A.D.Johnson vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P, J

The petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Tribe Community. The Government of Kerala had promulgated a scheme for providing financial

assistance to ‘landless’ members of Scheduled Tribe communities to purchase land in terms of conditions stipulated in Government Orders

dated 3.9.2013 and 23.10.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the scheme’). The petitioner identified a plot of land which he intended to purchase

in terms of the scheme. His name also finds a place in the list of applicants being considered for grant of benefits under the scheme. It is the case of

the petitioner that he had entered into Ext.P2 agreement for the purchase of land identified by him for purchase under the scheme.

Through Ext.P4, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why his application for benefits under the scheme should not be rejected as he was

found to have purposefully misled the authorities in as much as he was not a landless person to whom alone the scheme could be extended. It was

alleged that he had land in a place called 'Maniyarankudy' in Idukki Village. It was also alleged that the petitioner had earlier availed financial benefit

from the Government for putting up a house in the land at 'Maniyarankudy'. Ext.P6 report dated 7.8.2014 of the Village Officer, Idukki Village

showed that the petitioner had in possession 1.5 acres of land, for which he had no 'pattayam' and which land he had sold about two years prior to the

date of Ext.P.6.

Through Ext.P7, the petitioner had represented to the District Collector, Idukki District that the land at 'Maniyarankudy' belongs to his brother, who

had permitted him to put up a residence therein and that he had sold the land to meet the expenses of the marriage of his daughter. Ext.P8 certificate

issued by the Village Officer, Idukki, on 14.3.2003 states that the petitioner has no land at 'Maniyarankudy' in Idukki Village. To the same effect is

Ext.P8(a) certificate issued by the Tribal Extension Officer, Idukki. Through Ext.P11 communication issued by the District Collector, Idukki on

2.12.2014, the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible to purchase land under the scheme. Ext.P11 also enclosed the report of the Project

Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Project, Idukki, dated 28.8.2014, which was the basis for the finding that the petitioner is not entitled to

the benefits of the scheme. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction to the respondents to

consider him as eligible for the benefit of the scheme.

The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit dated 6.6.2015 and an additional counter affidavit dated 23.11.2020. The counter-affidavit dated

6.6.2015 is categoric in asserting that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the scheme since he was not a ‘landless’ member of a

Scheduled Tribe Community. It is also stated that the petitioner had availed financial assistance for the construction of a house from the Scheduled

Tribe Development Department, on the land under his possession at 'Maniyarankudy' in Idukki Village. It is stated that he has sold out only a portion

of the property at 'Maniyarankudi' and had moved to 'Chinnakkanal' Village. It is also stated that the petitioner had availed several benefits from the

Scheduled Tribe Development Department, as a resident of Idukki Village and had fraudulently obtained a certificate from the Village Officer of

'Chinnakkanal' Village that he was a landless person belonging to a Schedule Tribe Community. It is also pointed out that in terms of the Kerala

Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, the sale of land by the petitioner is invalid and the petitioner

cannot be afforded the status of a landless person for availing benefits under the Scheme.

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit in response to the averments in the counter-affidavit dated 6.6.2015 where he states that the land at

'Maniyarankudy' belonged to his brother and that he had availed financial assistance to construct a house on the land belonging to his brother. He also

states that the land at 'Maniyarankudy' in the possession of his brother was not a land in respect of which either he or his brother had been issued with

any 'pattayam'. He also reiterates that Exts.P8 and Ext.P8(a) cannot be brushed aside in any manner. He also relies on Ext.P13 circular, which states

that members of the Scheduled Tribe Communities, who own upto 10 cents of land will be treated as ‘landless’ for the purposes of extending

the benefits of the scheme and therefore, that even if the house in 'Maniyarankudy' is taken into consideration, he will be entitled to the benefits of the

scheme. He also states that several ineligible persons, who have earlier sold their lands, have been given the benefits under the scheme. He also states

that the provisions of the Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, has no application as he has never sold

any land.

In the additional counter affidavit dated 30.11.2020 sworn to by the District Collector, Idukki, it is submitted that the petitioner had been in

possession of almost 1.5 acres of 'non-patta' land at 'Maniyarankudy' in Idukki Village and this was revealed during the enquiry. A certificate dated

19.3.2008 issued by the Tribal Extension Officer, Idukki has been produced as Ext.R2(a) to show that the petitioner had availed financial assistance

for the construction of a house at 'Maniyarankudy'. It is reiterated that the petitioner is still in possession of some land at 'Maniyarankudy', after having

sold some portion of the land together with the house constructed thereon and that he was also availing the benefits from the SC/ST Development

Department as a resident of Idukki Village till 2004-2005. Reference is also made to the report of the Village Officer dated 7.8.2014 [Ext.P6 - also

produced as Ext.R2(c)] to establish that the petitioner cannot be treated as a landless person for extending the benefit of the scheme. Reference is

also made to Ext.R2(d) which is a statement given by the petitioner himself before the 'Empowered Committee' constituted to consider the

applications under the scheme, wherein he clearly admitted that the property at 'Maniyarankudy' was sold to one 'Sony Manappurath' for consideration

of Rs.1.80 lakhs after which he had migrated to Chinnakkanal Village.

The petitioner has filed a reply to the additional counter affidavit again reiterating the submission regarding the land at 'Maniyarankudy', availing of

the financial assistance to construct a house etc. and also referring Ext.P16 and Ext.P16(a) to contend that he had never owned or possessed any land

at 'Maniyarankudy'. Ext.P16 is an application made by the son of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, to the Village Officer, Idukki

seeking details of land, if any, under ownership and/or possession by his father, the petitioner herein. Ext.P16(a) is the reply given under the Right to

Information Act, which states that as per the records available with the Village Officer, the petitioner, Sri. A.D. Johnson does not have any land with

'pattayam' at 'Maniyarankudy' in Idukki Village and further that there is no register regarding land in possession of any person other than by way of

'pattayam'.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader at length, I am of the view that the only question to

be considered is whether the petitioner could be treated as a ‘landless person’ for availing the benefits of the scheme. It is not disputed that the

scheme was intended only for the benefit of persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community, who do not own or possess any land. Ext.P13

Circular applies only if a person in question has or had less than 10 cents of land in his possession. Upon reading of Ext.R2(d) and the averments in

the additional counter affidavit dated 23.11.2020, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P13 for the reason that he

admits that he had sold 20 cents of land together with a house to one 'Sony Manappurath' for a sum of Rs.1.80 lakhs. It is a common case that the

land at 'Maniyarankudy' was not a land in respect of which any 'pattayam' had been issued to any person and therefore, there will be no record of any

sale by the petitioner. Therefore, nothing turns on Ext.P16(a). As is evident from several cases filed before this Court in respect of lands in Munnar-

Idukki District, several persons are holding and enjoying the lands without any title documents and these lands are also sold and purchased on a regular

basis, though the persons in occupation have no semblance of title. [See the pleadings and judgment in W.P.(C)No.3019/2015 disposed of by me on

18.01.2021 and the pleadings in R.P.No.163/2021 filed in that writ petition]. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.R2(d)

statement was given under duress and coercion, I note from Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector that he had

admitted therein that he had sold the land held by him at 'Maniyarankudy' for meeting the wedding expenses of his daughter. Therefore it is extremely

difficult to accept the case of the petitioner that Ext.R2(d) was given under coercion and duress. The petitioner also does not dispute the fact that he

had availed financial assistance for putting up a house at 'Maniyarankudy'. The petitioner was, therefore, clearly not entitled to the benefits of the

scheme and he had falsely represented himself to be a ‘landless’ member of a Scheduled Tribe Community. His application for benefits of the

scheme was, therefore, rightly rejected by Ext.P11. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.