Sinhagad tribal home built under PMAY demolished

A tribal family at Pune’s historic Sinhagad Fort was left homeless mid-monsoon after authorities demolished their PMAY‑marked concrete house during an anti‑encroachment drive, sparking criticism over procedural lapses amidst heritage conservation efforts.

The Adivasi Mahadev Koli family, whose ancestors have served the fort site for seven generations, watched helplessly as their only concrete home—built under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) and marked as such—was razed between 29 May and 4 June. Officials from the Archaeological and Forest Departments, supported by Maharashtra’s broader fort cleanup campaign, implemented a manual demolition in heavy rainfall, citing lack of proper documentation as the key cause. Savita Gaikwad, aged 37, described her anguish: “We have lived here for seven generations… In 2016, with assistance from PMAY, we built our first concrete house. It was marked on the wall, yet no officials verified the documents. Now we are homeless, with all our belongings damaged by rain.” Her husband, who borrowed ₹5 lakh in addition to the ₹1.2 lakh PMAY grant, said their shelter collapsed in monsoon rains and they now subsist under plastic sheets, with crying children as witnesses.

Officials maintain the Gaikwads lacked a mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC), and assert the house was not sanctioned under PMAY. They pledged to explore alternative shelter solutions near the fort via the district collector’s office. “We will consult with the district collector to explore the possibility of providing them with an alternate shelter near the fort,” stated the Pune Division Archaeological Department’s Assistant Director . Opposition to the demolition has been vocal. Local legislators labelled it “inhuman and unjust,” urging authorities to ensure accountability. They stressed that PMAY approvals follow rigorous documentation protocols and demanded proof of proper review before demolition. The wider context involves a state‑led initiative to clear encroachments from heritage forts. Over 200 personnel from various departments engaged in the operation, removing 141 illicit structures—including homes, stalls, and concrete stalls—on Sinhagad between 29 May and 4 June, temporarily closing the fort to tourists to facilitate safe clearance. While heritage conservation is vital, experts warn that displacement without rehabilitation contradicts equitable urban policy.

A historian points out designating a site as heritage‑protected must involve structured resettlement options for long‑standing residents, especially tribal minorities who lack alternative shelter. The Gaikwads’ case highlights systemic neglect. Despite a clear PMAY marking, district authorities say verification failed. Analysts argue that field‑level awareness and inter‑departmental training could prevent such outcomes—especially crucial during monsoon months when demolitions risk exposing vulnerable families to waterborne diseases and weather hazards. The household’s income—earning through selling refreshments to tourists—has vanished overnight, amplifying economic precarity. Urban planners emphasise community livelihood maintenance during heritage clean‑ups; transparent eviction notices and timely compensatory housing solutions are essential safeguards.

Under monsoon conditions, exposure intensifies: marginal tribal families become acutely vulnerable to disease and injury. Public health experts advocate postponing anti‑encroachment drives during seasonal rains or initiating robust relocation frameworks before site clearance. In the absence of shelter, displaced persons face high risks of respiratory, skin, and vector‑borne illnesses. Maharashtra’s successive fort‑cleaning campaigns have largely prioritised built‑heritage as tourism drawcards, yet critics argue equity considerations are sidelined. Heritage scholars suggest dual preservation models—where ecological sustainability and human dignity coexist, sustaining cultural landscapes while honouring ancestral ties.

The Pune demolition drive based on the state directive to clear forts by 31 May applied across all Maharashtra, with Sinhagad temporarily closed to the public until dumping ceased. While the fort reopened on 5 June after clearing, the Gaikwads’ plight remains unaddressed. Moving forward, administrators propose alternate shelter options near the fort. However, civil society groups advocate for legal formalisation of residents’ rights via intermediate documentation or land recognition processes, offering long-term settlement stability.

This episode reveals the tensions inherent in India’s sustainable city vision: balancing heritage, ecology, and human inclusivity. It underscores the need for policy integration—where tribal custodians of heritage are stakeholders, not collateral victims of conservation.

Sinhagad tribal home built under PMAY demolished