Last Wednesday, the committee met with officials from the mines ministry, the land resources department in the rural development ministry, and the tribal affairs ministry

The parliamentary standing committee on rural development and panchayati raj will present a report on the impact of mining and industrial corridors on rural people and land during Parliament’s monsoon season, people aware of the matter said.

Last Wednesday, the committee met with officials from the mines ministry, the land resources department in the rural development ministry, and the tribal affairs ministry. It discussed protests in Odisha’s Rayagada over the construction of a road for Sijimali bauxite mines, land acquisition for the Ken Betwa River Linking project in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, issues related to forest clearances, gram sabha consent processes, and their faking.

The standing committee will approach the environment, forests, and climate change ministry for comments on forest clearance-related matters, and a civil society organisation from one of the affected areas.

Non-documentation of opposition of local communities to mining projects is likely to be among the issues that may be addressed in the standing committee report.

Saptagiri Sankar Ulaka, a Congress lawmaker from Odisha, heads the standing committee.

In its December 2025 report titled “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Implementation and Effectiveness,” the committee considered cases, including land acquisition in Great Nicobar, Lakshadweep, and fair compensation matters in other tribal areas.

The committee recommended strict implementation of the Act so that all people whose primary livelihood depends on Great Nicobar’s forests, coasts, creeks, beaches, reef flats, and common paths are treated as “affected families” under its Section 3(c), even where the land is recorded as government or forest land.

In the case of Lakshadweep, the committee observed that it has come across instances where proposals proceeded on the claim that because the foreshore reef flat beach or lagoon edge is government land, its taking or enclosure does not amount to acquisition affecting people. The committee disagreed with this view. It recorded that the Act expressly protects the livelihood of dependents on government and common land.