Forced Evictions and Failed Rehabilitation in Nagpur’s Slums

In the last ten years, the rights of slum dwellers in Vidarbha's Nagpur have come under increasing strain, despite a policy framework that promises protection and security of tenure.

Government resolutions and housing schemes have frequently fallen short of their stated objectives.

Between 2015 and 2025, several incidents of forced evictions, bureaucratic confusion, and mismanaged rehabilitation schemes have created long-term uncertainty for many urban poor families.

In areas like Raj Nagar, Sim Takli, and Shrikrishna Nagar, the demolition of homes has continued in cycles, often under the shadow of official assurances. As the administrative machinery continues to fail in protecting the housing rights it is mandated to safeguard, the affected communities face the brunt of these inconsistencies.

Changing Policies, Unchanging Outcomes

Efforts to formalise the rights of slum dwellers in Nagpur saw some developments on paper in the second half of the last decade.

In July 2016, the Maharashtra Housing Department revised the eligibility cut-off for individual land titles under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

Those who could prove residence before January 2000 were now considered eligible for assistance under the beneficiary-led construction component of the scheme. This was a step forward from the earlier cut-off date of 1995.

Shortly after, another Government Resolution targeted slums located on land owned by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. Under this provision, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes were to receive tenure rights on a joint-ownership basis, with the first 500 square feet allocated free of cost.

This resolution excluded Mumbai, Pune, and Pimpri-Chinchwad but applied to cities like Nagpur, where informal settlements were expanding alongside formal development.

In January 2017, the policy focus shifted further when a new Government Resolution extended land tenure rights across all slums in Nagpur.

Authorities managing government-owned land, including the Municipal Corporation, NIT, and the Collector's office, were directed to initiate the process of granting legal titles to slum residents.

These decisions were widely welcomed as progressive steps. However, the policy gains remained largely on paper. The recurring gap between intentions and ground-level implementation would soon become evident through a series of events that followed.

Implementation Challenges and Bureaucratic Loopholes

The years following the policy resolutions witnessed considerable confusion over the definition and classification of slum areas in Nagpur.

In February 2020, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation announced its intention to reclassify slums in response to inconsistencies in the development plan.

Multi-storey buildings had been constructed in designated slum areas, resulting in anomalous property tax situations.

Residents of well-developed properties were receiving benefits intended for marginalised communities, owing to the outdated classification of the area.

The case of Chandralok, a multi-storey building constructed in a notified slum area, brought this issue to public attention. Similarly, entire localities such as Itwari, Gandhibagh, and Central Avenue, which had undergone significant commercial and residential development, were still officially categorised as slums.

These classifications hindered effective urban planning and blurred the lines between formal and informal settlements.

This administrative ambiguity complicated not just tax collections but also the implementation of housing schemes.

Eligibility for rehabilitation programmes became entangled in paperwork, while those living in truly precarious conditions remained outside the ambit of assistance.

Policy execution became a process defined by delays and inconsistent communication, leaving vulnerable populations without clarity about their rights or future.

A Pattern of Forced Evictions and Displacement

Despite the presence of a policy framework, forced evictions continued. One of the most striking incidents occurred on 16 April 2025, in the Raj Nagar locality.

Several families living on land owned by the National Fire Service College had been residing there for around 25 years. On that day, bulldozers arrived unannounced and began demolishing homes, pushing families onto the streets with no prior warning.

Just a day before, on 15 April, a delegation of slum residents had met with District Collector Dr. Vipin Itankar.

During that meeting, they were reportedly assured that the anti-encroachment drive would be postponed and that no evictions would take place without alternative housing being arranged. The events that followed stood in direct contradiction to these assurances.

Residents reported widespread confusion, with women and elderly members particularly affected. The emotional toll of the eviction was visible in their accounts, where the loss of shelter was compounded by the betrayal of verbal commitments from authorities.

This was not the first such instance in recent years. In October 2022, homes in Sim Takli and Shrikrishna Nagar were demolished.

These evictions prompted large-scale protests in front of the NMC office, with around 100 residents gathering to demand ownership of the plots they had occupied. Twenty-five protesters were charged with rioting, unlawful assembly, and assault on police personnel. Among them was activist Yash Gorkheda, who denied the allegations and stated that the protests were peaceful.

The criminal charges filed against the protesters cast a shadow over the right to dissent. Rather than engaging in dialogue or addressing the grievances, the administrative response focused on penalising those who sought redress.

The legal action also discouraged future protests, as fear of reprisal hung over other vulnerable settlements facing similar threats.

Complicating the 2022 evictions further was the question of rehabilitation. Residents claimed that houses promised under the slum rehabilitation scheme were already occupied by others.

In response, NMC officials asserted that these units had been allotted in 2011 when the residents were displaced the first time.

The resulting blame game highlighted deeper flaws in the system of poor documentation, ineffective tracking of allotments, and an absence of coordinated follow-up processes.

Administrative Discrepancies and Community Responses

A key feature of the past decade has been the disconnect between government policy and administrative action. The failure to implement land tenure provisions has left large numbers of slum dwellers without security, despite being eligible under the revised frameworks.

Housing boards and development agencies in Nagpur have struggled to translate resolutions into tangible outcomes, with several schemes hampered by inadequate funding, bureaucratic delays, and poor interdepartmental coordination.

The 2025 Raj Nagar eviction stands as a recent example of this disconnect. The contradiction between the District Collector’s stated assurance and the actions that followed within twenty-four hours highlights a lack of coordination among departments and a breakdown in institutional credibility.

These inconsistencies have direct consequences on people’s lives. For residents already dealing with economic hardship, sudden evictions can erase years of effort to build a semblance of stability.

Many slum communities have responded through protests and public demonstrations, asserting their right to housing and rehabilitation. The reaction to the 2022 evictions in Sim Takli and Shrikrishna Nagar is one such case. Despite facing legal consequences, the residents rallied to demand rightful ownership or alternate housing.

Their mobilisation was not limited to slogans or petitions. It involved physical presence and confrontation, albeit within the boundaries of protest.

The risks associated with these protests are significant. For low-income families, a criminal case can mean loss of livelihood, disruption in children's education, and additional financial strain.

The community-led efforts to draw attention to their plight highlight a growing awareness of housing rights. Yet, without institutional support, these efforts often fail to result in structural change.

At the heart of these developments is the repeated failure to maintain accurate records of displaced families, delays in handing over allotted housing, and a lack of transparency in the implementation process.

In cases where homes were allotted but already occupied, affected families were left without recourse. The absence of a grievance redressal mechanism deepened the frustration and eroded trust in public institutions.

As the city of Nagpur continues to develop, the marginalisation of slum dwellers through sudden evictions and unfulfilled housing promises reveals the widening gap between policy design and delivery. Administrative decisions taken without consulting or informing the affected populations have led to repeated cycles of homelessness, disillusionment, and legal entanglements for those most vulnerable.

The past ten years in Nagpur have demonstrated how the presence of housing policies does not guarantee protection for those living in informal settlements.

Without consistent implementation, accountability, and transparency, policies remain ineffective, and slum dwellers continue to live on uncertain ground.