As much as 544.60 hectares (ha) of forest land has crunched into just 55.6 ha, not with a swish of any magic wand, but by 'planned mistakes' in certain government documents created to help land-grabbers, allege a group of villagers at Perumbetty in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala.
The land, which falls under the category of reserved forest as per a notification issued by the Kerala government's forest department in 1958, has been marked as government poramboke (excess land) in the basic tax register (BTR), based on a resurvey conducted in 1995.
The gross error or alleged manipulation was dug up by a group of villagers who are on a protest seeking a legislation to protect the Ponthenpuzha-Valiyakavu forest, spread over Kottayam and Pathanamthitta districts, and title deeds for the people dwelling around the forest. Over 700 families around the forest are facing evacuation following a recent Kerala High Court order that validated the claim of 283 families that the forest land belong to them.
The villagers, represented by Rajesh D Nair (Santhosh Perumpetty), have submitted a petition to Kerala Revenue Minister E Chandrasekharan seeking rectification of the error in the BTR and clearing the hurdles impeding their right to ownership of land. The families say that they have been living on the land for several generations and were given right to title deeds by the Government of Kerala in 1958. However, their run for title deeds has turned up futile, thanks to a prolonged legal battle and red-tapism.
The land in question belongs to survey number 283/1A (total 1592.5 acre or 644.73 ha) of Perumpetty village. According to the petition to the minister, the major portion of the land, which is 1223.07 acre (544.60 ha), was notified as forest in 1958. This brings 76.8 per cent of the land within the boundaries installed by the the forest department. However, according to the BTR only 55 hectare is reserved forest – that is a meagre 8.5 per cent of the total land under 283/1A. “Where did the rest of the forest go? It's a shocking vanishing act,” Santhosh writes in his petition.
The data emerged through the replies to two RTI queries filed by Toms P Ninan, one of the protesters seeking title deed.
How it happened?
Explaining what happened in the BTR records, the petitioner says that the land under survey number 283/1A was divided into 38 segments during the resurvey. It was again divided into two portions of 19 segments each. Of this, the numbers from 174 to 192 were recorded as reserved forests and the portions 193 to 211 as 'poramboke.' The land denoted by survey number 193/1 is thick forest, according to the petitioner. However, this falls in the second part of BTR – in other words it is marked as 'poramboke.' Not only that, to make things worse, half of the land belonging to the residents was marked as forest, denying their right to deeds.
A big blow awaited the residents around the forest when a divisional forest officer (DFO) wrote to the Vennikulam sub-registrar in 1986 that the entire land under survey no. 283/1A was part of a proposed reserve. This was against the notifications issued by the forest department in 1958 and revenue department in 1959. Only the 'major portion' of the land under the survey number had come under both the notifications. However, the alleged error made by the DFO was repeated in some documents in future too.
“Officials of neither the Forest nor the Revenue Departments tried to figure out the truth from the original records (notifications of 1958 and 1959). Instead, both the department continued to copy the claim in the DFO's letter. The root cause of our misery lies here,” the petitioner says.
The 'error'
The protesters say that the error in the BTR was planned and aimed at helping the private parties who have been claiming ownership of the land for decades. “Notified reserved forest was marked as 'poramboke' to help claimants. The officials, who made the corrections in the records, wanted to ensure that the private parties get title deeds easily in case the court makes a verdict in favour of them,” the protesters said.
The BTR has, in effect, come to the help of the private parties as the Kerala High Court in its order dated January 10, 2018 validated their claim for the land. The adverse impact of the order on the residents around the forest was evident in a letter written by the revenue minister to Joseph M Puthussery, MLA, on March 3. The minister said in the letter that it would be difficult to issue deeds to people residing in the forest region in the wake of the high court order.
A number of natives of Perumpetty and Ponthenpuzha have joined hands under the banner of 'Ponthenpuzha-Valiyakavu Protection Council' seeking a legislation to enable the government to take back the land from the private parties and protect it as reserved forest in the existing form. They also seek title deeds for the people living in the areas which don't fall under the purview of the 1958 notification. Their protest marks its 130th day on Spetember 18.
What officials say
The officials of the Revenue Department said they were not aware of the anomalies in the BTR as Onmanorama contacted them for clarification. An official of Mallappalli taluk office, who did not wish to disclose his identity, said had there been issues in the BTR it would have been spotted and corrected much earlier. He said the alleged anomalies were not the only hurdle before issuing title deeds to the claimants. He did not elaborate on the issue as the matter was sub-judice.
