Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29281
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
ANNAKKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29887/2013
The court underscored the obligation of the state to consider rehabilitation measures for landless tribals in alignment with existing laws and policies.
Headnote:
Rehabilitation - Tribal Rights - N/A - The court directed expeditious consideration of rehabilitation measures for Adivasi petitioners, recognizing the need for protection under existing policies and providing an opportunity for petitioners' representation.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, recognized as Adivasees from Scheduled Tribes, claimed eviction from their lands for hydroelectric projects and sought rehabilitation in available government lands suitable for cultivation.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the petitioners' claims and previous judgments addressing their situation, indicating a need for the District Collector to expedite the rehabilitation process for the tribal communities.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation and protection from eviction from their lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for balancing state actions with the rights of landless tribals, reinforcing the policy framework intended for their protection.
Final Decision: Writ petition is disposed of with directions for rehabilitation.
J U D G M E N T
---------------------
Petitioners claim to be Adivasees belonging to Muthuvan, Mannan and Mala Araya Communities, which are included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted by the petitioners that they are residing in reserve forests in different parts of Idukki District. It is further submitted that they were evicted on different occasions for Hydro Electric Projects like Idukki Hydro Electric Projects. The petitioners point out that large tract in Perinchankutty area in Konnthady Village, Undumpunchola Taluk, is available as Government land suitable for cultivation and also for residence. It is further submitted that the above land was given to the 6th and 7th respondents to raise bamboo cultivation earlier on lease, and the same was removed and lease agreement was not renewed. It is further submitted that petitioners and other tribals constructed a temporary shed and raised cultivation like tapioca, ginger, pepper vine, aracanut, plantain etc. When W.P.(C).Nos. 29887 of 2013 & 2775 of 2014 the petitioners were threatened with dispossession by the Forest Department, the petitioners approached this Court. This Court as per the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34454/2011 passed an order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners in that case until alternate land is given to them. It is alleged that the same is pending till now for consideration. The petitioners submit that there were criminal cases against them for resisting illegal eviction of the Forest Department. The petitioner further submit that on 9.10.2013, the District Collector Idukki convened a meeting and decided to rehabilitate the petitioner and other tribals in Perinchankutty and the 5th mile Mamalakandam in Mankulam Village and Manchumala. It is further submitted that 4th and 5th respondent are entrusted with the task of taking necessary steps to rehabilitate the petitioners and other landless tribals.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners are tribals and claiming rehabilitation.
It appears that some policy decision has been taken to W.P.(C).Nos. 29887 of 2013 & 2775 of 2014 rehabilitate the landless tribals. This is reflected in Ext.P7 judgment of this Cout in W.P.(C) 37069/2010. I am of the view that the grievances espoused require expeditious consideration by the District Collector, Idukki.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be a direction to the District Collector to take appropriate steps and decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say the petitioners or the representatives shall be given an opportunity of hearing in this matter.
Writ petition is disposed of.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/
