THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The dispute over land holders in Vattavada-Kottakamboor villages in Idukki continues to haunt the government with the Revenue and Forest Departments having differences of opinion over their eviction. Moreover, Forest Minister K Raju is said to have filed a report with the Chief Minister even as Revenue Minister E Chandrasekharan, who is said to be the convenor of the ministerial team that visited Vattavada-Kottakamboor villages, is yet to finalise the report.
A government source said it is mysterious that the Forest Minister has filed a report well before the Revenue Minister, who is only consolidating the report of the visit. During the visit, it was the Revenue Minister who guided the team and briefed about the visit to the media. ‘’There’s something mysterious in the filing of the report. The Revenue Minister was the one who was entrusted with the task of filing the report at the next meeting to be held in the first week of January 2018. Moreover, the Revenue Minister was the senior-most member of the team, who was directed to take the lead,’’ the source said.
In the report, the Forest Department is said to be of the view that no settlers should be forcibly evicted, which is contradictory to the Revenue Department’s stand that only settlers who prove their claim over the land can stay back.
The difference of opinion is likely to be reflected in the high-level meeting the Chief Minister has called. A highly placed source says the meeting is going to be crucial with the two ministers taking different stands.The Revenue Department is of the opinion that only genuine farmers should be allowed to stay back and all others should be evicted. Moreover, they are for holding a social survey involving a multi-disciplinary departmental team to identify the legacy of the settlers in the sanctuary region.
The highly placed source says the Revenue Minister, at the time of the visit to the region, had stated openly in the presence of the Forest Minister and Power Minister M M Mani that genuine settlers would not be evicted. However, the source says the Forest Minister’s report to the Chief Minister was contrary to the stand taken by the ministerial team.
The Forest Minister is said to have stated in the report that the area of the proposed sanctuary would be less than the proposed notification of 3,200 hectares but did not say anything further. However, the Revenue Department, which is for retaining 3,200 hectares under the sanctuary, has proposed that if the extent could not be met in the resurvey, it would think of taking up the areas in adjoining blocks which have similar agro-climatic conditions.
The CPI leadership is learnt to have taken a serious note of the situation. The majority of the leadership is of the opinion that the Forest Minister’s stand was against the party line and was just the opposite of what its state secretary Kanam Rajendran said. The CPI has to bring in a consensus between the two leaders ahead of the meeting called by the Chief Minister.
Meanwhile speaking to Express, both Revenue Minister E Chandrasekharan and Forest Minister K Raju said a final decision on the Kurinji sanctuary issue would be taken only at the Chief Minister’s meeting in January. Chandrasekharan said there is no dispute between the two departments over the issue. “Since the notification over the Kurinji, the Forest Department is the custodian of the land. The government has a general policy about the homeless and landless people. Those who have genuine land rights and have been staying there even before the notification will not be evicted,” he said. Raju too pointed out that there are many who have been staying inside the sanctuary for long. “Those in the core area would be rehabilitated. Also the rights of those who have been staying for long need to be protected. The settlement officer, after going through the land records, will take appropriate decision as per norms,” Raju said.
The report says
The area of the proposed sanctuary would be less than the proposed notification of 3,200 hectares. However, according to the Revenue Department, if the extent could not be met in the resurvey, it would think of taking up the areas in adjoining blocks