this regard, the following course of action is suggested for various stakeholders.
One, the district administration through the DDMA must set up appropriate instruments necessary for providing early warning of floods, river erosion, landslides etc. which pose a serious threat to the villages identified in the ‘high risk’ zone. These would include, inter alia, setting up of automated weather stations to measure wind speed, air pressure, humidity, automatic rain gauges, rainfall threshold monitoring stations, soil moisture sensors, tiltmeters, crack meters etc. Data collected must be processed by the experts and the results shared regularly with not only officials dealing with disaster management but also the elected representatives and officials of local governments. This would help bridge the trust deficit over a period of time between the authorities and the residents.
Two, it must be recognized that local government is the most important political institution to realise ‘community-based disaster preparedness’ by ensuring active involvement of elected members of PRIs, officials at the local level and community members.[v] Hence, scientists and experts would need to sit and explain to people in general the real dangers affecting the village and the community. This would involve requesting the Gram Panchayat to convene special meetings of the Gram Sabha (GS) after giving adequate notice and due publicity to the agenda of the meeting. Senior officers of district administration must participate in the GS meeting and answer all queries. It is possible that more than one meeting of the GS would be required before consensus can be built around the need for relocation of the village.
Three, once agreement has been reached on the need for relocation, the district officials would need to consider and take into account the requirements of villagers not only in terms of physical space for housing but also what is required to ensure ‘least disruption’ to their livelihood, economic and social well-being. This would give the authorities a sense of the demand factors at work.
Four, it is also important that a complete inventory of individual and community assets along with their valuation is prepared in a transparent manner and approved by the Gram Sabha. This would be required for working out the compensation package for the villagers and working out financial and land pooling arrangements. The land of the former settlement would devolve on the government and then the state government could take appropriate decision regarding it’s use.
Five, after the demand has been listed and factored in, the supply side factors would come into play. This would mean identification of suitable options where relocation could be undertaken. The best two to three options, along with the cost of development of those locations, must be presented first, before the community and elected representatives of the Panchayat and, then before the Gram Sabha.
Six, after there is broad consensus about the relocation project, the detailed project report should be prepared and sent to the state government for approval.
Seven, as part of implementation strategy, it may be a good idea to give the option of owner construction and/or construction by an agency. Keeping in view the requirement of families, different plot sizes could be offered. Beyond a certain bare minimum, say 100 sq.m plots, families could be asked to bear part of the cost. The State government could work out a suitable financial package where all stakeholders contribute their share of the project cost.
Eight, the new settlement (village/township) should be set up with an eye on the future. It should have all the amenities befitting a modern settlement. A Master Plan for the village could also be prepared with appropriate land use plan and approved by the local government. Details given in the Rural Area Development Plan Formulation and Implementation (RADPFI) Guidelines, 2022 issued by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj may be used for the purpose.
Nine, the project should be prepared in such a manner that the individual and community assets ‘freed’ after relocation are appropriately monetised and the benefits flow to all stakeholders. At the same time, since it is the primary duty of the state to safeguard the lives of its citizens, the state and union government should bear a fair share of the cost of relocation.
Adoption of aforesaid measures would usher in a new era of participatory governance wherein every resident feels he is an active stakeholder in the system and not just a passive recepient of benefits being handed over by an indulgent state or union government. This would foster responsibility and accountability in the local government. Above all, it would ensure that precious human lives are protected and assets safeguarded from the fury of natural disasters.
A successful and expeditious implementation of relocation of villages project in high-risk regions, with active and full support of the local community and the local government, would set the stage for undertaking a more ambitious project of redevelopment of larger villages with population of 10,000 or more into modern towns with all amenities. More on this later.
(Sunil Kumar is a visiting Senior Fellow associated with the Centre for Cooperative Federalism & Multilevel Governance in the Pune International Centre and a former civil servant. Views expressed are personal.)
[i] A boat tragedy puts UP village, cut off by rivers, on CM’s relocation map; The Indian Express, November 30, 2025
[ii] From shattered villages to model township, Wayanad landslide survivors get new homes; The Indian Express, March 2, 2026
[iii] Five months after landslide, Irshalwadi remains engulfed in sadness; Hindustan Times, December 18, 2023; https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/five-months-after-landslide-irshalwadi-remains-engulfed-in-sadness-101702843163899.html
[iv] Long road home: Uttarakhand increasingly declares villages disaster prone; Down to Earth, September 3, 2021; https://www.downtoearth.org.in/natural-disasters/long-road-home-uttarakhand-increasingly-declares-villages-disaster-prone-78821?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[v] Disaster Preparedness and Risk Reduction – Significance of Empowering Panchayati Raj Institutions; Dr. K.Gireesan; Pg.146- 163,Disaster & Development Vol. 7, No. 1 & 2, Dec. 2013
