Report on Kerala state land rights consultation

…….Report on Kerala state land rights consultation held at Ashirbhawan, Ernakulam on 16-17 march 2011…..



First day (16th March 2011)

There are about 54 activists participated in this two days consultation jointly organized by Gothrabhoomi and ekta parishad. People from various land struggles and related issues are the main participants in this consultation. Shri. Ramesh Sharma Ekta Parishad national member inaugurated the consultation and explained why after janadesh 2007 ekta parishad decided to do the janasatyagraha 2012 with greater explanation of landless people’s issues in India. We don’t want changes in the ruling parties but we expect changes in their pro poor policies and their attitude towards poor and marginalized and their willingness to reduce the poverty in our country. The Govt should have the courage to take bold steps inorder to address various issues that affects the common man. In the year 2008 Land Reform committee presented a report to Govt. to look various land issues and to reintroduce land reform policy in India, even after three years Govt. is not in a position to make any serious actions on the report. That why we are forced to think about to make the Govt accountable on land related policies and have decided to make the action Jansatyagraha 2012.

In the afternoon Prof. Kunhikrishnan made a detailed presentation about the status of adivasi land issues in kerla. He pointed that adivais are not a vote bank in Kerla that is why they are not included in any of the mainstream development projects. By uniting together only adivais can become a stronger force in Kerala and this will lead them to ask their demand from the Govt. (Annexure -1) Tribals Continues To Be Deceived: Prof. Kunhikrishnan

Later in the evening leaders from six districts presented the ongoing struggles happening in Kerala and requested the solidarity from each other. K.T ramachandran, Kasargod, K.A. Ramu, Palakkad, A.C. Ramakrishnan and Vasudevan from Waynad, V.J. Biju from Idukky, C.V. John from Adimaly, P.P.Santhosh from Ernakulam, Raji from Kottayam, Bolan from V.B.Bathery, Shamsu from Malappuram, K.C.Shrikumar from Kollam, were the main speakers who made the presentation.

Second day (17th March 2011)
The second day began with a song by Ramu and Shival from attapady about the life of adivais and followed by Suresh Babu and Biju presented the Jansandhesh yatra and the role for Kerala team. It was decided to nominate the name Mr. Pavithran, as Chairman, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Vice Chairman and Mr. Suresh babu, as Convener of this coordination committee. From a detailed discussion a yatra plan was decided starting from 3rd October to 17th October. It was also decided to nominate some responsible names in every districts as yatra coordination conveners. The yatra coordination committee will meet at KGNS office on the 16th April 2011 to chalk out detailed plan on this Jansandesh yatra in Kerala.

Jansandesh Yatra plan for Kerala;

Date Place Person Responsible
2nd October Kanya Kumari
3rd October Trivandrum Sreeja
4th October Kollam Sreekumar
5th October Pathanamthitta Biju
6th October Iduki Biju
7th October Kottayam Rejikumar
8th October Allapuzha Jagadisan
9th October Ernakulam Suresh George/Aromal
10th October Thrissur Parameswar Sharma
11th October Kasargod Surendranath/Ramachandran
12th October Kannur Satheesh/pavithran
13th October Wayanadu Bolan/Ramkrishnan
14th October Calicut Pappettan
15th October Malappuram Shamsudhin
16th October Palakkad Krishnakumar/Venugopal Vilayadi
17th October Attapadi Shival/ Ramu

All of them felt that we should make this yatra a serious one to make the central Govt. realize on the issue of land. It is also good chance to invite as many organizations who are interested to join with ekta parishad on this land issue struggle and to be part of Jansatyagraha 2012 action. It was also decided to convene different district level meetings by the first week of January so that we can speed up the process and prepare to welcome and participate the yatra effectively.

Mr. Sunny Kappikad made a good presentation on “The land ownership in Kerala”. It was well received by the audience. Apart from the participants peoples from and there are some journalists, advocates and some social workers also came to hear Sunny. Mr. Rajendra Prasad presided over and Mr. Ramachandran moderated the session. Sunny pointed that a total land reformation is needed in Kerala to make avail land to the land less adivais and Dalit communities. In his presentation he very clearly observed after independence how the land came to the hands of powerful groups and how poor people lost it.
Shri. Kochettan, a leading activist and philosopher of dalit issues in Kerala made a short presentation about the need of radical land reform in India to reduce the level of poverty and the development of the nation. It was an inspirational speech and the group find it very interesting. (Annexure 2) Land Ownership in Kerala: A Study by Sunny M. Kapikkad


After the group reflection and discussion Ramesh bhai was invited to conclude this two days session. Once again ramesh Bbhai thanked every one who took time to participate this two days consultation and asked every one to work hard and keep the spirit and power of nonviolence in every struggle were we are involved. He welcomed every one to kanyakumari to participate the inaugural function with a large of supporters.

Mr. Ramu made vote of thanks by thanking everyone who came to this two days wonderful and productive consultation


(Annexure -1)
Tribals Continues To Be Deceived: Prof. Kunhikrishnan

“Estrangement, particularly that related to land property, is forced submission brute authoritativeness,” Karl Marx states. Estrangement is inherent in exploiter-exploited relationship in a system of manufacture. Only the scale and span of exploitation changes. In Marx’s opinion, in a capitalist society, an estranged individual is left to live in a shell of alienation. Such an individual finds his occupation tedious and disappointing. The main reason tribals are denied their agricultural occupations is the loss of their land. Any discussion on tribal rights should be based on the issue of alienation of land.

According to article 342 of the Constitution of India, there are 533 hill tribes in the country; the census of 2001 lists 461. With 62 hill tribes, the widest collection of tribal groups live in Orissa. The 2001 census reveals that the tribal population in India is 8.34 crores, which is 9% of the total population. Figures also indicate India is home to 23% of the tribal population in the whole world. The 1991 census reports show 52.12% of the tribals to be below the poverty line.

The saga of tribals in India is that of most resolute resistance to colonization. History chronicles no less than 75 tribal revolts against the British. Unrest broke out when nationalization and reservation of forests hindered accumulation of resources. Santhal rebellions of 1833 and 1855 are a part of history. The Kurichya tribals of Wayanad rose up against British hegemony much before that. Joining hands with Pazhassi Raja, Kurichyas posed formidable challenge to the British regiment led by Arthur Wellesley.

Spread over 35 clans, there are 3.5 lakh tribals in Kerala, which is 0.47% of the tribal population of the country. The tribal component of population of the state is 1.1%. Around 65% of these live in the districts of Idukki, Palakkad and Wayanad, with 35% of the tribal populace residing in Wayanad. There are an estimated 70,000 tribal families in Kerala. In the state’s tribal population, 63.38% men and 51.07% women are literate, which is substantially higher than the national average.

The tribal clans of Kadar, Kurumbar, Cholanaikar, Kattunaykar, Koragar in the state are among the most ancient indigenous populations in India. Except Koragar, the habitation of the other tribal groups is restricted to certain forest territories. Koragar, who are found only in Kasaragod district, are now settled away from the jungles.

In the Wayanad-Idukki region, intrusion of settlers started during the British rule, when they brought labourers to clear the woods. A large number of Tamils reached the Munnar, Elamala, Peerumedu area to work in tea and cardamom estates. In Wayanad, tea plantations were established as early 1835. The “grow more food” concept implemented during World War II resulted in increased immigration into tribal habitats. This process repeated in Idukki and other hilly regions.

Concentrated around Attappadi, Nelliyampathy and Parambikkulam, 11% of the states’s tribal population reside in Palakkad district. The area of Attappadi is 745 square kilometers, close to half the extent of a smaller district like Alappuzha. To the north, it is bordered by Nilgiri hills. Springing from Nilgiris, River Bhavani streams down south to take a 90-degree turn at Attappadi and continues its journey eastward. Bhavani is one of the three rivers that flow eastward through Kerala to merge in Kaveri. Mukkali is now the main access point to Silent Valley. Siruvani, another important river in Attappadi, issues from Siruvani hills in the northeast and courses northeast to meet river Bhavani. The district of Coimbatore is dependent on Siruvani dam for water.

Tribals of Atttappadi mainly belong to three clans – Irula, Kurumba and Irular. Irulars are the most prominent group. Numbering less than 2000, Kurumbas live in the inner forests. There are 176 tribals settlements in Attappadi, once mostly a thick forest privately held by Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair. Now, official records estimate the area of forest land in Attappadi to be 444 square kilometers.

As of 1951, 91% of the population of Attappadi were indigenous inhabitants. In the tribal jargon a settler is a “vanthavasi.” There were hardly 1,100 settlers, while the number of tribals was 10,200. The immigrant lot consisted mainly of traders from Tamilnadu and workers of Mooppil Nair. There were some merchants from Kerala too. These vanthavasis settled around Anaikkatti, Agali and Kottathara. Later, these settlers started to lease or purchase land from tribals for cultivation. Having lost their habitats, tribals ended up being labourers on what was once their own land.

By 1961, tribals reduced to 60.4% of the population of Attappadi. The number of settlers rose to 8489 from 1,100. Rapid changes occurred since that point. There were organized moves to trespass tribal habitations. The 1971 census puts the number of settlers at 22,647. Once the majority, tribal population dwindled to 16,536, only 42.2% of the total population. The tribal population continued to diminish at an alarming rate, to 33% in 1981 and 27% in 1991. Between 1961 and 1991, immigrant population increased 58 times to 65,206. The increase in tribal population during this period was hardly 1.4%, bringing the number to 24,228.

The Story of Misappropriation

Tribal habitats, forests and the environment have undergone enormous changes down the years. Government acquisition of privately owned forest land under Forests Reservation Act of 1971 hastened the transformation. There were numerous assaults on the forest land acquired by government from the possession of Mooppil Nair. Vested interests grabbed forest territory, forging documents to illegitimately register land, all with accomplice of forest and revenue officials. Moochikkundu Forest Case of early 1980s is an instance that is still not forgotten. An individual misappropriated and cleared forest land bearing survey number 2019. The High Court of Kerala reacted strongly against the “forest mafia” in its judgement when the president of Agali panchayat questioned this in a public interest litigation.

The state of affairs in Wayanad is not better. Disappearance of paddy fields and the onslaught of cash crops had its impact on one or two landless tribal groups. There has been obliteration of tribal habitats in other parts of the country as well both before and after independence. Consequently, Debar commission was instituted in 1960 at the initiative of Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to examine the status of tribal communities in the country. In a detailed account of the situation, the commission proposed to the government that all the tribal land misappropriated since January 26, 1950, should be recovered and restored. The Debar commission wished that, at the very minimum, injustice done to the tribals after the day India was declared a republic be undone.

It is unclear to what degree the proposals translated into action. After the demise of Nehru, the Debar committee proposals lay dormant. In 1973, after evaluation of documents related to implementation of Five Year Plan, the Planning Commission remarked, “Efforts at tribal welfare have not resulted in any significant improvement in their standard of living. Resentment against the intrusion, oppression and exploitation from economically and politically advantaged sections is widespread among the tribal communities.” The Commission goes on to mention Santhal rebellion and Praja Mandal and Naxalbari movements. Stolen of their land through forging of documents and benami transactions, the tribal populations lost their habitats and livelihood. Naxal Varghese’ work among tribals and the spread of Naxal movement in Wayanad occurred during this period. But, the iron hands of the government mechanism crushed these revolts. Varghese was assassinated and the rebellion extinguished.

Unanimous Legislation

The next ripple of revolt was during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as prime minister, just before declaration of emergency. State revenue ministers convened in Delhi on April 1, 1975, to discuss Debar commission suggestions. The resolution of that convention urged every state to legislate laws to guarantee protection of tribal lands with strong measures to ensure embezzlement of tribal land does not occur again. The convention passed as many as 14 resolutions for the advancement of tribal communities.

State emergency was declared on June 25, 1997; it extended until March 21, 1977. Consequent to the Delhi resolution, several states enacted legislations for the protection of tribal land. The Tribal Land Bill was tabled in Kerala Legislative Assembly in 1975. Presenting the bill, Baby John, the then revenue minister, described how tribals were cheated, bizarre tales where they naively bartered their land in exchange of dried fish, tobacco and sometimes paltry amounts. “Whatever be the nature of transfer of ownership, we view the transactions plunder of tribal land. We are committed to restore tribal properties to their original inheritors,” the minister said.

C. Achutamenon was the chief minister then and Vella Eacharan the minister for in charge of Department of Harijan Welfare and Community Development. The assembly passed the Tribal Land Bill unanimously and on Presidential assent was granted on November 11, 1975. The law was published in an extraordinary gazette (No. 673) the same month. Thus, the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on transfer of lands and restoration of alienated lands) Act, 1975, came into existence. To ensure preservation of the Act, it was listed in the 9th schedule of amendment 40 of the Constitution of India. This ensured that this law will not be challenged in any court of law in future. This was the realization of a long-cherished dream of the tribal communities and those who fought for tribal rights.

The tribal communities placed their trust on the law and believed that now the ground is set at last for resolution of all their fundamental problems. Proclamation of 20-point national welfare program came on August 5, 1975, during emergency. Among them was the plan to recover and restore tribal land.

Section 2(G) of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes Act prevents all methods of transfer of tribal land, whether verbal, written, mortgage, sale or lease. Section 4 prohibits, from the day the law came into force, transfer of tribal land to anyone outside the tribal community. It also annuls all instances of transfer of ownership to tribal land to persons belonging to other communities with retrospective effect from January 1, 1960, affording tribals opportunity to regain land lost in illegitimate transactions. They only had to complain to the RDO, furnishing details of the land involved. If convinced, the RDO had to initiate steps to redeem and restore the land to the original owner. The timeframe for submission of complaints was 1 year from the date of implementation of the Act or until the date the government declares through gazette.

Tribals had to refund any money reciprocated in lieu of transfer of land and any expenses incurred to the current possessor for cultivation on the property. Government granted this amount as a loan, which in turn had to repaid in 20 equal installments. Section 13 of the law also stipulates any act of misappropriation of tribal land in violation of section 4 liable for rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Government could institute one more special tribunals for adjudication of such cases. In the event of incidents of infringement upon tribal lands taking place after implementation of the law, it was the duty of the concerned RDO to inform the magistrate or the tribunal for further action.

Apparently an ideal piece of legislation, only if it were implemented earnestly. For any law to be effectual, it is a prerequisite to have rules formed in for its implementation. Emergency was repealed. There were dramatic changes in the political scene and several ministries assumed power at the center and states. However, there was no earnest attempt to implement the law that was constituted back in 1975.

In the interim, a sub-committee of the Kerala Legislative Assembly visited the tribal areas of Wayanad in 1976. They were presented with 298 complaints of misappropriation of tribal land. In 71 of these cases tribals were extorted or driven away from their land by brute force. There were 67 incidents where tribal lands were transferred in return for a trifling. In 14 other cases, tribals were swindled off their land, obliging them to put thumb impression on blank sheets of paper. Another 5 were not paid the money they were promised.

Findings of an investigation made by officials from ITDP, Attappadi, in tribal areas on February 15, 1977, were remarkably similar. Officials discovered that vanthavasis had usurped 10,106.19 acres of tribal land. It is astonishing how the government continues its apathy in implementing tribal land protection law irrespective of these disclosures. Tribal land continued to slip away from their possession. The 10th committee of the 4th legislative assembly demanded implementation of tribal land act within a period of 6 moths.

The Lost Land

Long 11 years after enactment of the law, it was K. Karunakaran ministry of 1986 that formed the rules for implementation of the Act. The rules were published in an extraordinary gazette dated October 18, 1986. Still, the date of implementation of the law was changed to October 10, 1986. The law holds tribal land transfers after 1975 liable for punishment of up to 1 year imprisonment; however, when the rules were formulated, this time period was changed to 1986. The intervening period witnessed the most rampant coordinated misappropriation of tribal habitats. All the transfer of tribal land between January 1, 1960, and January 1, 1982, were considered illegal. To regain this land, tribals had to compensate for all the cultivation or other enhancements on the land done by the current possessor. If the land was sold for money, the amount had to be refunded. Government funded tribals for this buyback by loans repayable over a 20-year term. The tribals were entitled for restoration of ownership of land transferred after 1982 without payment of compensation. RDOs were entrusted the complete responsibility of implementation of this scheme. According to government records, the number of complaints received regarding loss of land were 8,553, involving 11,000 hectares of land. Later, the number of complaints increased to 8879. In Attappadi, the complaints involved 10472.19 acres of land, most of them from Agali, Puthur and Sholayur panchayats. The number of complaints filed in Wayanad was 2,229. More than half of the 8,553 complaints received until 1994 were rejected by RDOs for failure to furnish proof of ownership. The tribals rarely had any documentary evidence to prove ownership of the land accrued to them solely by inheritance. Of the 2,523 complaints in Attappadi, the decision was favourable to the tribals in hardly 13 cases, restoring 44.77 acres of land to tribal possession. It is claimed that so far 496 complaints have been settled, but the number of cases where tribal land was restored is less than 100.

In Attappadi, Irulars lost 8996.1 acres of land, Mudukkars 1083.78 acres and Kurumbars 26 acres. The reason why Kurumbars were not very much affected by invasion of settlers is that their habitation was inner forests, where it was hard to reach. Many of them sold their land at prices ranging from Rs. 20 to Rs. 2400 per acre. It is estimated that investigations were carried out on 1147 cases concerning 3336.16 acres of land in Attappadi. The extent of land involved in each case varies from 2.5 acres to 5 acres. Of this 44.77 acres were restored to tribal possession.

The Legal Battle of Nalla Thambi

Complaints on tribal land had to submitted in a prescribed form specified by the 1986 rules. Resurvey number of the land, extent, name and address of the current possessor of the land were some of the details required to be filled. Needless to say, being largely illiterate, not many tribals could read or write. Any individual interested in tribal welfare could complain on land misappropriation. Verbal complaint before the R.D.O. was another option. It was the responsibility of the RDO to gather necessary details. The rules say that the R.D.O. has the responsibility to depute his subordinate to collate exact information so that a valid complaint can be filed. It is of utmost importance to probe how majority of the complaints from tribals were rejected or put aside despite all these precautionary measures.

The rules insist that no complaint be rejected due to failure to submit necessary details, i.e., the onus of garnering evidence is on the revenue officials. Nevertheless, countless complaints were set aside citing lack of evidence. Unaware of the futility of the process, the complainants remained in hopeful anticipation. Most of them were working on daily wages on their own property. As time went on, the process of land recovery came to a grinding halt. Seeing the plight of the tribal communities, Dr. Nalla Thambi Tera, a physician from Kalpetta in Wayanadu, approached the Kerala High Court in 1988. This case, O.P. number 8879/88, is a milestone in tribal land litigation. Dr. Nalla Thambi demanded that the Kerala Scheduled Tribes Restriction on Transfer and Restoration of Alienated lands Act, 1975, which was passed unanimously, should be implemented. The government’s response was very cold. After a prolonged legal battle, the High Court announced its verdict favouring Dr. Nalla Thambi and the tribals on October 15, 1993. The court ordered effective implementation of the Act within 6 months. Meanwhile, two cases were filed (Bhavani case and Fr. Thomas Kundukadu case) challenging the 1975 act. However, the High Court refused to stand against a law protected under schedule 9 of the Constitution. Additional Advocate General assured the court that the government will spare no effort to implement the verdict of the division bench (1989 (I) KLT SN 37, Case No. 58, 1994 (2) KLT25). Because the ongoing court cases, the state got an additional reprieve of 1-1/2 year to implement the law. Still, the government appealed for an additional reprieve of 1 week. The deadline for implementation of the law was extended by 1-1/2 years. The RDO was instructed to file before the court monthly reports progress in recovery of alienated tribal land. The court ordered that the first declaration, with up-to-date details until December 31, 1995, should be filed on January 15, 1996. A.K. Anthony was the chief minister from March 1995 to May 1996. Finding that no steps were initiated for restoration of alienated tribal land, Dr. Nalla Thambi again approached the court. Again, the government requested more time.

In an order dated March 28, 1996, the court extended the date by a period of 2 months. The court allowed further reprieve taking into account the assurance of the additional advocate general that the law will be implemented at any cost. In the meantime, the UDF government invented an easier route to escape Dr. Nalla Thambi and the court cases, that being promulgation of an ordinance amending the 1975 legislation. The UDF mininstry was near the end of its tenure and election was round the corner. In this situation, Sivasankar, the then governor refused to sign the ordinance pointing out that it was against the election code.

Governor refuses

After the election, leftist government led by E.K.Nayanar came into power. The new ministry was only too eager to complete the process set off by their political rivals. Soon after assuming office, another ordinance was promulgated amending the Kerala Scheduled Tribes Restriction on Transfer and Restoration of Alienated lands Act, 1975. Again, governor intervened diligently. Karnataka governer Khurshi Aalam Khan was holding the additional charge of Kerala at that time. He too refused to sign the ordinance amending the law.

Principal Secretary of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Department filed an affidavit in High Court on August 9, 1996. The gist of that affidavit was this: The government finds it difficult to implement the law in the face of staunch organized resistance from the settlers. Vanthavasis (settlers) attacked the RDO. in Attappadi, who had reached there as part of efforts to recover tribal land. On August 14, 1996, the court issued another order to recover and restore tribal land within 6 weeks in cases where no appeals were filed. The court also instructed the district police authorities to provide protection to all officials engaged in these procedures. Issuing the order, the judge, P.K. Balakrishnan, made the following observations (1996 (2) KLT930): “What is the explanation for not implementing the court’s verdicts? The excuse offered is that there is strong resistance to implementation of law. How can a democracy led by the rule of law subjugate before illegal resistance and abandon a legislation for the benefit of its oppressed sections? Certainly not. Surrender to any such resistance amounts to negation of the rule of law.” Did the government appreciate the undertones of this strong statement? The government appealed before the Full Bench, which stayed the directions issued by the Single Bench. The settler communities had strong political affiliations in both left and right wings. They demanded amendment of the law, which they argued was “impossible to implement.” Settlers had turned into a sizable vote bank in the tribal regions. Fulfilling their wish was the natural inclination of electoral politics.

The bill proposing changes to the Act was tabled on September 23, 1996, exactly a week before the end of reprieve for implementation of the Act. The bill was voted for almost unanimously. An isolated voice of protest rose in the assembly, that of K.R. Gowriyamma. Perhaps, the absolute treachery to the tribals hurt the seasoned communist in her. The bill legitimized all tribal land transactions up to January 24, 1986. The government submitted the Bill to the President of India for his assent. The president K.R. Narayanan, who represented another conscience of Kerala, refused assent. In light of Presidential refusal, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court vacated its order staying directions of the Single Judge. Again, the government fell in a tight spot. Dr. Nalla Thambi again approached the Court, this time with a plea to implement the court order and to initiate contempt court proceedings against government officials for willful disobedience of court directives. Alienation of the tribal communities is the result of large-scale estrangement of their inherited land. This time of crisis witnessed the rise of the tribal leader C.K. Janu.

The new laws contravened section 3(1), 4, and 5 of the central legislation of 1989 of the act prohibiting atrocities against tribal people. The central legislation decrees any transfer, intrusion, and cultivation of tribal land a punishable offence, liable to for incarceration for 6 months to 5 years.

Legal protection for criminal trespass

In spite of the all these events, the fate of the tribal land protection act continued to remain uncertain. President’s refusal to assent for the law that was passed by Kerala legislative assembly in 1996 came in March 1998. The government again approached the court requesting another reprieve of 6 months on November 21, 1998, which the High Court extended up to January 5, 1999, dismissing vehement protests from Dr. Nalla Thambi. Similar to 1996, the government utilized the extended time to structure another law. The state informed the court that a new legislation could be passed in the next assembly session that starts on January 22, 1999, to find a permanent solution to the issues related to tribal land. The court instructed Dr. Nalla Thambi to remit Rs. 5,000 towards court expenses. The government was unflinching in its stance that a new legislation should be formed amending the 1975 law. The revenue minister K.E. Ismail was entrusted this responsibility. It was determined that alienation of tribal land was not the sole issue involved. The number of landless tribal caste families was estimated to be 11,000. The efforts were for legislation of a new law providing land to landless tribal families without vacating settlers with small holdings. The government contented that the tribals were explained and understood the obstacles in redeeming their alienated land. According to the state, now, the tribals are willing to accept land anywhere in the district in place of their original land.

That is how Tribal Land Law of 1999 came into existence. Despite being titled Restriction of Transfer of Land Act, in essence what it ensures is the conservation of the current status of possession. The law is effective from January 24, 1986. Any transfer of tribal land to a person from other sections after this date stands defunct. Through this change, all illegitimate transactions that took place between January 1, 1960, and January 24, 1986, were legalized. This is an era where large-scale alienation of tribal land took place. Records of Attappadi RDO office show the are of land snatched away from tribals between 1977 and 1986 to be 10742 acres. During 1986-1997, tribals lost another 636 acres.

Settlers were required to return tribal land in excess of 5 acres in their possession. If the land available for restoration to a tribal family is less than 1 acre, it was the responsibility of the government to find additional land to compensate. Legal proceedings in accordance with subsection 2 (B) of section 6 against tribal land grabbers continued. The fact that majority of tribal holdings were less than 5 acres guaranteed that they would not get back even a cent of that. Needless to say, the plight of the tribal remained unchanged. Yet, the state had a lot to gain from the new law – the acclaim of legislation for restoration of tribal habitations, that too even without having to attempt to implement it.

Records show only 230 of the 1147 complaints involve loss of more than 5 acres. That means, the number cases necessitating recovery and restoration of tribal land were just 230. A subsequent Supreme Court judgement mentions 1475 of the 4724 complaints of embezzlement of tribal land to be in involving less than 50 cents, 898 between 50 cents and 1 acre. 904 complainants lost extents varying between 1 to 2 acres. 1974 of the cases were regarding 2 to 5 acres. The number of complaints that involved more than 5 acres was merely 373.

Parched Lands

Section 8 of the law entitles every landless tribal family not less than 1 acre of land in their home district. This clause was not present in the 1975 law. Section 11 stipulates rising of a fund to ensure rehabilitation and welfare of the tribal population. Section 12 details how to tackle misappropriation of tribal land in the period after gazetting of the 1999 law. The law, which dictates rigorous imprisonment up to 1 year for delinquents, in subsection 2 of section 13, also empowers the state to institute one or more special courts to deal with such cases. Finally, section 22 annuls Restoration of Tribal Land Act of 1975. The law mentions only about agricultural use of the alienated tribal land. The law has been very skillfully drafted to evade the necessity of having to obtain Presidential assent. Therefore, agriculture is the only purpose land transferred from tribal ownership can be utilized.

Niyamavedhi of Ernakulam and PUCL, with which Justice T. Chandrashekhara Menon was associated, challenged the new law in public interest petitions OP 25332/99 and 26399/99. Malayora Karshaka Federation joined issue in the petition.

Division Bench of the High Court ruled sections 5 and 6 of the law breach of Constitution. It is impossible for tribal communities expelled and replanted away from their natural habitats to sustain their cultural identity. Listen to the observations made by Justice C.R. Rajan: “It is surprising a democratic government claiming to be striving relentlessly for the advancement of the tribal people could draft a law such an anti-tribal law, negating the protection afforded to them by Constitution.”

The Court held section 22 of the 1999 law repealing the Tribal Land Protection Act, 1975, a transgression of Constitution. The 1975 law is a legislation protected under schedule 9 of the Constitution. On these grounds, the Court ordered restoration of all alienated tribal properties in accordance with the 1975 law. This verdict was made on August 24, 2000. The court also directed to submit the new law for Presidential assent. The state appealed against this verdict in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the government allotted the tribals land in Sholayar. Objections were raised when this parched land was demarcated for rehabilitation. Allegedly, the land demarcated included forest area. Anyway, the tribals found it difficult to withstand the scorching hot wind in the area and most of them abandoned their new settlements soon after.

The tribals plunged into even more misery. By the middle of 2001, 32 tribals died of starvation and malnutrition. Tribal leader C.K. Janu et al raised this issue. The legislation for protection of tribal land ended up lingering around courts and amendments. C.K. Janu started her remonstration, erecting a hut in front the official residence of the chief minister. She demanded allotment of 5 acres for every landless tribal family. Witness to decades of deceit, tribals had now lost hope of regaining their habitations. They deviated from their original demand and pleaded for 5 acres for each family. They went a step further to claim right for independent rule under schedule 6 of Constitution.

Tribal Mission Comes to a Halt

The venue of the protest was later shifted to the Secretariat. On September 6, 2001, the chief minister, A.K. Anthony, conducted discussions with leaders of Gothramahasabha. The tribals were allotted free ration for 2 months. It was also decided to reserve a sizable percentage of lower rung jobs for the tribals. The government conceded to the tribals’ right for trivial forest resources. The resolutions of the Gothramahasabha meeting on October 3, 2001, were approved. On October 16, 2001, the subcommittee presided by the chief minister held discussions with the protestors. The demand of 5 acres for each landless tribal family was accepted in principle. It was alo decided to make this land allotment applicable to tribal families who had less than an acre in possession as well. Another promise was that cabinet will discuss about to enlist tribal regions in the scheduled zones under article 244 of the Constitution. Since an appeal on the 1999 law was being considered by the Supreme Court, a consensus was reached to implement the law after proclamation of verdict in the case. Another decision was to constitute Tribal Mission, an authoritative body.

The Mission estimated the number of landless tribal families to be 22,491. The number of tribal families with possession of less than 1 acre of land was 30,981. The government was eying on forest land for distribution among these 53,422 families. The state approached the central government requesting release of forest land recovered from private individuals in accordance with the 1971 law. That was not to be, with the existence of Forest Conservation Act of 1980. Was the government ignorant of the law? An enquiry as to the present status of the land registered to tribals at Kilikkoodumala, Marayoor, will be worthwhile. Gradually, the Tribal Mission came to a standstill. Exasperated, the tribals decided to take reins and implement the law and its promises on their own, and that culminated in the Muthanga episode.

Again, there was a change in government. LDF ministry returned power in May 2006. Supreme Court declared verdict on the government’s appeal against the High Court decree repealing the 1999 law. Dr. Nalla Thambi Tera, who dedicated long three decades of his life to fight for the tribals’ right to land, breathed his last on June 16, 2010, at the age of 77.

The Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice J. Mukundakam Sharma refused to fully concur with the High Court’s stand that the Tribal Land Act of 1999 is against the Constitution. The welfare of the small farmers too is taken care of in this law. At the same time, it also stipulates finding land and rehabilitating the tribal population. The government pointed out that government had the responsibility of providing land to tribals, preserving the substance of the law.

The Supreme Court refused to completely accept section 22 of the new legislation that annuls the 1975 law. The 1999 law deals only with agricultural land. The land alienated from the tribals also includes land that is being utilized for non-agricultural purposes. So, repeal of the 1975 law is only partial. Part of the law continues to be in force, making it mandatory to recover and restore the alienated land to tribals. But, where does we stand?



(Annexure 2)
Land Ownership in Kerala: A Study by Sunny M. Kapikkad

The state of Kerala has won much international acclaim as a developmental model. The concept of Kerala developmental model was proposed in 1970s in response to the argument that the state was in penury based on low per capita income. It was claimed the developmental model brought unprecedented improvement in the quality-of-life index of the state. Statistical data even flaunted that Kerala has already reached the standards of developed nations in the spheres of literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, health care and sanitation.

The rapid pace of social development that Kerala demonstrated, which no other Indian state could simulate, prompted discussions on how the state could achieve this. The political will and egalitarianism of the leftist movement, which imbibed the Kerala tradition of renaissance, was the catalyst for the developmental model, it was pointed out. The Kerala Land Reforms Act was cited as the most luminous proof of the political will of the leftist movement. This trailblazing act was hailed as a reform that could be emulated by entire India and the other third-world nations. Kerala was eulogized as an idealistic state, which could resolve the issue of landlessness and thereby cast problems to a large extent in a single stroke. Even political doctrines were written to attribute the whole credit of this success to the left movement.

Despite all the commendation, the Kerala developmental model was not beyond criticism. There was a section suspicious of this concept of reform from the very beginning. In the 1990s, even the propagandists of the new developmental model became vocal about its crises. However, all these debates failed to recognize the essential aspect of land ownership in the state. Theoretical rhetoric and Marxist terminologies were cleverly used to refute the vital connection between caste hierarchy and land ownership in the state. Those who wondered at the unbalanced growth of the state’s economy pretended to be oblivious of the caste imprints of modern capital investment. No one has bothered to find out how people belonging to different religions and castes fared within the new developmental model. The methodologies prevalent hindered any such enquiry. No one regarded “caste” as a factor worthy of consideration in deliberations related to economy. Instead, they were plotting sketches centered on classes and regions. The major constraint of this scheme of analysis is its failure to explain some of the most important features of the economic transformation that is taking place in Kerala. For example, why does 90% of the most impoverished in the state comprise of tribals and Dalits? How did 60% of the Christians in Kerala become the most economically advantaged? Is this just a coincidence? It is not hard to reach solid conclusions if we scrutinize the historical link between the state’s economy and its caste system.

It is essential to appraise the history of legislation related to land ownership. It is the story of how the ownership of land came into the hands of individuals from the rulers, who had tight clench on land until the early part of 19th century. The nature of participation of the numerous religious-caste sections in this process is the decisive factor that shaped the characteristics of the state’s economy. It is important to realize that the new laws regulating land ownership were implemented in a society that had stringent unwritten casteist rules in place. A larger view of the social structure of Kerala in the 19th century will elucidate this.

Land ownership in the state was ingrained with caste system. Brahmins were the landlords in Kerala, who held total monopoly over extensive extents of land allotted to them as Brahmaswom (priest’s land) and Devaswom (temple land). The Nair community, which was beneath the priestly class, too had many landlords among them. Vysya, the traditional trader community, was conspicuously absent in the caste system in the state; Christians and Muslims filled that place. A small section of the Ezhava community was tenant farmers. Dalits were left to do bonded agricultural labour. There was absolutely no way a dalit could become a landlord or a Brahmin be a labourer. In such peculiar social circumstances that prevailed, an investigation of the effect of reforms on each stratum of society is imperative.

Legislations prior to formation of the state of Kerala

The state of Kerala was formed by amalgamation of the erstwhile princely states of Malabar, Cochin and Travancore. Each of these states had a different rule governing land ownership. In Travancore, two-thirds of the arable land in the state was under government ownership until the early 19th century. The lease reforms declaration (Pattom Proclamation) of June 2, 1865, bestowed absolute ownership upon those who had leased government land. This reform elevated a large section of the society to the status of land owners. Even though a similar proclamation was made in the State of Cochin, the beneficiaries were very few as the extent of land under government ownership was not so significant.

The situation in Malabar was quite different. With the advent of British rule in 1792, landlords were proclaimed the absolute owners of land. For this reason, the number of tenants in Malabar was much higher. Malabar became the arena of constant strife between landlords and tenants due to this particular pattern of land ownership. That raises a pertinent question - who were the beneficiaries of the land redistribution? Any inquiry in this regard leads to the Christians in Travancore and the Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Muslims in Malabar, who were tenants and became land owners after the reforms. Two notable attempts were made to explain how certain castes turned into landlords and some tenants and labourers – caste-landlord-ruler theory of E.M.S. and the castelandlord study by Ajith, who criticized that E.M.S. failed to perceive the economic repercussions of casteisim by viewing the caste system as a part of the social milieu. Ajith who recognizes the economic reality casteism, puts forth the concept of caste inferiority. He argues that the problem lies in equating economic inferiority with servitude, but it is clear that this argument is an attempt to extricate Marxism. An entire movement was formed capitalizing memory of this state of servitude, which E.M.S. could not recognize while Ajith could, and this is P.R.D.S., founded by Poikayil Appachan.

The ladders of feudal system, with its strata of landlordship, tenancy and serfdom, complemented the caste hierarchy. It was in this setting that the land reforms were implemented. The important goals of the new laws were the following:
1. Ensure that the tenants get permanent ownership of the leased land in which they cultivated.
2. Fix the extent of land a family can hold.
3. Acquire the excess land and redistribute among the landless agricultural labourers.

Starting with the Kerala Agricultural Bill tabled by the EMS government in 1958, after numerous amendments and fall of several ministries, the Land Reforms Act was finally put into operation on January 1, 1970. Under this act, all the rights landlords exercised on their land were revoked, granting them compensation. Tenants became owners of their leased land, paying the land value. 50% of the cost of this acquisition was borne by the government. The extent of land that could be held in possession was determined as 5 standard acres for an individual, 10 standard acres for a 5-member family and 1 additional acre for every additional member thereof. However, estates and trusts were exempted from this rule. Even before the implementation the land reforms, the Agrarian Relations Act was enacted for the benefit of landless labourers, stipulating distribution of 10 cents in panchayats, 5 cents in municipalities, and 3 cents in corporations to each agricultural labourer.

An estimated 15 lakh families received permanent ownership of land with the implementation of land reforms. The fact that majority of these beneficiaries were from the middle class has already been established. The land reforms act had become self-restrictive in its scope due to the exemption of the plantation sector, which amounts to 60% of the agricultural land in the state. In addition, the landlords successfully retained clutch on land by ingenious manipulations in the interim.Statistical data on land allocation proves this.

The government’s estimate in 1958 of acquirable land that will be available redistribution with the implementation of land reforms was 7,20,000 acres. However, the extent of land the state has recovered until this date is only 73,178 acres. The reality that not even 1 lakh acres of the 7.2 lakh acres of excess land could be recovered reveals the dimension of illegitimate transactions that subverted the reforms. Four decades after implementation of the land reforms, it is time to review its consequences. What is the true pattern of land ownership in Kerala now?

According to official reports, there are 12,500 dalit colonies and 4084 tribal colonies in the state. Besides, there are hundreds of thousands who dwell on government properties alongside roads and waterways in the state. All these sections are living testimony of how the much vaunted reforms expelled the tribals and dalits from their inhabitations. This accentuates the importance of scrutinizing the right to claim of the echelons of castes on land. Given below is the data published by Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad.

Average extent of land held in possession by households belonging to different castes
Forward castes 5 cents
Backward castes 63 cents
Christians 126 cents
Muslims 77 cents
Scheduled castes 27 cents

What do these figures reveal? Clearly, the ownership of land continues to largely rest with the higher castes even after the implementation of the Land Reformation Act. In the pattern of land ownership, the traditional caste structure still remains mostly unchanged. As we discussed, the imbalance in the pattern of land ownership had a historical derivation. The chronicle of Kerala Land Reforms Act proves that any legislation that disregards social bearings fundamental to issues related to claim on land is destined to fail.

Neither could the land reforms act ensure social justice, nor could it seed resurgence in the agricultural sector. The table of agricultural production in the state pre and post land reforms reveals this.

Crops 1967-68 1979-80
Rice (x1000 tons) 1124 1282
Coconut (in millions) 3593 3184
Tapioca (x1000 tons) 4198 4223
Rubber (x1000 tons) 60 123
Coffee (x1000 tons) 11 36
Tea (x1000 tons) 43 58
(Source: Economic Review 1968, 1980)

These figures demonstrate the remarkably dissimilar effects reforms had on plantation sector, which was exempted from the purview of the Act, and farm crops. The reforms, which should have been a boon to the agrarian segment in the state in fact set off deterioration in the sector, which has increasingly slowed down over the decades. Why did the redistribution of land among the cultivators failed to rejuvenate the agrarian sector? The reason for this drop in production is usually attributed to fragmentation of agricultural land, but the truth lies in the social pattern of land ownership that we discussed.

We saw how the Land Reforms Act brought ownership of land into the hands of middle classes, who were not the ones that toiled on land. Those sections who truly engaged in agrarian activities were deprived ownership of land and ended up being tenants, inhabitants of colonies, or agricultural labourers. In these circumstances, landed property became a capital resource and agriculture lost its precedence. With the new economic environs, newer sources of income opened up before the landless sections and this further aggravated the situation. Deepening the crisis, other sections were unwilling to do agricultural labour, which was traditionally set aside for certain castes. Mechanization brought in the prospect of a reawakening in the farm sector; however, strong resistance from labour movements obliterated such moves, pushing the agricultural sector into total disarray.

What is the present general situation in Kerala? In a state where the number of landless households exceeds hundreds of thousands, private conglomerates including multinationals continue to retain freehold over several lakh acres of agricultural land under outdated lease agreements. Millions of acres of arable land lie uncultivated while the state depends on its neighbors for essential commodities. In a place where there is acute shortage of farm hands, a single harvesting machine is reason enough for a labour agitation. To find out a solution to these issues, it is crucial to analyze the socioeconomic component of land ownership.

The agricultural land accumulated by conglomerates has to be reclaimed and redistributed. One of the basic goals of this redistribution should be to put right the caste imbalance in land ownership. The stress has to be on modern agricultural practices, ensuring equitable land ownership rather than conservation of agricultural occupations. It is time to turn to eco-friendly agricultural practices, abandoning perverted illusions of green revolution and genetic seeds. Defeat all the schemes to keep men slaves rolling in sludge; employ mechanization wherever essential. Let the vision and ethics of a new social order guide us.