Vidarbha’s Border Villages Trapped Between Two States for Decades

thenewsdirt
Jul 22
5 min read

In Vidarbha, remote villages have found themselves caught in an unusual limbo. They belong to Maharashtra on paper but were governed, voted for, and received services in practice from a neighbouring state.

For decades, this ambiguity has stifled daily life, creating what residents call “two of everything”, dual election cards, ration cards, schools and panchayats from both sides of the border.

This article examines the main border disputes in eastern Maharashtra, particularly in Chandrapur district on the Telangana border, and in Buldhana district on the Madhya Pradesh border. It traces how each dispute arose and what steps (if any) have been taken toward resolution.

Disputed villages on the Maharashtra–Telangana border

Fourteen villages in Chandrapur’s Jiwati tehsil have been at the heart of a long-running border dispute between Maharashtra and Telangana.

These hamlets (names include Antapur, Lendiguda, Padmavati and others) lie on the edge of the state line but for decades lacked clear administration. Residents voted and held ration cards in both states.

One report described villagers enjoying “two of every institution and facility”, from schools and panchayats to water schemes and electricity, provided by each state. Maharashtra politicians note that the population speaks Marathi and daily transactions are in Marathi, but since the late 1950s, the villages were recorded on Andhra (later Telangana) revenue lists. In practice, Maharashtra built roads and water supply in some of the villages, while Telangana provided electricity in others.

As one local legislator said, the settlements had two gram panchayats, two sarpanches and two sets of officials, one for each state.

The origin of this dispute dates back to the reorganisation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. When the AP state was formed, Maharashtra contends that the villages should have remained with Nagpur province. The matter flared again in 1989: the Sharad Pawar-led Maharashtra government agreed to transfer them to undivided Andhra Pradesh, but withdrew the decision amid political opposition.

Andhra (later Telangana), in turn, incorporated them into its revenue records. Maharashtra challenged this in court. In 1990 the Supreme Court declined to settle the issue, saying it could not adjudicate an inter-state dispute and directed the states to approach the Centre. As a Maharashtra leader pointed out, under the Constitution only Parliament can change state boundaries.

For decades nothing was resolved, and the villages remained in administrative limbo. Each resident effectively held two voter IDs, one for Maharashtra and one for Telangana, and could vote in both state elections.

Until recently, the only central effort was a 2011 commission (headed by K.K. Naidu) which ruled the villages belonged to erstwhile Andhra Pradesh. Maharashtra has since challenged that finding, and the question is again before the Supreme Court.

In July 2025, Maharashtra’s government took a new step. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis directed officials to formally include the 14 villages in Maharashtra, citing historical revenue records. The state’s revenue minister said a final decision was expected soon and pledged to issue land titles to these villagers as part of the plan. Telangana’s government, however, has so far remained silent on the proposal.

Many affected residents actually oppose the merger, preferring Telangana’s welfare schemes, and have asked local Telangana officials to ensure their villages remain in that state.

In short, the 14 villages still have dual administrations and the dispute remains unresolved in practice, pending a legal or parliamentary settlement.

Villages near the Madhya Pradesh border

In northern Vidarbha, villagers along Maharashtra’s border with Madhya Pradesh have also expressed grievances about state boundaries.

In late 2022, four hamlets in Jalgaon Jamod taluka of Buldhana district formally requested a merger into Madhya Pradesh.

A joint letter from the Gram Sarpanch and others stated that Bhingara, Gomal-1, Gomal-2, and Chalistapari were “struggling to get basic amenities for the last 75 years” as part of Maharashtra.

The letter noted that residents cannot even obtain Scheduled Tribe certificates despite being tribals. The villagers warned they would protest if conditions did not improve.

This demand was raised in December 2022 against a background of wider border politics. At the same time, Maharashtra was embroiled in disputes with Karnataka and Gujarat over Marathi-majority villages.

Local activists in Buldhana argued that the nearest government officials were far away and their needs were ignored, leading them to appeal to a neighbouring state. The Maharashtra collector responded that officials would visit and assess the problems.

As of now, there is no change in these villages’ status. They remain within Maharashtra, but their case highlighted the hardships faced by some border communities. It also drew attention to the fact that even within Vidarbha, peripheral villages sometimes feel compelled to question which state they belong to.

The four Buldhana villages sought merger, but no formal action was taken beyond local inquiries, and the issue faded without a formal resolution.

Ongoing stalemate and governance challenges

Stone marker with "Maharashtra Telangana" text, in a green field with a distant hill and trees; clear sky backdrop. — Ongoing stalemate and governance challenges

Both sets of villages, on the Telangana and MP borders, illustrate a broader administrative impasse.

In each case, people live under de facto dual administration or question their governance, yet no state or court has definitively altered the boundary.

Because boundary changes require parliamentary approval, solutions must navigate complex legal and political hurdles. Maharashtra’s recent push to include the 14 Chandrapur villages was significant, but Telangana’s cooperation (or lack thereof) and Supreme Court review mean a final outcome could take years. In the Madhya Pradesh border case, the state government pledged to look into villagers’ complaints, but merging territory was not part of official negotiations.

A key challenge is that resolving these disputes involves more than mapping. It touches voters, land rights and identity. In Chandrapur, for example, villagers have been living on unallocated forest land for decades without formal titles.

Granting their demands requires changing electoral rolls, distributing new cards and untangling welfare benefits in both states. As one observer noted, only a high-level meeting, perhaps in the Prime Minister’s Office, with both states and election officials, might break the impasse.

Until then, these border hamlets remain anomalies on the map that are claimed by one state but served by another, waiting for a definitive settlement.

Despite appeals and official statements, the disputes are technically unresolved. Maharashtra continues to claim its historical records and revenues justify its control, while Telangana (and earlier AP) points to legal rulings and on-the-ground governance.

Similarly, MP has not taken any formal position on the Buldhana villages’ requests, which appear more as protest letters than official claims by Madhya Pradesh. In the absence of a clear political or judicial decision, the day-to-day outcome is a patchwork of administration. Villagers vote in one state’s elections one year and the other state’s the next, or twice in the same cycle.

Each disputed area reflects local and historical complexities. What remains consistent is that, to this day, residents in these pockets have no settled conclusion on which state they truly belong to. Their plight underscores the limits of past state reorganisations and the difficulty of redrawing lines without creating new problems.

Even as higher courts and governments discuss these cases, people on the ground must navigate shifting jurisdictions and uncertain futures.