Jal Shakti Ministry rejects allegations of inadequate compensation under Ken-Betwa Project

The Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP) stands as a watershed moment in India's water governance architecture, representing the first major inter-state river linking initiative implemented under the National Perspective Plan (NPP) formulated way back in 1980. To understand the current controversy, we must trace the project's genesis: the idea of inter-basin water transfer was first mooted by Dr. K.L. Rao in the 1970s and later championed by Captain Dastur, but it was the NPP — prepared by the then Ministry of Irrigation (now Ministry of Jal Shakti) — that gave it a structured framework comprising two components: the Himalayan Rivers Development Component (14 links) and the Peninsular Rivers Development Component (16 links). The Ken-Betwa link, part of the latter, aims to transfer surplus water from the Ken River in Madhya Pradesh's Panna district to the water-deficit Betwa River in Uttar Pradesh's Bundelkhand region, a chronically drought-prone area spanning 13 districts across both states. The project's significance is multidimensional. Economically, it promises to irrigate approximately 10.62 lakh hectares (9.04 lakh ha in MP, 1.58 lakh ha in UP) and provide drinking water to 62 lakh people, while generating 103 MW of hydropower and 27 MW of solar power. Politically, it represents a rare breakthrough in inter-state water cooperation — historically a minefield in Indian federalism given that water is a State subject under Entry 17 of the State List (List II), Seventh Schedule, while inter-state rivers fall under Union jurisdiction via Entry 56 of the Union List (List I) and Article 262, which empowers Parliament to adjudicate inter-state water disputes. The KBLP required a tripartite agreement signed on March 22, 2021, between the Centre, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh — a diplomatic feat considering the decades-old mistrust over water sharing in the Bundelkhand region. However, the project has faced fierce opposition on ecological and social grounds. The Daudhan Dam, the project's centerpiece, will submerge approximately 9,000 hectares, of which 5,803 hectares lie within the Panna Tiger Reserve — a critical tiger habitat revived from zero tigers in 2009 to over 50 today through a successful reintroduction programme. This triggers the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, requiring clearance from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and the Supreme Court's Central Empowered Committee (CEC). Socially, the project affects 10 villages fully and 12 partially, displacing around 1,500 families, predominantly from Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste communities, invoking the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act), which mandates comprehensive rehabilitation packages including land-for-land, housing, and livelihood support. The Ministry of Jal Shakti's recent rebuttal addresses allegations that compensation and rehabilitation remain incomplete. Under the LARR Act, affected families are entitled to compensation at four times the market value in rural areas (Section 26), a one-time payment of ₹5 lakh for displaced families (Section 31), and rehabilitation grants for artisans, small traders, and others (Second Schedule). The Ministry claims most eligible families have received full benefits, with only procedural formalities pending — a claim that will likely be scrutinized by the Grievance Redressal Authority established under Section 51 of the LARR Act. This controversy highlights the persistent implementation gap between progressive legislation and ground realities, a recurring theme in India's development discourse. Looking ahead, the KBLP's trajectory will test India's capacity to balance developmental imperatives with ecological sustainability and social justice. Its success or failure will set a precedent for the remaining 29 links under the NPP, particularly the Damanganga-Pinjal, Par-Tapi-Narmada, and Godavari-Cauvery links. For aspirants, this case study encapsulates the interplay of constitutional provisions (Articles 262, 246, 21), statutory frameworks (Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956; LARR Act, 2013; Forest Conservation Act, 1980), institutional mechanisms (NWDA, NBWL, CEC), and the politics of federalism — making it a quintessential topic for UPSC Mains (GS-II, GS-III), State PSC, and other competitive examinations.