Balda bauxite mine: Odisha villagers challenge consent papers linked to Adani project

Residents of Balda and Bannur villages in Odisha’s Koraput district are challenging the paperwork used to show community support for a bauxite mine on Balda Hill. The project is being developed by Kalinga Alumina Limited, a subsidiary of Adani Enterprises. An Al Jazeera investigation published on 16 October 2026 reported accounts of signatures and thumbprints that villagers say they never gave, names of people who had died, and sheets allegedly collected for an unrelated land-settlement exercise. The dispute goes to a fundamental question: did the authorities record the villagers’ actual decision before moving ahead with forest diversion?

What the disputed village records show

The contested Gram Sabha meetings were dated 9 October 2025. Al Jazeera reported that official resolutions presented nearly 600 adults from the two villages as agreeing to the proposal. Village heads disputed the validity of the meetings, while photographs collected by the journalists showed attendance far below the numbers recorded as consenting. Some residents said they were protesting outside rather than attending or approving the project.

Among the cases reported was Rama Hantal, a bedridden man whose name appeared in the consent records although his family said he could not attend. Relatives of a woman who died in February 2025 questioned how she could appear on a resolution dated eight months later. The investigation also reported at least three deceased people listed in Bannur and at least 67 names the journalists could not trace. An untraceable name is not, by itself, proof of a fictitious person; the cases require proper scrutiny against the original records.

How a land-settlement sheet allegedly became mining consent

One of the most consequential accounts concerns a page of names and thumbprints. Bannur resident Sunadhar Muduli told Al Jazeera that he helped fill a sheet after a contract worker asked for names of people seeking recognition of their traditional landholdings. Muduli said he later saw that page included in the mining resolution. The contract worker, Ramnath Pungi, told the outlet that he had been paid ₹3,000 to collect land-settlement documents and had submitted the signed sheet to the revenue office. He said he did not know it would be used for the mining project.

That testimony supports a serious question about the origin and purpose of the document. It does not establish who may have inserted the sheet into a mining file or who, if anyone, committed a criminal offence. Determining that requires the original paperwork, the custody trail and an independent investigation.

Al Jazeera reported that more than 50 villagers subsequently submitted sworn affidavits denying attendance or authentic consent, and that petitions and police complaints sought investigation. Such sworn statements are important evidence requiring examination; they are not the same as a completed judicial finding of forgery.

Why consent and forest rights matter

Balda Hill provides forests, water sources, livelihood resources and places of worship for nearby Adivasi communities. A mine affecting those resources is not only a commercial decision. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 recognises individual and community forest rights, while forest-diversion procedures and protections applicable to Scheduled Areas create distinct duties for authorities. The exact Gram Sabha requirements depend on the applicable rules and approvals: it is inaccurate to treat every kind of land transfer as governed by one unconditional sentence in the Act.

The Union government has stated that compliance with applicable forest-rights processes, including settlement of rights, is required before final diversion orders under the 2023 forest rules. If consent records were knowingly substituted or falsely certified, this would be a grave violation of the villagers’ right to meaningful participation and a misuse of public authority. The villagers’ detailed and corroborated objections warrant independent examination, not dismissal merely because a clearance file exists.

What the company and administration have said

Al Jazeera said it sought comment from the Adani group in August and again in September 2026, and from Koraput district officials, but received no response before its report. Lack of a reply is not an admission. The company’s role as project developer also does not by itself establish personal involvement by Gautam Adani in the preparation of village records. Any official finding about the consent documents must distinguish the responsibilities of the applicant, contractors and government officers.

Does this point to a wider failure?

Al Jazeera linked the Balda dispute to a 2024 Comptroller and Auditor General report that it said identified 136 consent-related violations in tribal-area land management, including 73 instances without Gram Sabha meetings. These are audit findings across projects, not 136 proven forgeries connected to this mine. Separately, reporting on an Adani Power project in Assam described the demolition of homes of around 1,400 families before a project filing stated there were no habitations at the site. That is a distinct project, state and set of legal issues; it offers a comparison about the accuracy of official land records, not proof of a coordinated method.

What remains unresolved

The central unresolved issues are whether the two Gram Sabha meetings met the applicable requirements, how disputed sheets entered the official resolutions, whether recorded assent was genuine, and how authorities treated the complaints and forest-rights claims. The available reporting supplies concrete grounds for an independent inquiry and review of the approval record, but does not establish a conviction, the identity of any forger or a final court ruling invalidating the project.

For communities whose forests are tied to livelihoods, water and worship, recording consent that was never freely given would be profoundly unjust. The Balda allegations deserve prompt, transparent testing against originals and testimony, with meaningful participation by the affected villages. Approval on paper cannot substitute for a lawful decision by the people whose rights are at stake.