Land grabbing in Tamil Nadu byKerala muslims and christians

IN 1996 CHRISTIANS IN DUBAI WERE SELLING VAST ACRES OFLAND IN KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TO THE NRIS AND THEAVAILABILITY OF LAND WAS TRACED TO THE FOLLOWINGSTORY. FROM THE LAND RECORDS THEY HAVE DISCOVEREDTHAT THE DEPARTING EUROPEANS HAVE LEFT THEIR LANDSIN THE NAME OF THEIR BUTLERS. BUT THE STORY BEHINDTHIS WAS THE MASSIVE ALTERATION OF LAND RECORDS BYCHRISTIANS IN TAMIL NADU WITH OFFICIAL CONNIVANCE.KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT HAS MORE THAN 50% CONVERTEDCHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND THIS LAND GRABBING WASORGANISED BY THE CHURCH.

TAMILS ARE VERY LOW IQ COMMUNITY AND IS NOT AWARETHAT THE STATE IS UNDER ATTACK BY THE PARAYACHRISTIAN CONVERTS OF KERALA AND THE TERRORISTMUSLIMS OF KERALA. CHRISTIANS MOVED IN TO TAMIL NADUAND CREATED A FAKE THOMAS STORY FOR SHOWING THATTHEY ARE NOT THE UNTOUCHABLE PARAYA COMMUNITYCONVERTS OF KERALA BUT ARE BRAHMIN CONVERTSDIRECTLY CONVETED BY ONE THOMAS. UNFORTUNATLY THESTORY OF JESUS AND THOMAS WAS CREATED IN THEFOURTH CENTURY BY KING CONSTANTINE. CONSTANTINE’SHISTORY WRITER ALSO CREATED FAKE HISTORY OFCHRISTIANS WHO WERE NOT THERE FOR THE FIRST 300YEARS. ADDED TO THIS HISTORICAL FACT, EVEN THEPRESENT NAZI POPE HAD SAID THAT THE SAID THOMASNEVER CAME TO SOUTH INDIA. YET THE PARAYA CHRISTIANSWERE ABLE TO DESTROY THE KAPILESWARA TEMPLE INMYLAPORE AND CONSTRUCT SANTOME CHURCH OVER THE

TEMPLE FOUNDATION. THESE CHRISTIANS ARE ALSOSELLING SACRED SAND BY THE KILOS AT SAINT THOMASMOUNT IN CHENNAI SAYING THAT THE SAID THOMAS WALKEDALL OVER THAT DIRTY AREA. THE CHRISTIANS COULDCONVINCE THE LOCAL TAMILS THAT THE THOMAS WASSTABBED AND KILLED BY AN EMACIATED BRAHMIN SO THATTHEY CAN MAKE A MARTYR OUT OF THE NON EXISTANTTHOMAS. THE LOW IQ TAMIL EVEN BOUGHT THE FAKE STORYOF THE BRITISH THAT TAMILS ARE A FOREST VARIETY OFHUMANS CALLED DRAVIDIANS AND INDIA WAS ATTACKEDLONG BACK BY WHITE SKINNED ARYANS WHO ARE BRAHMINSIN TAMIL NADU. THE STORY NOT ONLY DEMORALISED THEMENTALLY RETRDED TAMIL, BUT ALSO MADE THEM DRIVEBRAMINS OUT OF THE STATE. THE CHURCH, BRITISH ANDTHE CONVERTED CHRISTIANS HAVE CREATED THE ARYANINVASION STORY SO THAT THE DEMORALISED TAMILS WILLBE EASY CONVERTS FOR THE TERRORIST CHRISTIANMISSIONARIES OPERATING IN TAMIL NADU. ONE CHRISTIANPRIEST ALSO PREPARED A THESIS THAT TIRUKKURAL WAS ACOPY OF THE BIBLE AND TIRUVALLUVAR WHO WROTE IT WASA DESIPLE OF THOMAS, AND THE MADRAS UNIVERSITY HADEVEN GIVEN A PhD FOR THAT FAKE RESEARCH PAPER. ANYOTHER COMMUNITY WITH SOME SELF RESPECT WOULD HAVEDRIVEN OUT THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES OUT OF TAMILNADU ON THIS ONE ISSUE ALONE. IF ONE HAS SEEN THEPRESENT UNION HEALTH MINISTER, THEY WILL UNDERSTANDTHAT THE TAMILS HAVE NO DIGNITY AND HAVE NO OVERALLPICTURE OF ANY THING AND ALSO ARE LOW IN UPTAKE OFINFORMATION. TAMILS ARE ALSO A VERY LAZY COMMUNITYAND ONE CAN EMPLOY THEM LIKE A SLAVE FOR LIFE. TAMILSDOES NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO HELP THEIR OWNCOMMUNITY IN SRILANKA, AND INSTEAD HELPED TOASSASSINATE INDIA’S PRIME MINISTER RAJIV GANDHI, WHICHMADE EVERY INDIAN DECIDING AGAIST HELPING SRILANKANTAMILS. TAMIL NADU HAS PROVED TO BE THE WEAKEST LINK

IN INDIA. KERALA CHRISTIAN HAVE ENCROACHED THEKERALA FORESTS UNDER A CHRISTIAN PRIEST NAMEDFATHER VADAKKAN. WITH THIS EXPERIENCE, THE KERALACHRISTIANS HAVE MOVED IN TO TAMIL NADU AND UNDER THEGUIDANCE OF THE CHURCH, THEY HAVE ENCROACHEDPRIME GOVERNMENT LANDS AND FOREST LANDS IN TAMILNADU. THE FOOLISH TAMIL POLITICIANS WHO ARE JUSTDUMB BRAINLESS TAMIL FILM ACTORS HELPED THESE LANDGRABBERS FROM KERALA.

MUSLIMS IN INDIA STARTED THE DIRECT ACTION IN 1946WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT MASSACRE OF HINUDS BY THEWEAPONS SUPPLIED BY THE BRITISH TO THEIR SPYMOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH. BRITISH WANTED THETROUBLESOME MUSLIMS WHO HAD STARTED THE 1857STRUGGLE IN WHICH EVERY CHRISTIAN IN DELHI WAS KILLEDTO BE SHIFTED OUT OF THE FERTILE GANGETIC PLANES TOTHE HILLY AREAS OF THE NORTHWEST. SO WHEN INDIA WASPARTITIONED IN 1947 THE DEPARTING MUSLIMS HAVEHANDED OVER SOME OF THEIR PROPERTIES TO THE KERALAMUSLIMS, WHO HAD STAYED BACK. THUS MANY POORMUSLIMS HAVE BECOME RICH IN KERALA OVERNIGHT. ABULLOCK CART DRIVER LIKE TANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR OFKOLLAM IN KERALA HAS BECOME A RICH MAN OVERNIGHTAND BECAME AN EXPORTER OF CASHEWNUTS. THESE RICHMUSLIMS HAVE MOVED IN TO TAMIL NADU/ ONE OF THEEARLIEST TERRORIST TRAINING CENTRE IN INDIA WAS INTAMIL NADU, AND WAS RUN BY A PALESTINIAN WHO CAME TOINDIA ON A STUDENT VISA. THESE MUSLIMS ALSO FOUNDTHAT THE TAMILS ARE VERY EASY TO BE FOOLED ANDCHEATED AND ENGAGED IN LARGE SCALE LAND GRABBINGLIKE THEIR COUNTERPART CHRISTIANS.

A report into the land situation inGudalur taluka, Nilgiris district

For several years now, widespread and severe encroachment onforest and public lands in Gudalur Taluka of the Nilgiris District wasgoing on by a group of Kerala Muslims and Christians. . They hadhad the support of local Tamil government officials. Some Tamilofficials were also involved in encroachment and 'land grabbing'themselves. This was investigated in the year 2002. From 1996 vastareas of Tamil Nadu were being sold to Christian and Muslim NRIs inDubai, esp. from Kanyakumari district, where the converted christianpopulation is around 50%. All these land grabbing are organized bythe Kerala christians and Kerala muslims who are involved in forestland grabbing in south India. They clear the forest cover as a firststep and then start plantation of commercial crops including ganja.In all the land grabbing cases in Tamil Nadu, the local Tamil Nadugovernment officials were reported to have replaced original landrecords with fake ones and were hand in glove with the landgrabbers.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

The taluk of Gudalur lies within the Nilgiris mountain range and is themeeting point of the Eastern Ghats with the Western Ghats, at alower altitude than Ooty and closer to the borders of Karnataka andKerala. With extensive forest cover and at the meeting point of thetwo monsoons, the area receives a tremendous amount of rainfall -an estimated 1900 - 2000 mm per year. The town of Devala inGudalur taluka is known as "the second Cherrapunji", for no othertown in India - and possibly the world - rivals it for annual rainfall.

The average altitude in the Nilgiris is between 1500 and 2000 meters,

with hill peaks reaching up to 2300 m. The native vegetation of theNilgiris is grasslands on the mountain peaks, shola forests in thevalleys between them, and evergreen forest on the middle slopesbelow. In the lower hills, this evergreen forests tapers off to openforest, and, near the plains, scrub jungle. According to 1997 statistics,roughly 61 percent of the Nilgiris' land area is covered by forest.Gudalur lies at the level of the evergreen forests, and in earlier yearswas a densely forested area.

The Nilgiris, and Gudalur taluka in particular, is the watershed for alarge number of major rivers, including the Moyar, Chaliyar, Kabini,and the Pandiyar-Punnampuzha. Many of these go on to becometributaries for the river Kaveri. According to one local estimate, a totalover 100 rivers or streams flow out of the Gudalur area. In addition,Gudalur forms a major part of the Nilgiris Biosphere Reserve, andborders Bandipur, Mudumalai, Nagarhole, Wayanad and Mukurthi.Local endangered species include the lion-tailed macaque and theNilgiri tahr, and the Gudalur region is a migration route for elephants.

Gudalur's population is a mix of Sri Lankan Tamil repatriates (mostlyDalits), Malayalis, Tamils, and adivasi communities. Six adivasicommunities, including the Paniyar, the Kurumbar, the Irula, theMullukurumar, and the Kattunayakans, reside in the taluka'sboundaries. The total population of the Nilgiri district was 7, 10,214with 25,048 Adivasis as on 1991. Gudalur Taluka has around 3,50,000, of which, approximately 2, 50,000 are Dalits and Adivasis

Mr.Selvaraj stated that approximately 90% of the Dalit households inthe taluka are landless. The adivasi communities have been largelymarginalized and forced to live on the streets. They have largely beendriven off their traditional lands and deprived of a livelihood.

History

The total area of Gudalur and the neighboring town of Pandalur isapproximately 124,800 acres. In medieval times, before the arrival ofthe British, the area was divided between three rulers: Vallavanoor,the leader of the Panniyas, Nelliarasi, another adivasi ruler, and theNilambur Kovilagam, a kingdom based in present-day Kerala.Subsequently, the Kovilagam decided to expand its borders byconquering the other two areas. Vallavanoor was killed and Nelliarasikidnapped and forced to hand over her lands. Despite someresistance from Vallavanoor's community, the Kovilagam succeededin subjugating the area and taking approximately 100,000 acresunder its control. In modern times, the recognized extent of theKovilagam's holdings was 80,087 acres under the Malabar TenancyAct, until 1969 (see below). This area is known as 'janmom' land.

THE LEGAL CONTEXT

On December 18, 1845, the Kovilagam leased part of this land toManjushree Plantations. Over the years, nine other major estates(and several smaller ones) were given leases on the rest of the land,so that by 1969, approximately 50,000 acres were leased out in thisfashion. The leases given were perpetual (for 99 years), and as aresult the Kovilagam retained direct control over only a small portionof the Janmom area. The estate lands were used for tea, coffee, andother cash crops, though a significant part (in most estates themajority) remained under forest and natural vegetation. At a laterdate, the breakdown of estate lands was as follows.

TABLE 1

Cultivated area Underdevelopedarea

Total

Woodbriar Estate 381.68Sussex Estate 744.10Rousdanmalai Estate 57.01Non Such Estate 701.18Malayalam Plantation 733.65Periya Sholai 331.93Co-op. CWS 278.41

466.27393.24803.541135.64528.151027.63362.06

847.951137.34860.551836.821261.801359.56640.47

TeaEstates India 1490.27Manjushree Plantation 3673.73Glenrock 2895.33Silvercloud 428.98Others 7927.92

Total 19644.19

4489.7516001.283560.681478.502109.78

Total 32,356.52

5980.0219675.016456.011907.4810037.70

Total 52,000.71

Note: The figure is as on 27.11.1974

Janmom Act

In 1969, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed the Janmom Lands(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. The government waiteduntil 1974 to notify it. On 07.08.1974, Parliament inserted the Act intothe Ninth Schedule in order to prevent judicial examination of itsconstitutionality.

The team was given a copy of the Janmom Act, and all ourinterviewees discussed it in considerable detail. There are foursections of this Act that are pertinent to us here. In brief, they read asfollows:

Section 8: Under this section, jenmis (holders of the originalJanmom land) are entitled to pattas for lands that they or theiremployees are cultivating.

Section 9: Under this section, tenants of the original jenmis areentitled to pattas for lands that they or their employees arecultivating. To receive these pattas, the tenants must show thatthey were enjoying the land in 1969 and had been doing so fora continuous period of three years before.

Section 17: This section, later to prove the most critical toGudalur's land situation, empowers the government to renew orterminate leases that have been taken on Janmom land.

However, there is no provision for the grant of pattas on landthat comes under this section.

Section 53: This section empowers the Settlement Officer todecide whether an area in the Janmom lands should beincluded in government forests.

The power to grant pattas was given to the Assistant SettlementOfficer.

Once the Act entered into force, local authorities in Gudalur surveyedthe area to determine which areas came under which sections. On27.11.1974 the settlement was completed. Of a total of 80,087.74acres, 28,087.03 acres were settled while the remaining 52,000.71acres are yet to be settled. As per information later furnished to theSupreme Court by local authorities (see table 2), the breakup was asfollows.

TABLE2

Ryotwari Patta granted U/s 8, 9 and 10Poramboke U/s 8, 9 and 10 of the ActRyotwari Patta U/s 14 and 15 - BuildingsPlantation lease covered U/s 17 of the ActAssessed waste, unassessed waste under processEstate covered U/s 8Forests U/s 53

Total

7769.00 acres1587.20 acres230.40 acres41,768.40 acres6,650.76 acres9,153.98 acres12,928.00 acres

80,087.74

As the table indicates, roughly half of the Janmom land was broughtunder Section 17, and pattas granted on approximately one tenth ofthe Janmom area. According to the report of the Supreme CourtExpert Committee in Writ Petition 202/95 (see the sectionEnvironmental Consequences), the area that was brought under

Section 53 is actually only a small fraction of the real forest area thatexisted at the time.

Supreme Court Cases on the Land Issue

CA 367-375/77

Almost immediately after its notification, the Janmom Act waschallenged in court by the nine major leaseholders. They argued ontwo grounds: first, their lands should be considered under Section 9,and second the insertion of the Janmom Act into the Ninth Schedulewas unconstitutional. The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions,and in 1977 the parties appealed to the Supreme Court. TheSupreme Court accepted the appeals, which were numbered as CivilAppeals 367 - 375/77.

During the proceedings, the nine appellants agreed to give anundertaking that the lands in question would not be alienated and thatthey would not expand the area under cultivation within their lands.On the basis of this undertaking, on 15.2.2002 the Supreme Courtgranted a stay on alienation of land and changes in cultivated areawithin the lands in question. In 1981, a Mr. Balagangadhar Nair andnine others filed an interim in the Supreme Court asking forclarification, and the Court clarified that grant of pattas to individualtenants was still permitted under its stay order.

This interim stay order was to stand for over twenty years. Argumentsin the Supreme Court dragged on until 1999, when the nine partiesjointly withdrew their petitions; on 18.8.99 the case was dismissed aswithdrawn. In the dismissal order, the Court said the petitioners hadfiled applications with the State Government of Tamil Nadu, andordered that they be allowed twelve weeks to appeal to higherauthorities should the eventual order be against their wishes.

When asked why these cases had been withdrawn so abruptly, Mr.

Jacob Matthews, Advocate, stated that Justice Kirpal Singh hadinformed the petitioners that their lands could not be consideredunder Section 9, but they were free to argue under Section 17.Seeing the futility of continuing their case, the petitioners thereforewithdrew.

Only five of the original estates still have valid leases. The remainingleases have expired

Anti-Eviction Case

In the wake of the Supreme Court stay in the above case, the policebegan operations to evict members of the public who were allegedlyencroaching on to Section 17 lands. The first evictions were in 1978and proceeded until 1981, when a landholder immolated himself inprotest at eviction and a local uproar ensued. Mr. Cherian, a localadvocate, filed a petition in the Supreme Court requesting a halt onevictions, and the Court stayed further evictions while the petition waspending. When the case was disposed in 1988, the Court orderedthat the government consider these landholders' patta applications'sympathetically.'

Following the order, the District Collector issued a notice requestingpatta applications within the next three months. 9,133 applicationswere received. In 1991, these applications were forwarded to thegovernment for consideration. These applications were for landsfalling under different sections and categories in the taluka. Theseapplications are pending with the government, according to theDistrict Collector.

THE GROUND SITUATION

Following the 1974 notification of the Janmom Act and the

subsequent Supreme Court stay, the huge area of land under Section17 became the target of a large number of encroachers and 'landgrabbers.' In all our interviews, the extent and scale of encroachmentwas cited as an issue of great local concern.

Forms and Methods of Encroachment

In general, all our interviewees distinguished between two kinds ofencroachment that are occurring:

'Small' encroachers: Typically, these are poor families that tookover areas for direct cultivation or for their residence. Theseencroachers often only took a few acres of land. At one point,Mr. Selvaraj estimated that there could be half a lakh of suchencroachers. He also stated that the majority of theseindividuals are Dalit landless families, now dependent on theirplots for survival. In addition, the team was informed that SriLankan repatriates, unfamiliar with the law, were often dupedon their arrival into buying small plots of land and were givenfake documents. The government's failure to explain land lawsor Section 17 clearly to these repatriates - or indeed, to anyone- was held to be responsible for this situation. In strict legalterms, these individuals are also encroachers.

'Land grabbers': These individuals or groups took much largerareas, primarily for estate purposes. Typically, areas 'grabbed'could range from 25 acres to 500 or even 1,000 acres. It wasalleged that these grabbers were generally outsiders andviewed the land as a business proposition, often parceling itinto plots and selling it off rapidly. Characteristically they wereable to get the assistance of lawyers, officials, politicians andothers to produce official documents, court orders etc tosubstantiate their claim over the lands grabbed unlike the small'encroachers'.

In addition to these two broad categories, Mr. BJ Krishnan and Mr.Jacob Matthews stated that the original lease holding estates have

also increased their cultivated area (in violation of their undertaking tothe Supreme Court) and encroached on surrounding lands.Agricultural tax assessments prepared by the local authoritiesindicated huge increases in some estates' cultivated area. Forinstance, according to the document, Manjushree Plantationsincreased its cultivated area by 1,304.77 acres between 1977 and1997, and Tea Estates India increased its cultivated area by 2353.80acres between 1977 and 1997 (i.e. an expansion of 250%). Theseacts clearly amount to contempt of court, as they are in violation ofthe Supreme Court orders and the undertaking given by the Estateswho had approached the court.

As a demonstration of the scale of encroachment occurring, some ofour interviewees described the state of an area known as OucherLoney Valley (referred to locally as O'Valley). At the time of theJanmom Act, all of O'Valley came under the control of ManjushreePlantations and was given a single revenue number: 46B/1A1A3.According to a letter from the District Forest Officer to theGovernment Pleader (Forests), Ooty, in January 1999, Manjushreehas also certified that there are no leaseholders or tenants on most ofthat land. At present, however, there are 24 villages and settlementsin O'Valley, and the area now has a separate Panchayat. In addition,nine land grabbers are said to have grabbed almost 1000 acres in theO'Valley, and several other estate holders have grabbed smallerareas. In the strictest legal terms, the entire area still belongs to thegovernment, as inheritor of the lease; but in practice it is a patchworkof private smallholders, estates, and forests.

Motivations for Land Grabbing

In monetary terms, the forests surrounding the town of Gudalur areextremely valuable, primarily because of the large numbers ofrosewood and teak trees. Each of these trees may fetch several lakhson the open market. Further, once the forests are clear-cut, the land

is fertile and can be used for tea and coffee estates. According to oneestimate an undeveloped acre of land in Gudalur would sell for onelakh, while an acre planted with tea would go for four or more lakhs.

Given these realities, an individual who grabs a hundred acres of landhas overnight become very wealthy. All our interviewees agreed thatthe result is that Gudalur is financially, politically and administrativelydominated by the large-scale encroachers. We were informed thatmost political parties, many government officials, and the StateGovernment have been directly bought off, bribed, or influenced bythis ready flow of money.

Securing Legal Sanction

The process has been helped greatly by the apparently unclear legalcontext. In the wake of the Supreme Court clarification of its stay inCA 367-375/77, there has been a string of applications by locallandholders requesting pattas for Section 17 land they claimed toown. The holders would claim they should come under Section 9,even though that classification cannot now be changed and hencethe applications were in fact invalid even when they were made.Many interviewees and several local officials told us the typicalcourse of these applications is as follows:

1. Applicant gathers documents to prove ownership andcultivation since 1969.

2. Applicant files application with Assistant Settlement Officer.Such applications were almost never taken up, and in fact otherthan a controversial 1998 order (see below), to the team'sknowledge no applicants have been granted pattas in theSection 17 areas.

3. Some applicants then obtain possession certificates in Section17 lands from officials (See a sample list of such alleged landgrabbers).

4. The landholder then approaches the local district court anduses these documents to claim that he or she is in de factopossession of the land. The court would be requested toprovide an injunction against any interference in thelandholder's 'enjoyment of the property.' These injunctions weregenerally granted.

5. Should the Forest Department or other authorities attempt toevict the landholder or take other action on their property (forinstance, halting alleged tree felling), this injunction would beused to stop them.

Almost all of those we interviewed agreed that these injunction ordersamounted to de facto regularization of encroachment. Thelandholders in question would obtain such an order and proceed toexpand their cultivation area or clear-cut forests; those who tried tostop them would be accused of being in contempt of court. It wasalleged that corruption at the local court level was rampant.

Further, the officials informed us of a number of ways that fakeapplications could be made to appear legitimate. Typically, thelandholder would produce a document, ostensibly an agreement withthe Nilambur Kovilagam regarding the land, and use that document toprove ownership from 1969. This document would be written onfrayed Kerala government stamp paper and appear aged. However,the officials claimed, a reader who looked closely at these documentscould usually tell that they were forgeries. For instance, the team wasshown one document where the first paragraph was written with'classical' Malayalam characters (as would be expected), but theremaining text used more modern forms.

In order to prove cultivation, two methods were used. On the onehand, landholders would often transplant older tea and coffeesaplings on to new lands to make it appear that the lands had beencultivated for a long time. To observers, and especially lay observers,

after a point it becomes difficult to deduce the age of a plot from itsappearance, and it is easy to fool them into believing that a plot withtwo year old transplants is ten or fifteen years old.Meanwhile, the easier method is of course to buy off the inspectingofficial so that no inspection takes place at all. The officials allegedthat this happens quite often.

According to everyone we spoke to, no action has been taken againstthose who produced forged documents, even when such forgerieswere detected and discarded in the court. We note that ourinterviewees agreed that the small landholders do not use suchtactics, since they lack the resources and the wherewithal. Generallyit is the wealthy and the powerful who indulge in such efforts atdefrauding the law.

OFFICIAL CONNIVANCE AND SUPPORT

Much of the team's conversations rapidly came around to the issue ofofficials' role in the ongoing land 'grabbing' process. All ourinterviewees alleged that official connivance is rampant, payoffsstandard and the legal process regularly subverted in Gudalur.

Corruption and Selective Application of the Law

The most basic form of this was bribe-taking and a selectiveapplication of the law. For instance, at the June 16th meeting Mr.Kandayya of Chembalakodu told us how he had purchased 1.75acres of land in 1978. In 1980, the Settlement Officer asked him topay Rs. 600 to receive a patta for the land. He went to pay it in 1981,but the Village Administrative Officer told him it was too late. In early1983, the Forest Department took control of the land, fenced it anddrove Mr. Kandayya off it. Then, in late 1983, the Collector intervenedand returned the land to Mr. Kandayya and removed the fence. But in1999, the Department again destroyed Mr. Kandayya's crops, and

only after much local resistance did they allow 0.25 acres to befarmed. Mr. Kandayya believes that the government has beentargeting small farmers, especially when larger farmers were grantedpattas in 1998 (see below).

Other than this individual incident, all of our conversations seemed toreturn to two areas of obvious official dereliction of duty. These aredetailed below.

Patta Application S.R. 7/80: Grant of Pattas in 1998

In 1980, a Mr. Balagangadharan Nair and ten others filed applicationswith the Assistant Settlement Officer (Gudalur), requesting that theybe granted pattas for their lands. The lands came within the O'Valleyarea, and all the applicants claimed they had been cultivating thelands since the early 1960's. On this basis they asked for pattas to begranted on their lands

The applications subsequently went through a long and complex legalbattle, and until 1998 no action was taken on them. In December1998, the applications appeared before Mr. Pandurangan, theAssistant Settlement Officer (Dharapuram). In the last week ofDecember, Mr. Pandurangan granted pattas to most of theapplicants; Mr. Balagangadharan Nair was among them. In his order,the ASO cited the 1981 Supreme Court clarification as a justificationfor granting pattas on the land. The ASO stated that his site visits hadshown him that the land was being cultivated, and the applicants hadshown him tax receipts and documents proving continuous ownershipfrom the 1960's onwards. For instance, in the case of Mr. K.TVeerankutty Haji (an applicant), the ASO stated that he had proof ofownership from 1961 onwards. Finally, the ASO rejected a petitionfrom the DFO, wherein the officer had requested the ASO not to grantpattas on grounds that the lands in question were notified as forestsunder the Tamil Nadu Protection of Private Forests Act. The ASOclaimed that the very name of the Act - Protection of Private Forests -

implies that the existence of forests on land is no bar to the grant ofpattas on that land. The week after the order, the ASO retired.

On January 13th, 1999, the DFO (Gudalur) addressed a letter to theASO, claiming that he had never received copies of this order andthat the news of it had been deliberately kept from him (letter #14350/1402). He stated that he only obtained copies of the order afterhe walked into the ASO's office on the same day and found the orderon the dispatch desk. On January 27th, after an appeal by the DFO,the Director of Survey and Settlement (DoSS) in Chennai stayed theASO's order (document # RC D3/1031/99). Meanwhile, theSettlement Officer (Thanjavur) had already recommended that theASO's order be cancelled, since the site visit had not been doneproperly and the order was legally without basis.

The Forest Department then appealed the ASO's decision to theJanmom Lands Settlement Tribunal in Ooty. In his appeal affidavit,the DFO claimed that the ASO's order violated the ForestConservation Act, the Land Ceilings Act, the Supreme Court's ordersin writ petition 202/95 (see below under Environmental Issues), and aGovernment Order halting the grant of new pattas in hill stations. Healso stated that the ASO had claimed that the area claimed by Mr.Balagangadharan Nair was bounded by lands owned by four otherindividuals; but, in fact, all four of those owners claimed ownership ofthe area in question and had filed writ petitions in the High Court tothat effect (WP #'s 20885/92, 8145/93, 8147/93, 4748/94). Further,the revenue numbers that supposedly described Mr. Nair's land wereinvalid, since there is only one valid survey number for the entireO'Valley (see above). Finally, the land in question was not cultivated.

The Janmom Tribunal stayed the ASO's order but also granted aninterim order upholding the status quo. In other words, pattas wouldnot be awarded for the moment and trees could not be felled on the

land, but the Forest Department would also not be allowed tointerfere with the applicants' enjoyment of the lands ostensiblypossessed by them. This order has essentially given carte blanche tothe nine landholders to destroy forest in these areas. On this point,local officials find the Tribunal's ruling suspect.

It was alleged that the ASO only granted pattas because he had beenbribed with money and liquor, and that the land in question has neverbeen cultivated. During our site visit on June 16th, we were shownthe areas in question. The land was densely forested, and we couldsee no evidence of cultivation in most of it.

Finally, local residents and others whom we met stressed the issue ofthe 9,133 applications filed after Mr. Cherian's Supreme Court case(see above under 'Legal Context'). They said that no action had beentaken on any of these applications, and that Mr. Pandurangan'sdecision to act on just these nine applications showed his bias.

Landholdings of Mr. P.S. Seban

In his ruling in S.R. 7/80, the ASO (Dharapuram) referred to Mr.Balagangadharan Nair as being represented by his agent, Mr. P.S.Seban. According to a local official, Mr. Seban was given power ofattorney by Mr. Nair in 1996, though Ms. Chinnu Seban told us thatthe land had actually been bought by Mr. Seban from Mr. Nair aroundthat time, and that he was the real owner. However, regardless oftitle, all of our interviewees agreed that Mr. Seban has been ineffective control of the land Mr. Nair claims to possess. In addition,local officials alleged that Mr. Seban has also encroached on 43acres in survey number 477/9 of Padanthurai.

By 1996, Mr. Seban had already been involved in some land clashes.In our public meeting on June 16th, Mr. Narayanan of Anna Nagar

stated that he had earlier owned land adjacent to an area in Mr.Seban's possession. When Mr. Seban sold his land, he allegedly soldhalf an acre of Mr. Narayanan's land along with it. Mr. Narayananclaims that he objected to this sale, but in response the local policefiled a false IPC section 307 (attempt to murder) case against him.When Mr. Narayanan spoke to Mr. Seban about this, Mr. Sebanpromised to pay him Rs. 30,000 for the land. This amount has yet tobe paid. In addition, a Mr. Krishna alleged that a small landownernamed Mr. Joji had planted moringa trees on his half an acre ofproperty. Mr. Seban allegedly encroached on the adjacent 30 acres,felled the forest and planted 10,000 tea saplings. The ForestDepartment evicted Mr. Joji and cleared his moringa trees, but Mr.Seban's adjacent 30 acres were left untouched.

The third incident we were told of involved the Forest Departmentitself. In late 1999 (the date is not clear), the then DFO sent a letter tohis GP alleging that Mr. Seban had begun felling trees and requestinga clarification of the Tribunal's order. Then, in early 2001 (followingthe appointment of a new DFO, for which see below), ForestDepartment officials directly clashed with Mr. P.S. Seban on his land.Mr. Seban claims that the officials trespassed on his property,attacked his workers and disrupted their meal, and finally demolisheda tin shed which he had constructed. When we spoke to Ms. ChinnuSeban, she concurred with this version, adding that it had been atraumatizing experience. The Department however claims that Mr.Seban was felling rosewood trees, an offence under several laws andfurther a violation of the Janmam Tribunal's stay order and theSupreme Court orders in WP 202/95 (for which see below). It acceptsthat the shed was demolished but says it was on forest land and wasthus illegally constructed. Finally, the DFO had alleged that Mr.Seban threatened him with a 95-centimetre knife during theoperation.

A police FIR was registered against Mr. Seban based on the DFO'scomplaint. To date no action has been taken on this FIR. The DFOalso sent a letter to the Central Government Pleader in Delhi, askinghim to initiate contempt proceedings against Mr. Seban. No actionappears to have been taken on that request either.

Political Intervention and Pressure

A second common theme in our interviews was that the landgrabbers wielded a great deal of political power, including directinfluence over the government in Chennai. According to Mr. KoshyBaby and others, all local party units (including Mr. Baby's TMC unit)have land grabbers as prominent members if not leaders. This washeld to be the reason for the government's lack of action on theencroachment and land grabbing issue.

The list of alleged land grabbers contained in Appendix I, which iscompiled from information provided by local people and local officials,bears out some of this claim. Among the major parties, the TMC, theDMK and the ADMK all appear to have local leaders who are allegedland grabbers. The CPM seems to be an exception, but according tothe sources for the list they too are under the indirect influence of thegrabbers. The CPM in fact took out a rally against the former DFOMr. Srivastava (see below), alleging that he was evictingsmallholders.In addition, A. Millar, a resident of Gudalur, has recently beenappointed Minister of Tourism for the Government of Tamil Nadu. Inour interviews with them Mr. Koshy Baby and Mr. Chandramohanhailed his appointment, stating that the presence of a local person atthe top might help move matters forward. However, among most ofthe other interviewees there was a general impression that Mr. Millaris close to the land grabbers and that his elevation will onlystrengthen their position. Mr. Millar's is said to have close links withMr. PS Seban (who was once his PA), and Ms. Chinnu Seban

mentioned that Mr. Seban generally stays with Mr. Millar when hetravels to Chennai. Local officials stated that Mr. Millar's father-in-lawhas grabbed approximately 40 acres in O'Valley.

As proof of their contentions, local officials showed the team a copyof a letter, dated 30.08.2001, allegedly from Mr. Millar and addressedto the Minister for Forests. The letter is on Mr. Millar's letterhead andappears to bear his signature. It asks the Minister to transfer threeforest officials in Gudalur - Mr. Kundan, Mr. Prem Sagar, and Mr.Krishnakumar - on grounds that they 'are working against ourgovernment.' No further detail was supplied in the letter.Mr. Kundan and Mr. Prem Sagar are rangers, and Mr. Krishnakumaris a stenographer at the Gudalur Forest Department office. In ourinterviews, members of the public had earlier supported these threeofficials and said that they were among the few Forest Departmentstaff that was committed to their task. All three were allegedly alsosubject to pressure earlier by the Principal Chief Conservator ofForests in regard to their public positions on encroachment and landgrabbing. They were informed that, while their statements aboutcorruption in the Forest Department were to be praised, they might besubject to disciplinary action if they should make public statementsabout internal Department affairs again.

After our visit, one final report reached the team. The team wasinformed that, in the last week of June, the current DFO -in-charge(Mr. Ulaganathan, see below) and Mr. Seban together raided a ganjaplantation. Mr. Seban is allegedly claiming that this plantation wasplanted by Mr. Kundan. The team has no further details on thisincident but notes that the version we have received conforms to thegeneral trend of our information.

Transfer and Appointment of Officials

A second issue that came up in several interviews was transfersbased on ulterior motives and the deliberate appointment of pliable

officials to critical posts. According to the officials we spoke to, this isa recent but very worrying development.

As with the corruption issue, two cases in particular kept coming uparound this topic.

Mr. Deepak Srivastava, District Forest Officer, Gudalur;Transferred April 23rd, 2002

Shortly after Mr. Srivastava's appointment in mid 2000, he began tomake a name for himself as a dedicated and committed official. Allthe interviewees we spoke to considered him an unusually committedofficer, though they differed in the degree of their praise.

According to them Mr. Srivastava was unique among Gudalur'sDFO's for focusing on the large land grabbers and not harassing thesmall family encroachers. He is also said to be the first DFO to takeserious steps towards eviction of these large land grabbers.According to the District Collector, between 1.8.2001 and 19.04.2002,illegal occupations on 663.35 acres of land were evicted. Mr. JamesJacob, whom several of our interviewees described as a large-scaleland grabber and Mr. Seban were both evicted from part of theirholdings during Mr. Srivastava's tenure. A table of evictionsperformed by Mr. Srivastava is attached as Appendix III.

Mr. Chandramohan and Mr. Koshy Baby both alleged that Mr.Srivastava had been selective in his evictions and, in particular, hadnot touched encroachments by several of the large land-grabbers(including Tea India Estates Limited). Local officials showed the teama copy of a list of evictions performed, which did not seem to bear outthis allegation. Mr. Chandramohan additionally alleged that Mr.Srivastava did not pay attention to many of the cases pending beforethe district courts.

Mr. Srivastava allegedly started receiving death threats as soon as

the evictions began. Further, in at least one instance Mr. Srivastavawas gheraoed by those who opposed his eviction activities, includinglocal CPM leaders. Mr. Srivastava was hence given police protectionduring the performance of his duties. However, according to theofficials, this protection was rescinded soon after Mr. Millar becameMinister of Tourism. The day it was rescinded, the Tamil Nadu ForestStaff Association sent a representation to the Chief Ministerdemanding that protection be restored. The Association cited thecase of a DFO who had been killed in Jharkhand by the stone quarrymafia and said that if something similar occurred in Gudalur, thegovernment would be held responsible. That evening the policeprotection was restored.

On April 23rd, Mr. Srivastava was sent out of Gudalur on a three yeardeputation to Bhopal. According to the local officials we spoke to, Mr.Srivastava had earlier requested the same deputation and beenrefused. They therefore were of the opinion that Mr. Srivastava wasbeing sent out now for ulterior reasons.

There has as yet been no formal replacement for Mr. Srivastava.Instead, Mr. Ulaganathan, former DFO of Gudalur and currently DFOof Ooty (North), have been appointed as the Acting Officer in chargeuntil a new DFO is appointed. According to most of our interviewees,Mr. Ulaganathan is not a dedicated official and earlier overlookedland grabbing that was occurring. While they acknowledge that hetook up the cases against Mr. Seban and followed up the issue ofpattas in 1998, they claim that this is because of heavy pressure fromboth the public and Department staff. They state that during Mr.Ulaganathan's previous tenure, land grabbing had reached its highestlevels ever and large areas were cleared of their natural vegetation.They also state that even in the past two months, the number of teasaplings entering Gudalur has reached around 2,00,000 a day, thesawmills processing wood from the forests have increased theiractivity, and the felling of silver oaks in the hills has greatly increased.

Mr. BJ Krishnan further told us that furniture shops in Ooty haveincreased their trade in illegal wood furniture.

Unfortunately, the team was not able to reach Mr. Ulaganathan for hisviews on the issue. However, in general we note again that almost allmembers of the public we spoke to regarded Mr. Srivastava'sdeparture as a great loss to Gudalur.

Mr. Chandramohan, current Government Pleader (Forests),Gudalur

Mr. Chandramohan, a practicing advocate in Gudalur, was appointedGP (Forests) on 20.1.2002 vide GO Ms No. 22, Environment andForests Dept. His appointment was opposed by the Principal ChiefConservator of Forests (vide letter WR2/10014/2002 dated11.4.2002), the District Forest Officer (vide letter .954/2000/D2 dated31.2.02), the local unit of the People's Union for Civil Liberties andthe Tamil Nadu Forest Staff Association (letter dated 12.2.2002 toChief Secretary).

In the letters, these groups and officers argue that Mr.Chandramohan is both a land grabber himself and is closely linkedwith other land grabbers. Evidence for these arguments is cited asfollows:

The team was given a copy of a letter from the Tehsildar,Gudalur, to the District Forest Officer, Gudalur, in which theTehsildar informs the DFO that Mr. Chandramohan is anencroacher and that his patta application had earlier beenrejected. This was in response to a request from the DFO forinformation on Mr. Chandramohan.

In his father's name, Mr. Chandramohan allegedly applied(together with Mr. R.S. Nadar) for an injunction on grabbed land

in Padanthurai. He was allegedly evicted from 150 acres of thisland during Mr. Srivastava's tenure.

Mr. Chandramohan's brother Sundarajan is implicated in a caseinvolving the clear felling of 125 acres of land in the NorthernHay Estates area. This case was registered with theDepartment on 25.5.2002.

Officials informed us that Mr. Chandramohan is the secondaccused in O.R. 1/2002, Devala, a case filed by the ForestDepartment ranger after he allegedly caught Mr. M.K. Gowdaattempting to cut a road through rosewood forests (Survey #303/1).

In 2001, Mr. Chandramohan filed a case (O.S. 178/2001) in thedistrict court for an injunction barring interference in this land. Inthe petition, he named himself as 'joint plaintiff' with Mr. M.K.Gowda (though elsewhere he is named as Mr. Gowda's agent).

Mr. Chandramohan is alleged to have encroached on 250 acresof land in the same survey number, according to the TamilNadu Forest Staff Association letter opposing his appointment.

During the meeting on June 16th, a Mr. Murugesan, son ofThekkan, alleged that Mr. Chandramohan had encroached onand attempted to place a fence on his land and on the land of28 other families. When Mr. Murugesan objected, a police casewas filed against him.

Mr. Chandramohan is alleged to have encroached on sevencents of land behind his house; the land is said to belong to thelocal secondary school. Mr. Chandramohan allegedly put up afence on school property. When the headmaster and schoolchildren tore down the fence, a fight ensued and police caseswere registered on both sides. The case against Mr.Chandramohan was dropped but that against the students andthe headmaster is still being investigated, a fact attributed toMr. Chandramohan's influence. The land in question is currentlybeing contested in court.

Mr. Chandramohan allegedly appeared for Mr. R.S.Nadar whenthe latter was seeking a court injunction to bar Forest

Department 'interference' on land ostensibly in his possession.He will now be appearing for the Department in the same case.

Given that there were other advocates available, those who opposeMr. Chandramohan's appointment say that there was no need toappoint someone with so many questionable antecedents.

When asked about these allegations, Mr. Chandramohan replied thatthe only qualifications required for being a GP (Forests) are that oneshould be a practicing advocate with a clean reputation and that oneshould not be accused in any forest cases. All other considerationsare not directly relevant. With reference to O.R. 1/2002, Mr.Chandramohan said he knows Mr. M.K. Gowda but has norelationship to the land and was unaware that he was accused in thatcase. As regards the school incident, he took the team to the site andclaimed he had only attempted to follow the original boundary. Whenasked about Mr. Murugesan's allegation, he said that the oppositewas true: Mr. Murugesan and the other families, he said, had in factbeen the encroachers. He was unclear about whether he meant thatMr. Murugesan was encroaching on his land or on forest land.

In regards to the potential conflict of interest, he accepted that he hadappeared for Mr. R.S. Nadar but said that his appearance was purelyin his professional capacity and that he had had handed over thecase once he was appointed GP. He claimed to have only handledtwo to three land-related cases when in private practice.

Finally, Mr. Chandramohan attributed the allegations against him tojealousy, attempts to stir up anti-Tamil sentiment in an area inhabitedby both Tamils and Malayalis, and to local troublemakers. Mr.Chandramohan also believes the Forest Department is responsiblefor the current situation, since it is fully aware of encroachments andhas done nothing about them. It has instead harassed land ownersand taken bribes. Mr. Chandramohan also informed the team that hehas notified Mr. Selvaraj and a local reporter of Dina Malar that he

intends to file defamation suits against them, but has not taken up thematter as yet.

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OFENCROACHMENT AND LAND GRABBING

All those that we interviewed agreed that the scale of encroachmentand land grabbing in Gudalur has resulted in an increasing spiral ofother problems in its wake. The area's extraordinary biodiversity,sensitive ecology and complex natural vegetation make it veryvulnerable to small disturbances; leave alone such wholesaledestruction in some areas. Gudalur also has a complex socialsystem, as outlined in the introduction, and in several of ourconversations we were told that there have been attempts to mobilizethe population on ethnic and religious lines. Finally, the economicimbalance between a few very wealthy individuals (allegedly landgrabbers) and a large population of landless or land-poor residentsmakes the issue even more pertinent.

Environmental Issues

Legal Context

In 1995 Godavarman Thirumalpad, a member of the NilamburKovilagam, filed a petition in the Supreme Court praying for thecourt's intervention to halt forest destruction in Gudalur. The petitionwas numbered WP 202/95. Subsequently the court joined this case toa number of other cases and took up the issue as a national one.

In 1996 the Supreme Court issued an interim order in the case.Recalling its previous judgments in a number of forest cases, it notedthat the term 'forest' in the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 should beconsidered in its 'dictionary sense' and not as only referring toreserved forests and government owned lands. As a result, anyactivity in Gudalur's forests that does not accord with the FCA and is

done without government permission - including tree felling,plantations, building construction etc. - is illegal. With specificreference to Janmom lands, the court ordered that all tree felling in allareas therein would be banned pending disposal of Civil Appeals367-375 (see the section on Legal Issues). Though these appealshave now been disposed, the court's general ban on felling in forestareas presumably stands.

As part of its orders in 202/95, the court also appointed an expertcommittee to survey Tamil Nadu's lands and determine which areaswere forests. In its report, this committee identified survey number46B/1A1A3 (the O'Valley area) as "natural rainforest"; this area alsostands notified under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Private ForestsAct. As such, any felling in the O'Valley area is expressly prohibitedby the court order.

Further, in 1999 the Gudalur chapter of the Tamil Nadu Forest StaffAssociation filed an interim application to the Supreme Court (afterthe order granting nine landholder’s pattas in the O'Valley). In itsorder in this IA (numbered IA 418/99) the court ordered that no pattasshould be granted on forest land in Gudalur and no encroachmentsbe regularized, pending a reply from the Tamil Nadu government.The issue has not come up again (as Tamil Nadu will be consideredonly later this year), and as such the IA order still stands.

Ground Situation

According to the Supreme Court's Expert Committee, in Tamil NaduGudalur is the area where "the maximum damage to the environmentis being caused." According to a representation of the Tamil NaduForest Staff Association (dated 15.3.2002), over 3000 acres of forestin Gudalur have been destroyed since the Supreme Court order in

202/95. Most of our sources stated that forest destruction wascontinuing, particularly after Mr. Srivastava left for his new posting. Itwas claimed that at least a hundred loads of silver oak trees leave theNilgiris district every day, much of them from Gudalur (it is legal to cutand transport silver oak, a soft wood, so long as a permit is obtained).Further, as said above, an official stated that 2, 00,000 tea saplingsenter Gudalur every day, presumably for planting on freshly clearedareas.

Gudalur's diverse and complex wildlife is also under threat. As theirhabitat shrinks, increasing numbers of wild animals are enteringhuman habitations and being killed. According to Forest Departmentreports, many elephants have been shot or fallen victim to boobytraps in recent months. Leopards and tigers have also been poached.The large landholders, including the land grabbers, use electricfences to 'protect' their lands; the team saw one such fence during itssite visit on June 16th. Though such fences should be held at lowvoltages so as to administer a mild shock, these fences are allegedlygiven supply directly from the electric mains. The resulting shocks arepowerful enough to kill elephants and other animals that may try tocross them. Mr. Murugesan of O'Valley Panchayat told us thatelephants that have died in this manner have sometimes beenclassified as 'lightning deaths', often because of pressure on forestofficials.

Further, rainfall in Gudalur has apparently fallen drastically. Duringthe four days of the team's visit, rain showers were frequent butintermittent and generally brief. We were told that water flow to therivers has become more variable, and that some formerly perennialstreams now dry at certain times of year.

During the site visit the team saw visible environmental damage insome areas, including freshly cut stumps, roads running throughforests, and a recently constructed large house (allegedly by Mr.

James Jacob, an advocate from Calicut) in the middle of the O'Valleyforests on the edge of the Pandiar river. There is a striking contrastbetween the Tamil Nadu and Kerala portions of the mountains.

Finally, Mr. Jacob Matthews informed us that contempt applicationsare pending before the Supreme Court and will be taken up whenTamil Nadu comes up for consideration in WP 202/95. He believesthis will make a tremendous difference in the ground situation.

Social Issues

Mr. Murugesan, Vice Chairman of the O'Valley Panchayat, told usthat there had been 76 suicides in Gudalur in the previous sixmonths. He alleged that land grabbing had created considerableemotional and social tension between Gudalur residents.

In addition, land grabbers are increasingly importing weapons andhiring goondas to threaten their opponents. Mr. Selvaraj told us of twomurders that the grabbers are alleged to have committed. In the firstcase, a forest guard named Raju witnessed the killing of an elephantand registered a case, but he failed to arrive in court to testify. Hisbody was found in the forest; he had apparently been hanged from atree. The police registered the death as a suicide. In the secondinstance, a former RDO by the name of Suresh was poisoned whenhe was investigating illegal tree felling. Other interviewees mentionedthat these are far from the only killings that have taken place.Further, earlier this year, several Forest Department guns wereapparently stolen in Namakkal district. We were told by localreporters that those guns have now shown up in Gudalur, and thepolice are investigating how they arrived in the area.

Mr. Selvaraj, the officials who spoke to us and some leaders of theVTMS have all apparently also received threats. Mr. Selvaraj statedthat he has been followed, and he alleges that the Tehsildar hasspread false rumors that he has defaulted on loans and is being

hunted by the police. He stated that false police complaints havebeen filed against him, which in one case resulted in his arrest anddetention for a day.

We were also told that many Dalit smallholders have had their landstaken over by land grabbers, and in many other cases they havebeen evicted by the Forest Department. Smallholders' desperation forpattas or other forms of legal recognition has become extreme; duringour visit the team was twice asked if we had come to issue pattas.Adivasi communities, meanwhile, find themselves similarlysandwiched between expanding land encroachments and the ForestDepartment, and they have been largely pushed off their lands. Manyadivasi families been reduced to begging in the streets, and in somecases forced into commercial sex work.

POSSIBLE LONG TERM MEASURES

Proposed Solutions

Several tentative interim solutions were proposed to the team. Beforedetailing them, we note briefly that all of these efforts would requirean amendment of Section 17.

Grant of Pattas to Existing Cultivators

When asked for their suggestions, Mr. Chandramohan and Mr. KoshyBaby both argued that pattas should be granted to those who arecurrently cultivating the land and in de facto ownership. After thegrant of pattas in this fashion, any encroachment should be halted.However, Mr. Chandramohan argued that any person who hadencroached on to Section 53 lands should be evicted immediately.

Mr. Chandramohan also stated that Mr. Millar and other Ministers hadheld a high level meeting in Chennai on the issue on Tuesday, June

11th. At this meeting they apparently decided to go ahead with asolution on these lines, possibly by amending Section 17.

Mr. Baby took the position that pattas should be granted to houseowners first, then landholders with less than 3 acres, and othersshould only be considered after those two processes were complete.

Grant of Pattas to Small Owners and Eviction of Land Grabbers

VTMS members and Mr. Murugesan of O'Valley Panchayat favored adifferent proposal. They argued that the current crisis had beentriggered not by general encroachment but by the activities of theland grabbers. Hence, they said that the government should grantpattas to small landholders so as to protect their lands fromexpropriation. This would also give these families a secure livelihood.However, they believed that the large-scale land-grabbers should beevicted from their property and that property either retained togovernment hands or redistributed to landless families. Mr.Murugesan stressed that a blanket grant of pattas on the basis ofextant 'possession' would only benefit the land grabbers.

New Perambulation and Determination of Rights

The Collector, Ms. Supriya Sahu, and Mr. Jayaraman, SettlementOfficer, Ooty, both argued that the first step should be a fresh surveyand perambulation of the area so as to determine the exact status ofthe lands. Mr. Jayaraman stated that the June 11th meeting inChennai had ordered that such a perambulation to take place.Following that, any fresh encroachments (esp. those after 2000)should be evicted and further encroachment prevented.

The Collector stated that her office is already taking a number ofsteps on this issue. Two battalions of the Tamil Nadu Special Policehave been provided in order to protect the forests. These battalions

had earlier been placed at the disposal of DFO Deepak Srivastava forhis use during evictions; they are still waiting for the new DFO to beposted and, in the meanwhile, are being used by the districtadministration along with regular police. The forest, revenue andpolice officials have been told to strictly implement the SupremeCourt interim orders in WP 202/95. The perambulation has begunand 4500 acres surveyed so far. Meanwhile, a proposal has beensent to the State government to request that they amend the JanmomAct to convert Section 53 lands into reserved forests, and that theyamend Section 17 to allow for a final settlement of the land problemby the district administration.

Adivasi Rights

Mr. B.J. Krishnan, Advocate, raised one issue with regard to thesolution of the land issue. These lands were all originally under thecontrol of the local adivasi communities before the land came underNilambur Kovilagam, and, subsequently, the present estates. Thusthe leaseholders of the Kovilagam, who are now arguing that theirland claims should be given primary consideration, are not in fact theprimary owners. Further they have themselves all encroached onsurrounding lands and indulged in heavy deforestation and illegalfelling. As such, the rights of the adivasi communities should be givenprimacy in any land settlement, and the large land grabbers, theestates and the plantations should all be evicted from the area.

Though this issue did not receive much importance in our otherconversations, we regard it is as a major element in the problem. Asmentioned in the Introduction, approximately 25,000 Adivasis live inthe Gudalur area, and according to Mr. BJ Krishnan their land rightshave been totally ignored. According to a 1989 study of the Nilgirisdistrict, 40 percent of adivasi households have lost 35 percent of theirlands. The complex battle over Section 17, lease holdings, landgrabbing, encroachment, forest lands, and so on seems to have leftthe Adivasis out of the equation.

As an example, when preparing to leave Gudalur, the team almostaccidentally met an adivasi family (headed by Mr. Ketan and residingnear the village of Chalivaiyal) who allegedly had been forciblyevicted from their houses and farmlands three times in the last threemonths. The evictions were performed by a neighboring estate, whichcontinually expanded its area and tried to take over their lands. Eachtime an eviction took place, the Adivasis stated, they were beaten,their houses demolished and their property destroyed. One sucheviction had taken place on the morning before we met them.Incidents such as this were common and frequently reported.

FINDINGS

Given the complexity of the matter, the investigation produced datathat broadly fits into three different categories: first, information aboutspecific incidents or individuals, second, ground realities, and third,policy issues. The findings below are divided accordingly.

Findings related to specific incidents or individuals

The appointment of Mr. Chandramohan as GovernmentPleader (Forests), Gudalur, was made with ulterior motives andwill be detrimental to efforts at halting forest destruction.

The grant of pattas to nine individuals by Mr. Pandurangan,former ASO (Dharapuram), was illegal and gave apparentlegitimacy to large scale land grabbing.

There have been efforts, both from within and outside thegovernment, to silence committed officials in the ForestDepartment, including Mr. Prem Sagar, Mr. Kundan, Mr.Krishnakumar and the former DFO, Mr. Srivastava.

The appointment of Mr. Ulaganathan as the current in-chargefor the Forest Department will be a hindrance to forestprotection.

Those who have been raising the issues of land grabbing anddeforestation, such as VTMS and honest officials, have been

subjected to threats and intense pressure to halt their campaignfor justice.

Mr. Millar, Minister of Tourism, has attempted to interfere in thefunctioning of the Forest Department.

Ground realities

There is extensive land grabbing by Kerala Christians andKerala Muslims in Gudalur, both by new individuals and by theold leaseholders.

There is a nexus between officials, political leaders, and landgrabbers in Gudalur. This nexus extends to the Stategovernment and has not only shielded these offenders, but hasallowed them to manipulate the legislative and administrativemachinery in their favor.

The local government departments, including the RevenueDepartment, the Forest Department, and the police, have notonly, not fulfilled their mandated roles but also visibly charadeas if they are themselves members of the land and forestmafias. There were some partial exceptions, such as Mr.Srivastava’s period, but the general pattern is one of neglect.

The judges were paid by these land grabbers and the districtcourt injunction orders have played a major role in allowing landgrabbing to continue.

Political parties have almost uniformly shielded the landgrabbers.

Small land holders, whether the land is held legally or illegally,have been under pressure both from land grabbers and fromthe authorities.

Supreme Court orders in Writ Petition 202/95 have beenignored and violated.

There is extensive forest destruction occurring in Gudalur. Thisposes a severe threat to local livelihoods and to the farmers ofthe Kaveri basin. Local species and biodiversity are also beingdestroyed.

Local adivasi communities, and to a slightly lesser extent SriLankan repatriates and Dalits, have been marginalized and leftwith no means of livelihood. The constitution of reserved forestsand the Janmom Act processes have all ignored the rights ofAdivasis to their lands.

Land grabbers have been involved in a rapidly rising crimewave in Gudalur, including murders and assaults.

Policy issues

The presence of Section 17 and the confusion surrounding ithave severely exacerbated the land grabbing problem.

There are steps being taken at a State government level toproduce a final settlement in favor of the land grabbers,probably sometime in the near future. The appointments of Mr.Chandramohan and Mr. Ulaganathan and the transfer of Mr.Srivastava are indicators of this.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As with the findings, our recommendations are split into two parts:issues concerning individuals and specific incidents and issues ofwider policy.

Specific Incidents and Individuals

Mr. Chandramohan should be removed from the post ofGovernment Pleader (Forests), Gudalur Division, as soon aspossible. He should be replaced by an advocate who enjoys thesupport of all sections concerned.

The government should make every effort to have the grant ofpattas by Mr. Pandurangan, ASO (Dharapuram), cancelled andto evict the landholders in question.

A new DFO should be appointed for the Gudalur region; thisofficer should have a proven track record in combating land andforest 'mafias'.

Efforts to pressure silence or intimidate government (andespecially forest) officers in Gudalur should be halted.Transfers should be undertaken only after a transparentprocess where the reason for the transfer is made known to theofficer and the public.

Threats aimed at the former DFO, VTMS members, officialsand others in the local area should be fully investigated and theindividuals given protection if necessary.

On the same lines, the registration of false cases against poorfamilies, officials, or social justice activists should be halted byadministrative action. An inquiry into the number of such falsecases and their origins should be initiated.

Criminal prosecution should be initiated in cases where bogusor false documents have been submitted to prove landownership. Where this fraud was perpetrated with officialassistance, enquiries and action should be initiated against theofficials in question.

Public hearings should be conducted and complaints invited inregards to corrupt officials and dereliction of duty. Action shouldbe taken against colluding and corrupt officials on the basis ofthese complaints and hearings.

Government pleaders should be asked to ensure that anyapplication for an injunction in the district court is dismissed. Ifinjunctions are granted, they should be vacated as soon aspossible.

Wider Policy Issues

The findings of this investigation and the overall problem in Gudalurrevolve around four interrelated but distinct foci. These are:

Right to livelihood: the right of landless families and farmers tohave access to land for cultivation and for maintaining theirlivelihood. This applies particularly to the repatriates from SriLanka, who is already in a disadvantaged position.

Adivasi and community land rights: the rights of adivasicommunities over their traditional lands.

Land ownership and title: the question of establishing who'owns' these lands.

Environmental protection: the protection of Gudalur's uniqueenvironment and natural heritage, both for its intrinsic value andfor its role as the watershed for large parts of Tamil Nadu andthe neighboring states of Kerala and Karnataka as well.

Given these interrelationships, the team feels strongly that this cannotsimply be seen as an issue of land settlement. All four questions haveto be addressed before Gudalur's problems will be any nearer to asolution.

Further, some of our interviewees suggested than a fullimplementation of 'the law as it stands' would itself supply the solutionto the problem. We find ourselves unable to agree.

A very brief sketch of the legal position on each of these issuesis as follows:

Right to livelihood: Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitutionguarantees all Indian citizens the right to a livelihood. Accordingto the Supreme Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. Unionof India, this includes the right to cultivate for agriculturists. Inthe case of the Sri Lankan repatriates, the provisions of theSirimavo - Shastri Pact will apply as well.

Adivasi and community land rights: Under Article 244(1) of theConstitution, all Scheduled Tribes (including the Adivasis ofGudalur) should be governed in accordance with the FifthSchedule. Paragraph 5(2) of the Fifth Schedule is clear that oneof the Schedule's objects is the prevention of the alienation of

adivasi lands and restoration of alienated lands. Though TamilNadu has yet to enact any law in this regard, and is in fact theonly State that has not done so, the Constitutional provisionsstill apply.

Land ownership and title: Section 17 of the Janmom Act impliesthat much of Gudalur taluka is now under governmentownership. Since all leases are expected to expire soon, underthe law there will soon be no legitimate alternative claimants.The question of whether or not Section 17 should be amendedtherefore arises.

Environmental protection: the position on this issue has beendetailed in the body of the report.

In terms of resolving the issue, a literal or unimaginative reading ofthe law is thus of little help. The law embodies several competingclaims; we must find a democratic and just way to resolve all of themand to ensure that all individuals' rights are protected. Therecommendations are framed in light of this basic premise, andare as follows:

Adivasi Rights

Since Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes are the first settlers, it would bepertinent to provide them first priority in settling their rights,irrespective of whether they have any official records to prove theirrights of possession of land or of other rights to their traditionalterritories for purposes of grazing, cultivation, collection of forestproducts etc. Further, we stress that their rights should be settled inline with the provisions of the Constitution, irrespective of whethertheir rights are claimed in Reserved Forests declared under theTamilnadu Forest Act 1882, Sec.53 or Sec. 17 or any other sectionsof the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion intoRyotwari) Act 1969, or notified under Sec 4 of The TamilnaduPreservation of Private Forest Act 1949. This is because:

(a) The government (the district authorities and forest department) didnot in all honesty and fairness follows the procedures as enjoined bylaw in recording their traditional rights or ensuring that the intensionsof the procedures prescribed themselves were fulfilled. The STs werealso not adequately informed and enabled to make use of the setprocedures.

(b) Even where the authorities attempted to follow the laws andassociated rules, the STs were not in a position to understand thelaws and rules associated with this to ensure that their interests wereprotected and thus were unable to use them as well.

(c) It was the bounden duty of the government to extend specialprotection to ST interests, which it has failed to carry out eitherthrough appropriate administrative orders or legislations.

As such, the rights that have been hitherto restricted or completelyextinguished should be restored fully. Further displacement ofAdivasis will be a gross violation of their rights and a hindrance topeace and good governance.

As we noted above, Article 244(1) further enjoins some specificrequirements for the government. Though no area in Tamil Nadu hasbeen declared a Scheduled Area (which is in itself a denial ofAdivasis' rights), the right of the Scheduled Tribes to self-rule andcontrol over their affairs is an established legal fact. The provisions ofthe Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996, whichrecognizes the right of village gram sabhas and community bodies tocontrol resources and protect community rights, are a demonstrationof that. So far this Act has remained a dead letter as far as this Stateis concerned. Implementing its provisions would be an excellent firststep towards recognizing Adivasis' rights in the State.

Thus we recommend that the following steps be taken:

The State Cabinet should pass a resolution requesting that aScheduled Area be constituted in the State, encompassing alladivasi settlements in the State. Parliament can in turnempower the President to issue such a declaration.

Every process of land settlement or settlement of rights shouldtake account of adivasi traditional and community rights as thefirst priority.

The Tamil Nadu government should take steps to passlegislation preventing the alienation of adivasi lands andrestoration of alienated lands, as has every other State. Suchlegislation is implied by Article 244(1) and is a dire necessity.

Livelihood Rights

The issue of access to agricultural land is a critical one for themajority of Gudalur’s population. A simple decision to evict allencroachments on Section 17 would thus result in great harm tothousands of families in the taluka. We therefore recommend thatthe process of land rights settlement should proceed as follows:

As an initial step, there should be a publicity campaignexplaining the provisions of Section 17, particularly how it barsthe grant of pattas and the alienation of local land. Thiscampaign should be supported by public statements from thehighest levels of government, perhaps the Chief Ministerherself. Residents should also be informed that deceivingpeople with fake documents is a criminal offense and they caninitiate police proceedings if they are victims of such fraud.

If families have encroached on land for purposes of theirlivelihood or if the land is their main source of livelihood, suchcases should be deemed to be a special category andsympathetically considered for settlement and guarantee ofthese families' legal rights to such lands. This is irrespective ofany documentary evidence that may or may not exist. The teambelieves this recommendation would be largely applicable to

sections such as Adivasis, Dalits, plantation laborers,agricultural laborers, small and marginal farmers and the poor.The team stresses that there should be no criminal actioninitiated against these individuals.

Encroachers who do not fall into the above category should beevicted and criminal cases registered against them.

Special consideration should be given to Mountaden Chettisand other disadvantaged communities in the local area.

The determination of which encroachers fall into which categoryshould be done by a survey commission, as was done inneighboring Kerala. The commission should be composed ofsenior officials with experience in issues of Dalit rights, adivasirights and the rights of the poor. Local bodies such asPanchayat and local organizations should be given a primaryrole in gathering data and assisting the survey.

Across all of Tamil Nadu, similar procedures should be followedto settle the status of lands that come under analogousRyotwari and Janmom Abolition Acts.

Sri Lankan Repatriates

Since Sri Lankan Repatriates form a sizeable section of thepopulation and are often disadvantaged because of their origins, theirsituation should be considered separately. The Sirimavo - ShastriPact under which these sections of people have been brought hereshould also be one specific base on which to formulate the needs forthem. It would be relevant here to make an assessment of theprovisions of the Pact to which the government is obliged to fulfill.What are the relevant provisions? To what extent have they beenfulfilled? What are the areas where the provisions have either notbeen fulfilled or tardily fulfilled? These are to be considered whiledetermining the issue of settlement of their rights.

The following steps were recommended to the government:

An assessment of the provisions of the Sirimavo - Shastri Pactand the extent to which they have been implemented,especially in the context of Gudalur.

The release of all documentation, reports, internal documents,monitoring reports and so on that relate to this issue. A judicialinquiry into the conditions of the repatriates is also necessary.

Once this assessment and inquiry are complete, the repatriates'rights can be settled through a community process (see below)and with respect for their human rights, Constitutional rightsand rights under the Pact. There should be no discriminationagainst repatriates in the settlement process.

Estates and Plantations

There remains the issue of the large non-individual landholders,including the leaseholders and the estates. The team believes thatallowing the plantation and estate system to continue as now wouldbe both inimical to social justice in the area and a major hindrance toefforts at halting encroachment and protection of the forests.

Hence we recommend:

A land ceiling legislation for land under the category of'plantation' is enacted.

In Sec 17 lands, as all leases have either expired or about toexpire, the government should not renew these leases. Insteadthe land should be taken over by the government anddistributed to the landless, with the guarantee that thegovernment will ensure that support will be provided to ensurethe continued productivity of the land until the beneficiary familyis self-sufficient. The beneficiaries may also be given the optionof forming cooperatives if they so desire.

Laborers and lower level employees of such plantations shouldbe given first consideration in land distribution.

Environmental Protection

The Forest Department and other government authorities havesingularly failed to protect the forests of Gudalur. As long as Adivasisinhabited the forests with their sustainable lifestyles, the forestsremained intact. The centralized government bureaucracy has beenunable to effectively act in most cases and has become a haven ofcorruption and nepotism.

The activity of private and government estates has been a furtherproblem. In particular, the dependency on tea as the primary crop hasbeen a major factor in this destruction. Further, the ongoing tea crisishas caused a great deal of tension in the District as a whole andspecifically in Gudalur. The large numbers of people who depend onwage labor have seen their jobs vanishing, the number ofemployment days per year falling, the wage rate dropping,mechanization leading to job losses, and the number of workinghours and average workload increasing.

We therefore recommend that the following steps be taken:

The Supreme Court's orders in Writ Petition 202/95 should bestrictly implemented. The Collector's steps in that directionshould be supported by political and administrative steps fromabove.

Forest conservation should be handed over to a CommunityForest Management system, with local forest councils andpanchayats having powers to ensure conservation.

Tea and other cash/export-oriented crops should be phased outand replaced by food crops, especially those suitable for localconsumption. Any steps at introducing other cash crops (vanillawas one example that was mentioned) should be halted.

Appendix ILIST OF LAND GRABBERSThis should not be taken as a final compilation of names.Name Area Panchayat

Where LandGrabbed

Party Affiliation

Ponnaiya Nadar 25 acresChandramohan 150 acres (along

with M.K. Gounder)Devala AIADMK President, Anna MGR

Thottathozhilalar SangamK.P. Mohammed Congress Taluka President;

Gudalur Panchayat UnionChairman

“Brandy Shop”Babu

33 acres O’Valley

Kochikunnil 228 acres Padanthurai(477/1)

Congress

Marickar Haji 112 acres Padanthurai(27/3)

Congress

Jose KuttySyedMohammed

Padanthurai TMC

Unnipokkar Haji Padanthurai TMC“Karadi”Mohideen

Padanthurai TMC

Yella Hamsa Padanthurai TMCMoosa Padanthurai TMCS. Hanifa Padanthurai DMKGowrishankar 700 acres PandalurElavankudiPoulosePP YakoobBhaskaran DMKIbrahimGovindanHamidMajid 300 acresDuraiMohammed Ali O’ValleyAimu HajiMohammed HajiRavindranSowkarAminThangamani

RamanathanVeluHanifaMathaiPappan aliasThomasSeban O’Valley,

Pandalur etc.ADMK

James Jacob 500 acres O’ValleyAshraf MoopanAbu Baker

On the basis of court injunctions, the following individuals haveobtained possession certificates from local VAO’s. All land thatis listed comes under Section 17.

Sl. No O.S No Name ofplaintiffs

Possessioncertificatesissued bywhom and date

Survey numberand name ofvillage

1.

2.3.4.

5.6.7.

8.

9.10.

11.

12.

115/2000

189/199768/1999123/1998

128/2000117/2000166/96

95/1995

107/1995109/1995

157/1998

76/1988

B.Rajkumar andRavindranS.AyyappanKandaswamyK.P Babu

SyedMohammedMoosaM.T Kuriakoseand 3 othersKumaravelu

ManoharanAboobakker andSalimKunhikrishnanKurup andRadhakrishnanM.K Kareem

VAO – 1995

VAO – 20.7.89VAO – 20.6.90VAO – 15.6.77and 10.6.80VAO – 8.12.95VAO – 8.2.95VAO - -

VAO – 14.7.91

VAO – 1.2.85VAO – 16.8.91and 21.8.91Tahsildar –27.9.83

VAO – 12.8.85

28 ofPadanthurai

-277/54 ofGudalur121/1A1A ofGudalur

477/1 ofPadanthurai477/1 ofPadanthurai29 of O’Valley

46B/1A1A3A1of O’Valley301/1 of Devala46B/1A1A3 ofO’Valley46B/1A1A3 ofO’Valley

93/B1A1A ofDevala

APPENDIX IICASE S.R. 7/80: AREAS GRANTED PATTA BY ASSISTANT SETTLEMENTOFFICER, DHARAPURAM, IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 1998

ASO Order Noand Date

Claimant’s Name Extent for whichpatta granted

Survey No. andVillage

OC B/1883/93dated 09.11.1998

ROC B/498/98dated 11.11.1998

S.R 7/80 dated23.12.1998

S.R No.7/80 dated30.12.1998

S.R No. 7/80dated 23.12.1998

C. Marakkar s/oChannathmohan

R.N.Murugesan

Velayuthan NairNeelakandanNamboothiriVallikattu RamanKrishnanNamboothiri(Power agent K.AJoan)

ErranikkalVeerankuttyK.K IthapiriK.Gangadharan

P.BalagangadharanNair

K.T VeerankuttyHajiT.K MohammadAloshi AugustineSali A. Sunny

do –Sheeba Philip

112 acre

5.08 acres28.78 acres

250 acres

77.65 acres24.70 acres26.88 acres

200 acres

128 acres17.103 acres3.335 acres3.312 acres3.335 acres2.026 acres

27/3 Padanthurai

477/1477/9 - do –

46B/1A1A3ofO’Valley

570571 - do -567

555/5556/1 - do –556/246B/1A1A3

do –66/2 Mudumalai

do –do-

66/1 Mudumalai

APPENDIX IIIAREAS EVICTED DURING DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA’S TENURE AS DFOS.No Name of the Village Area evicted in

acres1.2.3.4.5.

PadanthuraiDevalaO’ValleyNelliyalamCherumulliTOTAL

406.2550.60152.0039.5015.00663.25