Adivasi settlers petitioned for alternate land after surrendering forest rights. The Court held their rehabilitation is modification of rights, not land diversion, exempting them from NPV and ordering inclusion in the revised forest working plan.
Exemption from NPV; Direction to include rehabilitation in the revised forest working plan for Malayattoor division.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/30TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C). No.6824 of 2010 (C)
PETITIONER(S):
1. KUTTAN, CONVENOR, WARRIAM COLONY,
2. THANKAPPAN, S/O.KAMASHI,
BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE CONVERVATOR OF FOREST, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR.
3. THE MINISTRY OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TRIBAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRIBAL WELFARE, NEW DELHI.
4. THE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
5. THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUTTAMPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTTAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KUTTAMPUZHA. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.6 IMPLEADED:
6. KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ( KELSA), REPRESENTED BY IT'S MEMBER SECRETARY P. MOHANADAS, S/O. P.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2C,
WP(C). No.6824 of 2010 (C)
:2:
R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R5 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS
ADDL.R6 BY ADV. SMT. PINKU H.THALIATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C). No.6824 of 2010 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
ANNEXURE-1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 27TH, 2012 I THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY.
ANNEXURE-2:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.3.2012 ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF KELSA.
ANNEXURE R1(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
ANNEXURE R1(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.06/14/F&WLD. DATED 1.2.2014.
ANNEXURE R1(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.09/14/SCSTDD DATED 3.2.2014.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT:
1. COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.2.2013 OF THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KOTHAMANGALAM ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KELSA (KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY).
2. COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.01.2013 OF THE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA (4TH RESPONDENT) ADDRESSED TO THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR.
3. COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17.12.2012 IN THE CHIEF MINISSTER'S CHAMBER.
4. COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.8.2009 OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
WP(C). No.6824 of 2010 (C)
APPENDIX-2
5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.2.2013 SENT BY THE D.F.O MALAYATTOOR TO THE FOREST CONSERVATOR, THRISSUR.
6. TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRIES IN THE PLANTATION JOURNAL WITH REGARD TO THE 1977 TP (BIT-1) PLANTATION.
7. TRUE COPY OF THE PLANTATION JOURNAL WITH REGARD TO THE 1977 TP (BIT-II) PLANTATION.
8. TRUE COPY OF THE PLANTATION JOURNAL WITH REGARD TO THE 1978 TP PLANTATION.
9. TRUE COPY OF PLANTATION JOURNAL WITH REGARD TO 1981 TP PLANTATION
KRJ
P.A to Judge
/True Copy/
'C.R'
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.6824 of 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are traditional forest dwellers at Warriam near Pooyamkutty, have approached this Court seeking a direction to allot forest land to Warriam settlers at Kandanpara for their settlement and also for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate steps for allotting alternate land for Warriam Adivasy Colony settlers on the basis of Ext.P7, considering the fact that they have already surrendered 600 acres of forest land to the Government.
WP(C).6824/10
-:2:-
allotment of land by the Government the settlers moved to agricultural operations by cultivating crops like cardamom, pepper wines, coconut trees and other seasonal improvements. They further allege that Pooyamkutty is a dense reserved forest and as per present census of the forest department, majority of elephants are in the said forest area. Due to the attack of wild animals the cultivations in the settlement area are destroyed and there are no schools, hospitals or any other infrastructural facilities to live in; it is alleged.
WP(C).6824/10
-:3:-
they would take immediate steps to rehabilitate them near Pooyamkutty at Kandanpara.
WP(C).6824/10
-:4:-
300 members shifted their residence from Warriam to Kandanpara. The said area is a plain rocky land which is on the bank of Pooyamkutty river. Small thatched sheds were erected there and about four families are residing in a single shed. During rainy season, heavy flood is likely to come and all the settlers would be washed away; it is alleged. Therefore, they say that as per law they are entitled to get alternate land and the Government have the duty to rehabilitate the settlers in a suitable place at Kandanpara near Pooyamkutty.
WP(C).6824/10
-:5:-
7.11.2013 by the Chief Minister and the Minister for Scheduled Tribe Development Department, the Member of Parliament and other officers concerned. In the meeting discussions were made for taking effective steps for rehabilitation. The copy of the minutes is produced as Annexure-R1(a) along with the statement.
WP(C).6824/10
-:6:-
produced as Annexure R1(b), the State Cabinet is seen to have given permission to approach the Central Government for exemption from Net Present Value (NPV) and cost of compensatory afforestation, in order to rehabilitate the tribals from Warriam colony in Kuttampuzha to the Urulanthanny teak plantation. The State Government seems to have been advised that there is an issue of payment of NPV and cost of compensatory afforestation in the matter at hand, as according to the Principal Chief Conservator of forests, the rehabilitation constitutes a diversion of forest land.
WP(C).6824/10 -:7:-
Government is merely modifying their forest rights and resettling them; so submitted the learned counsel for the petitioners. I see force in the said submission. It is not a case of diversion of forest land, but it is a case of modification of forest rights.
WP(C).6824/10
-:8:-
WP(C).6824/10
-:9:-
Central Government for approval. The present working plan for 'Malayattoor forest division' in which the Urulanthanny plantations are situated is due to be submitted for revision and approval, for the next 10 years. Therefore, the proposed rehabilitation package for these tribals has to be included in the working plan of this area i.e. the Malayattoor forest division, before submitting it for approval of the Central Government, as 'rehabilitating tribals' is also a part of 'forest management'.
WP(C).6824/10
-:10:-
the case of Urulanthanny plantation, the situation is even more favourable, as the area is not a pukka forest, but a teakelavu plantation existing since long back, that too as per a working plan approved by the Central Government. If the matter is handled by the State Government in the above manner, the tribals can be rehabilitated speedily.
-:11:-
WP(C).6824/10
situated is being revised, earnest efforts shall be made by both Governments to see that the grievance of the petitioners are redressed during the next plan itself by complying with the aforesaid direction.
Before parting with this judgment, I would like to place on record the appreciation towards the learned counsel for the sixth respondent for the able and valuable assistance rendered by her in this case.
Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
krj
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rehabilitation of forest dwellers constitutes diversion of forest land requiring NPV and compensatory afforestation.
Whether the proposed rehabilitation site is classified as pukka forest land or teak plantation.
Whether the tribal settlement rights can be modified to allow resettlement in plantations under the working plan.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KUTTAN
THANKAPPAN
STATE OF KERALA
THE CONVERVATOR OF FOREST
THE MINISTRY OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TRIBAL AFFAIRS
KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
