Relocation and resettlement of Urban, informal settlements
This note has three parts. The
first is about an emerging vertical program that SPARC has on relocation and
resettlement of vulnerable urban communities. The second, a short summary of it’s
past work and the principles that it has produced. The third is an introduction
to an emerging relocation that is happening in Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra.
The crisis of cities is constantly morphing with
people moving around either to plan or to discuss relocations. This is how cities
are born and grow, for the elite and for the formal there are systems and
processes but for those who live informally, these are traumatic and their
impacts multigenerational. City development produces changes that are going to
be exacerbated with climate crises as oceans rise, as unbearable heat occurs, there
is either lack of water or flooding along with other traumas that climate change
brings into our lives.
The city not only demands that existing residents
move, if they’re living
informally without their consent, but this is coupled with the fact that there
will be more and more urbanization as rural areas around cities, and even in
distant locations have weather related crises that reduce lives and livelihood
opportunities in rural areas. The world has already turned urban, however the
imagery that poverty resides in rural areas alone and that those who live in
rural areas need support while those who live informally in cities need to be
driven out and evicted has yet to change.
The challenge of addressing informality takes many
forms in most instances. People invade vacant spaces, build their homes and
survive with informal jobs while, defending their right to live in the city. In
some instances, through a range of opportunities their tenure gets recognized,
however in other instances, the city chooses to relocate them, and this is
often when the real estate value of that land increases, either for formal housing
stock or for infrastructure purposes.
In most instances, this relocation is forced and even
if it is not forced it may produce some form of tenure, but it produces a lot
of hardships, challenges, alienation and other kinds of distress that households
in neighbourhoods have to face when such a process happens without prior
preparation.
Yet they realized that this process did not in anyway
produce an ability to make serious long-term investments in their homes and
together communities and SPARC began to look at the possibility of designing a
relocation process which would be driven by them, considering their needs and
their challenges and with the possibilities of exploring solutions which were prepared
in advance of a crisis of evictions.
It began with transforming a perspective that the city
had no land. It became clear that planning instruments reserved lands for
everything except for those who lived and worked informally, and that
informality came out of the realisation that the city did not have instruments,
political will and a perspective that acknowledged that a very large percentage
of people in the city were already living informally. Along with this came the realisation that
plan allocations that were technically and legally put in as non-negotiable
constantly changed with political will to utilise this land for other purposes.
Having understood these external realities, this process began with a series of steps that emerged from dialogue and discussion not only within the group, but with government officials, professional planners and learning from other peoples’ experiences of traumatic relocation. It began with a detailed census of every single household, providing each house with an address that demonstrated that the Indian Postal Service actually provided them with letters that came to them at a time when there was no Aadhaar. Each partner federation produced an ID card for each family with their photograph and their names, they produced every single government document (a list of 14) from immunisation to driver license to past legal notices of evictions to demonstrate how long they had been living in the location. They formed Cooperatives and formed committees, began savings that were meant for a start-up capital for getting a loan and a separate savings group to deal with the relocation costs.
In short, this introduction is to remind ourselves and
those who read this process that all the case studies that I now present in the
form of articles, blogs, or videos is to show a process that began in 1986 for
a range of different relocation programmes that the alliance of SPARC, Mahila
Milan and NSDF took up with three clear objectives
1.
The first is to say that
communities, especially women’s collectives were critical core members of designing
and executing, preparation, and ongoing evolution of the transition process of
relocation. They need technical,
organisational support and in most instances a relationship with government
officials to produce solutions that are robust, that work for them and work for
the city. This has a protocol, which we hope with more people engaging in this
strategy we will be able to make it more robust.
2.
There are many traumatic,
unplanned, disastrous relocations, and there are planned relocations that haven’t worked for a
lot of reasons and there are relocations in which everything was planned, but
there were still unexpected, unintended negative impacts. All these need to be
studied and documented and must come into the discussions of solutions with a
realisation that a group or a constituency of people living informally and
being neglected for the last several decades are themselves unable to find
perfect solutions as the duty bearers often participate in this process unwillingly
for the good of the city.
3.
For SPARC in its reformulation,
relocation and rehabilitation are now an important vertical to develop not only
with a view of deepening and sharpening our own practices and learning from
what we have done but to develop a community of practice with collaboration,
knowledge sharing policy formulation, building new protocols for developing and
designing relocation, and building community capacity to acknowledge that
solutions are never perfect but can be worked on and improved as we go along
and learn to work in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders, both duty
bearers and others to work on these issues.
From Settlement to Relocation: Life
at the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Varuracha Maruti post relocation, Ahilyanagar
SPARC is working at two relocation sites in
Maharashtra: Mahatma Jyotiba Phule (Khatwan Khandoba) and VarurachaMaruti
that were developed by the Ahilyanagar Municipal Corporation under the
Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). Around 372 families
(2000+ individuals) were moved to Mahatma Jyotiba Phule in 31 buildings
(G+3) in 2017 from various slums situated 3-5 kms away from the original
settlements While in VarurachaMaruti, around 252 families were relocated in 21
buildings (G+3) from other slums.
For the city, the project
represents a significant public investment in housing infrastructure but for
the residents, the experience of relocation has been much more complex. While the new
housing provides formal shelter, residents at the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and
Varuracha Maruti continue to face multiple challenges that affect their daily
lives and long-term stability.
The construction of the buildings is substandard, and
while individual toilets with a connection to septic tanks have been provided
for each house, no underground or overhead water tanks have been provided and
there is a daily struggle for water. Garbage collection mechanisms are not yet
in place, there are drainage issues, and a lack of streetlights at both sites.
As yet no individual electric meters have been provided in Varuracha
Maruti.
These challenges related to maintenance, common
infrastructure, and service delivery, highlight the gap between housing
provision and long-term habitability.
One of the most immediate impacts of relocation has
been the distance from earlier livelihoods. Many families were earlier
dependent on informal work opportunities close to their original settlements.
Moving several kilometres away has increased travel time and costs, and in some
cases disrupted income sources entirely.
The design and planning of the site, while
structurally adequate, has limited integration with surrounding services and
economic opportunities. Access to transport, markets, schools, healthcare
facilities, and anganwadis (government run health care day centres for children
from 0-6 years) requires additional time and expense, especially for women,
children, and the elderly.
Without sustained institutional engagement for the
people who have been relocated formal housing brings the risk of becoming
isolated rather than integrated into the city.
Building Trust, Step by Step
For the past two years, efforts were made to work with
these relocation colonies. However, progress remained slow because there was no
one consistently present—someone who could meet residents regularly, listen,
follow up, and build relationships over time. SPARC now has a dedicated person
working on an everyday basis to work closely with residents in both colonies.
This is an important shift and though Pravin has been working with the
communities for just two weeks, the difference is already visible.
Meeting the Community Regularly and
Organizing them
Pravin meets with residents in smaller groups from both relocation colonies on a daily basis and these are ongoing conversations, not just a one-sided communication. He begins by explaining who we are as an organisation, why we are present, and—most importantly—why community organisation matters after relocation. At the same time, Pravin is navigating the community’s hesitations where many residents have valid concerns and past experiences that make them sceptical of organising or approaching authorities. He listens to their concerns; he also tries to explain why certain changes are important post relocation and what benefits collective actions can bring.
A key part of these discussions focuses on helping
residents understand how, when they come together as a group, they can
collectively raise their concerns and seek solutions—whether through local
corporators, ward-level mechanisms, or directly with the municipal corporation.
Addressing Everyday Needs:
One concrete example of this work relates to Anganwadi
services. In one of the relocation colonies, there is currently no
anganwadi. While there is an anganwadi in a nearby settlement, women face
serious challenges in sending their children there daily—especially since many
of them also need to go to work and manage household responsibilities.
When the concerned government department was
approached, their initial response was that an anganwadi already exists nearby.
However, through continued engagement and explanation of the practical
difficulties faced by women, a verbal agreement from the authorities to open an
Anganwadi within the relocation colony itself has been initiated. The next step
is to submit a list of eligible children so the process can move forward.
Health access is another area and though a healthcare centre exists nearby and periodically conducts camps in different locations, residents highlighted that many of their specific health concerns—especially those of women and children—are not adequately addressed. Pravin is now negotiating with a private organisation to hold regular health camps directly within the relocation colonies, focusing on issues raised by the community.
Ration Cards are also an
issue since households can acquire subsidised food rations through these. Many
residents fear that transferring ration cards from their previous address to
the new location will result in long delays, during which they might not
receive rations at all. Discussions with the ration office to understand the
process clearly and explore alternatives are ongoing so that families do not
lose access to essential food supplies during the transition.
Initial discussions and conversations around the formation
and registration of housing cooperatives has also begun with the residents.
With Pravin’s consistent presence, conversations are moving
forward, issues are being taken up systematically, and residents are beginning
to see that something is finally happening on the ground. Though several issues
will only be dealt with over a longer period of time, smaller and visible
interventions will be taken up first so that residents can see how collective
actions lead to real outcomes helping build trust amongst communities and their
representatives before moving onto more complex processes.


