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.

SPARC began its work in 1984, addressing the challenges of pavement dwellers in Mumbai and dealing with the reality that as an organisation you cannot produce secure tenure on a pavement. When this was discussed with women’s collectives in communities, it became clear that the women and their families chose to live on these particular pavements, historically, because it was easy to walk to work, and somehow they were able to protect it for short periods of time, facing some demolitions which in some instances forced them to move somewhere else but in other instances they rebuilt their home again.

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

One of the core lessons from SPARC’s work over the past 40 years is that sustained engagement and not a one-time intervention is  what enables real change in relocation settlements. Relocation is often presented as a solution to informality—an administrative response that replaces precarious housing with permanent structures. But for families that move, relocation is not just about new buildings; it is about rebuilding lives.

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.