Twenty Katkari tribal families from Mhatroli village in Alibaug taluka of Maharashtra’s Raigad district were allegedly forcibly evicted after their homes were demolished in March 2024, according to Sarvahara Jan Andolan, which has sought criminal action under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar, his wife Sarojini Narwekar and others.
The organisation raised the allegations at a news conference and said the families were moved to alternative accommodation located two to three kilometres from their original settlement. It claimed the replacement site lacks drinking water, electricity and roads, and that water from a borewell there is allegedly unfit even for bathing. The claims have not been independently confirmed in the material supplied for this report.
According to Sarvahara Jan Andolan, a 15-acre plot was purchased in February 2024 in Sarojini Narwekar’s name for Rs 14 crore. The organisation alleged that on March 24, 2024, local representative Dashrath Patil and others arrived at the settlement and demolished the houses using excavators without prior notice.
The group further alleged that household belongings, a borewell and structures built under government housing schemes were buried under the debris. It said the families had lived at the settlement for generations and that their displacement therefore involved more than the loss of individual structures: it also disrupted access to water, roads and the services associated with their former homes.
Ulka Mahajan of Sarvahara Jan Andolan said the families had ownership rights over the land beneath their houses under a January 4, 2017, Maharashtra government resolution. She said the position was also reflected in Alibaug tehsildar survey records, while two families had house-tax receipts dating back 15 to 20 years.
The organisation alleged that police and revenue officials pressured the families into signing statements relinquishing their claims and recording that compensation had been received. It further claimed the statements were not read out to the residents before their thumb impressions were taken. The supplied report does not include copies of the alleged statements, survey records, compensation documents or the 2017 government resolution.
A petition filed before the State Human Rights Commission in 2025 was subsequently dismissed ex parte, the organisation said. The supplied account does not provide the commission’s order or explain the grounds on which the petition was dismissed.
The allegations place questions of tribal land rights, displacement and the adequacy of resettlement at the centre of the dispute. They also raise an administrative question about whether relocation sites provided to displaced households are connected to essential services before families are moved. Those questions remain subject to documentary and official verification in this case.
The Times of India reported that Rahul Narwekar did not respond to calls and messages seeking his response. No response from Sarojini Narwekar, the local representative, police or revenue officials was included in the supplied material. The next material developments would be any official response, publication of relevant land and survey records, or disclosure of orders and documents connected with the human-rights petition.
