The state government’s 2015 decision to give 5.5358 hectares of land for ₹100 per acre to the Kallodi St. George Forane Church, which had encroached on the abovementioned land, was recently overturned by the Kerala High Court. With thousands of landless tribal people living in the district, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan believed that the government’s decision violated the constitutional rights of people from tribal communities.
“Tribals who lack land are fighting for access to land so they can practice agriculture and make a living… Under the terms of Ext. P5, a government order, large amounts of government land are assigned to the church, the fifth respondent, using the Land Assignment Act’s and Rules’ authority. In my opinion, this violates the constitutional rights of the tribal people, including the petitioners, and is unconstitutional. This is merely stabbing the defenceless, ever-smiling tribal people of Wayanad in the heart,” the Court declared. Importantly, the Court held that when intrusion is acknowledged, there is no public interest in assigning a property and that those who trespass on government land are not entitled to any equity.
“No one has a vested right to assert assignment on the government land registry. Building illegally on government property and intruding upon it will not grant the intruders any special rights. The Court further stated that the oppressed should receive government land allocations rather than powerful and rich individuals. The Court stated that the church should be given the chance to buy the property at its current market value, despite nullifying the government order that gave the church the land.
In the event that the church cannot be persuaded, the land must be reclaimed by the government and given to qualified recipients. The Court mandated that if the church buys the land, the proceeds from the transaction must be used for the benefit of the Wayanad tribal group. The ruling was made in response to a petition filed by a number of social workers who are members of the Wayanad tribal tribe, which is landless.
The petitioners emphasised that a seven-point agreement was struck with the state government following protests against the starving deaths of thirty-two tribal members in July and August of 2001. One of the points of the agreement was that the tribe would, wherever possible, receive five acres of land. The church was accused of encroaching illegally over 5.5358 hectares of land in the Wayanad District’s Mananthavady Taluk starting in 1962.
Nevertheless, a government order was issued to transfer the land at ₹100 per acre, notwithstanding the church’s repeated failures in obtaining the pattaya (land deed) for the land that was allotted to them. In response to the petition, the state government stated that, in addition to the church, the property allotted to the church also includes a playground, multiple schools, and a cemetery. Additionally, it stated that Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules served as the foundation for the land assignment. According to the aforementioned Rule 24, the government may assign land free from any requirements imposed by the Rules, provided that doing so serves the public interest and is subject to any limitations they may apply.
But the Court questioned, “What is the ‘public interest’ in this case?” It stated that although the aforementioned area has a church, schools, and a cemetery, the church is still clearly an encroachment. “Simply because some educational institutions, religious institutions, or cemeteries are constructed after the encroachment, the land cannot be assigned stating ‘public interest.’ Rule 24 has no application at all in this case,” the Supreme Court ruled.
As a result, it overturned the government decree that gave the church the pattayam for the property. It did state, however, that if the church is interested, it can be offered the chance to buy the land from the government at the going rate for land. The court ordered that the church be evicted within six months of being informed of the offer if they were unwilling to purchase the property. The state government was also mandated by the court to provide an action-taken report within eight months.
