By Our Staff Reporter

ELURU, Sept.23 The verification of land ownership in the agency villages did not make much headway on the first day on Wednesday at Doramamidi in Buttayagudem mandal with the CPI (M) leaders seeking more time for perusal of land records.

The CPI(M) was found seriously handicapped by not having the support of technical people who could help them in probing the Land Transfer Regulation violatioins and irregularities in issuing of settlement pattas.

Instead, the leaders sought physical verification of the entire land which would yield nothing to the tribals except small variations in measurement and benami holdings.

The leaders had failed to question the process of settlement and bring to light the violations with proof.

From GITA RAMASWAMY

Eluru Nov.15: Three months ago, Tellam Krishnaveni, a Koya woman from Darbhagudem in Jeelugumilli mandal in West Godavari district, came to Hyderabad. Four years of unceasing struggle to retrieve the hereditary lands of her forefathers from plains settlers had brought her to the High Court. All she asked for was access to the revenue records of her village - the records that indicate whose land is being cultivated by whom and why, whether lands have been transferred and how, etc.

On August 23, 2000, Justice B Sudarshan Reddy granted her access to the records, and directed the District Collector and her subordinate officials to supply her the documents within two weeks.

All Krishnaveni has received is a photostat of the unauthenticated, scribbled, indecipherable notes of a village patwari. Collector Poonam Malakondiah has refused to give any interview to any adivasi representative.

Krishnaveni is on the run from village to village - evading the dragnet of the police. Police have filed seven cases against her, including for murder. Along with 20 other Koya women and 530 men, all except one, Koyas, she is charged with murdering a plains landlord far away from her village. Three of the cases are filed from distant villages, the usual ploy being to file a complaint against a few accused and a few hundred ‘others’. All inconvenient people like Krishnaveni come under this comfortable category of ‘others’.

On October 2, Krishnaveni’s home was raided by 200 policemen led by the DSP himself. They smashed her TV set, poured kerosene into the rice and sugar rations, burnt the family’s clothes, tore up the schoolbooks of her children and her Dwcra records (Krishnaveni is the leader of the local Dwcra group), asking for the munda who had the guts to approach higher authorities. No one else’s house was touched.

What has this petite 35 year old woman done to have had her photographs blown up and pasted at all police stations and in town centres? She is happily married with two school-going children. As a rare Koya woman having studied up to 5th standard, she was selected Dwcra group leader in 1994. Since then there has been no looking back. When the adivasi unrest over the occupation of their lands by plains settler-landlords picked up momentum in 1995-96, her village Darbhagudem with 3.358.49 acre of land under non-tribals occupation was one of the first to engage with the issue.

Krishnaveni is full of hope. " The courts have ruled in our favour. The law is on our side. Our names are in the records. We have the courage to fight to the end. We will definitely and certainly win." Such an expression of hope from the representative of a people who have been sidelined by all State institutions despite a plethora of protective legislations, by all political parties and by virtually all civil society organisations, is significant.

Payam Gangamma of Busarajupalli village of Buttayagudem mandal was one of the 114 tribals arrested in August last when a violent confrontation took place between tribals and non-tribals near her village. "We will go to jail again and again. We are not afraid any more", she told Sunday Spotlight which toured the troubled mandals recently, after incarceration in Rajahmundry jail the neighboring East Godavari District.

Women who have been in forefront of the struggle have been particularly targeted by the police to demoralise them. They have beaten up, threatened with rape, abused in vile language, dragged out of their huts to be bundled into waiting police vans and dumped in the jail. Tellam Krishnaveni of Patachimalavarigudem was jailed for 22 days for standing up to the police. Police raided her house, took away Rs. 4015/- she had collected as leader of the self-help group of women sponsored by the central government, and beat her up black and blue. Mudiyam Bangaramma of Tatiakulagudem was wearing her sari after a bath when police barged in, dragged her half-dressed and dumped in a police van. In the melee, she cried out for a sari and a girl hearing her screams brought her a sari which she remained for a month in jail. A series of police raids on tribals last month saw several villages empty as the tribals stated in fields and forests to escape the police wrath. Section 144 has been in force in the area for the past 15 months in view of the volatile situations.

By Our Staff Reporter

ELURU, SEPT.29. In a bid to buy peace with adivasis, non-tribals hae launched a ‘bhoodan movement’ in the agency villages of West Godavari district under the aegis of the police.

The movement seems to have all the trappings of the one promoted by Vinobha Bhave with an objective to bringing about ‘parivartan’ (change) among landlords. Even as the police claim that the movement was evoking good response from both tribals and non-tribals, the revenue authorities are questioning such gesture without going into the legal status of the lands being relinquished by non-tribals.

Meanwhile, the SP undertook a counseling by appealing to both adivasis and non-tribals to wean themselves away from internecine fights for land. In this connection, he offered to lift 66 cases involving nearly 300 people, mostly from the tribals. The nature of cases included attempt to murder, abduction of public servants etc.

Dharbhagudem seemed to have been chosen for counseling by the police for the reason that it was once an epicentre for a bloody land struggle, spearheaded by ‘Shakti’, a non-governmental organisation.

Under Sub-Section 2(a) of Section 3, Power is given to the Agent/Agency Divisional Officer/or any other prescribed officer to take up suo motu any transfer of immovable property in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Broadly, there are three types of classes of land in Agency Areas of West Godavari District viz., (1) land belonging to the Tribals succeeded by them through their forefathers (2) the land under the erstwhile Estates which were abolished after the Constitution came into force and (3) other lands held by the Government. In all these three types of lands if any transfer takes place in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the other authorities can exercise their suo motu power.

SAKTI, a voluntary organisation is working in the Agency Area of Andhra Pradesh including the are in West Godavari District. During the course of its work, it came to know that this suo motu power exercised by the authorities is helping the non tribals in an indirect manner. For example the authorities take up suo motu proceedings against the non tribals and closing those cases either overlooking the provisions of the Regulation or non application of mind to the facts of the case. The Tribals, due to their ignorance are not filing appeals in respect of tribal lands and the Government due to its lethargy is not following up the cases by filing appeals. It is resulting in the settlement of non tribals in the agency areas contrary to the spirit of the enactments since 1917 and also giving legitimacy to their rights over the land. In order to curb this practice the voluntary organisations filed the above W.P. No. 18347 of 2000 seeking a direction from the Hon’ble High Court to the Government to pursue the cases closed by the Primary Authority who has taken up suo motu proceedings, by filing appeals where genuine reasons exist for pursuing them in appeal and, infact, the organisations volunteered to cooperate with the Government. But it was turned down holding that it is for the persons aggrieved to prefer an appeal or not to do so totally dis-regarding the propose and concept behind the legislations and the Administration or Scheduled areas. The Court merely upheld the general principles applicable to the suo motu proceedings but has not seen the purpose and intent of the legislation.

In this factual background, the above case is recommended for filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The papers filed before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. along with a copy of the Regulations and Order are enclosed herewith.

Date: 17.02.2001.

My Dear Ramalingeswara Rao,

I refer to your letter dated 12.01.2001 and enclosures thereto.

I have studied the papers carefully. I feel that Sakti has done yeomen service for the cause of the Tribals.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has taken very narrow view of the liberal scheme of the Constitution of India which has given great emphasis on the protection weakest sections in the society. The Directive Principles of State Policy also loudly proclaim that objective.

It may be necessary to demonstrate the patent illegality through production of typical order of the Special Tahsildar, by producing a copy of it along with a separate petition for prosecution of the additional document.

Whether, in a case where High Court has already exercised its discretion, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Article 136 should be invoked, is a question likely to be posed by the Court.

If, however, ground realities are noticed, the Court can, and in the present circumstances ought to, direct the State and its authorities in whom statutory powers are conferred on trust, to scrutinise the matters carefully.

The order of the High Court does not even attempt to do so. As you have correctly pointed out the attitude may be justified with reference to proceeding relating to the general litigations. There is, however, substantial difference in the cause, that is now sought to be espoused by an organisation which has established its credibility, as detailed in the Writ Petition.

The Special Leave Petition has been settled by me, for being filed in the Supreme Court.

I feel that the matter should be also placed before President of India, who is the constitutional custodian of the interests of the Tribals. That can be pursued independently of the Special Leave Petition.

I would personally like to visit one such Tribal area in the Godavari belt, whenever I could spare some time from the pressures of the professional work in the Supreme Court. Perhaps, during one of the trips to Hyderabad.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(JUSTICE K. SUKUMARAN).

To

A. Ramalingeswara Rao, B.Com., LL.M.,
Advocate, 3-6-550/5, 2nd Floor, 7th Street,
Himalaya Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.

P.S.: I met many retired District Judges From Hyderabad in connection with hearing of Cases relating to Shetty Commission Recommendation.

NON-TRIBAL RYOTS GET RELIEF

- THE HINDU, Friday, April 7, 2000.

By our Staff Reporter.

ELURU, APRIL 6. Non-tribal farmers received substantial relief from the judgment given by the High Court on land disputes recently.

A bench comprising the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, and Mr. Justice R. Ramanujam, stayed the orders of the single judge, Mr. Justice Swamy, who in his earlier order appointed a court commissioner to oversee the implementation of tribal law. A non-tribal farmer, Mr. P. Srihari, challenged the appointment of the court commissioner (a retired district judge) on the ground that they had been subjected to harassment by repetition of title verification process.

In another order, a bench comprising Mr. Justice Ghulam Mohammad, assailed the decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to reopen the cases already disposed of by the Special Deputy Collector, who is superior to him. Responding to the petition filed by Mrs. Gadde Hymavathi, a non-tribal land owner, the court held that the officer had no power to review the order of the quasi-judicial authority passed in 1992. The court made an important observation that the authorities could not go in appeal in the upper court (agent’s court) now because of lapse of long time.

The decision of the High Court would curtail the freedom of the revenue authorities now to file cases indiscriminately against non-tribals to prove their ownership. If the land happened to be reviewed by the Special Deputy Collector earlier, fresh cases could not be filed now or could not be appealed in the upper court if the time lapse is more.