HC sets aside RDO's order restoring tribal land to non-tribal parties
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Justice Harisankar V Menon delivered the judgment on Wednesday in a petition filed by Rangan of Kottathara and his three brothers, challenging the RDO's orders and the collector restoring possession of the tribal land to non-tribal parties. The petitioners contended that their father, Chathamooppan, had made an application under the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975, stating that he had originally possessed around 12 acres in Kottathara, which had been transferred to certain non-tribal parties between 1964 and 1990 under the guise of various sale deeds.
In 1995, the Ottappalam RDO, acting on the application, issued an order directing the non-tribal parties to deliver possession of the land to Chathamooppan and his brother within 30 days and further directed the applicants to pay compensation under the Act.
However, in Dec 2010, the Ottappalam RDO, acting suo motu and without notice to the petitioners, sons of the deceased Chathamooppan, reviewed the 1995 order and restored possession of the land to the non-tribal parties under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, which permits the transfer of up to 2 acres of tribal land to non-tribal parties.
The district collector upheld the RDO's order, prompting the petitioners to move HC.
Upon perusal of the records, the bench held that the proceedings regarding the land in question under the 1975 Act had attained finality with the 1995 order of the RDO, as no one had challenged the same later. Further, the 1999 Act does not contain any provision authorising the RDO to review an order passed under the 1975 Act. Accordingly, the bench set aside the 2010 orders of the RDO and the collector.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Similarly, T V Krishnan of Agali, who is also a party respondent in Rangan's petition, filed a separate petition alleging that he had been interdicted by the police from cutting and removing timber from his property, based on a complaint filed by one Murugan of Agali. However, the court noted that Krishnan had failed to disclose that he was a party respondent in Rangan's petition. The court further directed the revenue authorities to verify whether the property referred to in Krishnan's petition is the same as that involved in Rangan's petition and to take appropriate action accordingly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
US officials begin probe against attorney who investigated criminal cases against Trump
The Trump administration is launching probes against Special Counsel Jack Smith, who pursued legal cases against Trump before he was re-elected to the White House. read more The US federal government has launched an investigation against special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated criminal cases against former US President Donald Trump in 2022. The US Office of Special Counsel said on Saturday that it would look into Smith's potential violation of the Hatch Act. The Act in question restricts government employees from political involvement. The announcement of a probe came after Trump and his allies had previously alleged that Smith went after Trump without legal standing to thwart his second campaign for the presidency. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is pertinent to note that Former Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith just three days before the president announced his reelection bid. Since then, GOP lawmakers have been pushing for the special prosecutor to be investigated. 'Jack Smith's legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the [former President] Biden and [former Vice President] Harris campaigns. This isn't just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office,' Senator Tom Cotton wrote in a Wednesday post on the social media platform X. 'Special Counsel Smith pushed for an out-of-the-ordinary, rushed trial for President Trump, with jury selection to begin just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. No other case of this magnitude and complexity would come to trial this quickly,' the Arkansas senator added in a separate post. What's Smith's take on the matter Meanwhile, Smith has long defended his actions. 'The ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully,' Smith wrote in his final report published in mid-January. He made it clear that neither Garland nor anyone else at the Department of Justice encouraged him to prosecute Trump. 'To all who know me well, the claim from Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable," he added. Amid political pressure, Smith ultimately had to resign from the Justice Department (DOJ) after Trump's November win. He eventually dismissed charges against the POTUS, arguing that he would have secured a conviction against the leader if the legal battles had been tried in court. 'The throughline of all of Trump's criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of election fraud, and the evidence shows that Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States' democratic process,' Smith wrote at the time of his exit. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Until Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years,' he added. Earlier this month, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired 20 additional employees tied to Smith weeks before the Office of Special Counsel said it would investigate the prosecutor. It is pertinent to note that the independent body can only research Smith's action and seek disciplinary measures for the federal employee. Investigators can present their findings to the DoJ, and the department can eventually decide whether to press criminal charges.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
FRA approved fees for 695 colleges after deadline, claims student body
MUMBAI: A youth organisation has accused Maharashtra's Fee Regulatory Authority (FRA) of violating state law by approving fee proposals from nearly 695 unaided professional colleges well past the statutory deadline of October 31, 2024. FRA approved fees for 695 colleges after deadline, claims student body In a letter to the principal secretary of the higher and technical education department, Yuva Sena — the youth wing of Shiv Sena (UBT) — alleged that the FRA's decision flouts provisions of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fees) Act, 2015. Kalpesh Yadav, state joint secretary of Yuva Sena, cited Clause 14 of the Act, which mandates that colleges submit their fee proposals by October 31 for the next academic year beginning in June. 'If an institute misses this deadline, it cannot revise or hike fees for the upcoming academic year,' Yadav said, adding that colleges can only challenge FRA's decision within 15 days, and FRA must deliver a final verdict before March 31. 'This year, the FRA repeatedly extended the deadline even after October 31 and has now allowed submissions until August 15. This is a blatant violation of the law,' Yadav claimed. He warned that if the state government fails to intervene, Yuva Sena is prepared to seek judicial remedy. Responding to the allegations, FRA member Adv. Dharmendra Mishra acknowledged the statutory timelines but defended the authority's actions. He said the FRA's internal norms require colleges to seek annual fee approvals to ensure transparency and prevent unjustified hikes. 'Colleges are allowed to skip one year of revision — but only without increasing fees. In all other years, they must approach FRA for approval. If we reject late submissions outright, colleges might sidestep the process entirely and impose arbitrary fees on students,' Mishra said. He explained that the FRA accepts late submissions with penalties to ensure fees remain regulated. Mishra also disclosed that one college has filed a petition in the High Court challenging the FRA's functioning and the constitutional validity of the Act itself. 'The matter has been pending for four years, but we are clear: all colleges must come to us annually for fee regulation. We will also recommend changes to the Act to formalise this requirement,' he added. Directors missing from key FRA meetings Yadav further raised concerns about poor departmental representation in FRA meetings. 'As per the law, directors of technical and medical education departments are ex-officio FRA members. But they have skipped at least 205 meetings where college fees were finalised,' he said. Another FRA member, while confirming these absences, said stronger departmental participation is essential for a more robust and accountable regulatory framework.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Dr Aruna Basu Sarkar: Torchbearer of tribal justice
TIRUCHY: In the deep heartlands of Tamil Nadu's forests, a silent struggle has been playing out for decades — one of survival, identity, and recognition. While the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act was passed in 2006 and notified in 2007 to correct historical injustices, its implementation remains a distant dream for many. Seventeen years on, the state of Tamil Nadu still lags behind, and the voices of its tribal communities continue to be stifled. Dr Aruna Basu Sarkar, a retired Indian Forest Service officer, has been a rare voice persistently advocating for these marginalised communities. With over 30 years of service across various roles — from District Forest Officer to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests — she has witnessed firsthand the systemic negligence and exploitation faced by tribal people from middlemen, government departments, and even local politicians. 'When forests were declared reserve areas, the traditional rights of forest dwellers were never documented. The law aimed to correct this, but in Tamil Nadu, it has remained mostly on paper,' Aruna explained. What's worse, even now, neither the English nor the Tamil edition of the law has been made widely available by the nodal agency — the Tribal Welfare Department. According to Dr Sarkar, the biggest misunderstanding among forest and revenue officials is equating forest rights with land ownership. 'Most of these forest-dependent communities are landless. What they need is community forest rights — like the right to collect forest produce, graze cattle, or pursue traditional forest-based occupations,' she emphasised. She also raised concerns about how the Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme, introduced in 1997 as a participatory forest management initiative, ended up becoming a tool for exploitation. 'It turned into a system where forest officials and former contractors used tribal labour as bonded labour. These so-called Tribal Village Committees created under JFM have only made things worse,' she alleged.
