Kerala
,
Valavayal
,
Wayanad
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Adivasis continue to fight for land rights in Wayanad, 15 years after the Muthanga agitation
Reported by
Dr. K.H. Amitha Bachan
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
4718
People Affected
2002
Year started
7932
Land area affected
Households affected
4718
People Affected
2002
Year started
7932
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In 1985, a part of the Nilgiri Reserve in Kerala's Wayanad was declared as the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary . There are 2,612 households, belonging to the Kattunaikar and Mullu Kurumba community, who live in the area now diverted for the sanctuary. Most of these families have certificates called Kaivasa Rekha proving possession of forestland given to them by the government in 1940s50s. The Kerala forest department made a proposal in 2002 to relocate 950 tribal families from the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary as they wanted to recover about 400 ha of land in the sanctuary. These tribal families have been struggling to claim the forest land since decades. In 2003, a significant struggle took place in the Muthanga Forest region, where thousands of tribal families gathered to occupy land. The state police brutally suppressed the agitation, killing one and injuring several others. "It was following this agitation that the concept of Bhoomi Samaram (Protesting for land) became significant", said CK Janu, a female activist from the community, in a news report. After the implementation of the FRA in 2006, nothing has changed much. A compensation of INR 1 lakh for one acre of land was decided to be given to each family for relocation. Between 2008 and 2013, a total 185 tribal families were relocated from the sanctuary with this compensation. Later the government revised the compensation scheme offering INR 10 lakh to each family for relocation. On June 27, 2013, 40 families from the Kottamkara hamlet were relocated under this scheme However, the families alleged that only 24 families got INR 10 lakh compensation. Some stated that the forest department had not been considering adult sons as separate families eligible for compensation. Some of the relocated families came back to the sanctuary.In September 2017, the Kerala Government sought INR 100 crore for the relocation of families in protected areas. In 2018, the relocation was delayed. However, most of the families in the sanctuary have been demanding recognition of their rights over forestland under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and have refused to leave the land. As of January 2020, the resistance is still going on with 200 families still living inside the Sanctuary. The tribal communities are still demanding forest rights titles.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Demand for promised land

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Author
Reported by
Dr. K.H. Amitha Bachan

Kerala

Kumar Sambhav is a social entrepreneur and award-winning journalist, leading innovative research in accountability investigations. He is the founder of Land Conflict Watch and is currently working as India Research Lead with Princeton University’s Digital Witness Lab.

Read More

Latest updates
Rajasthan
Rajasthan

UIT Bikaner's Jorbeer Housing Project on Stalls Following Rajasthan High Court Order

Rajasthan
Rajasthan

Jaipur Development Authority Acquires Land for Township Project, Ending Conflict

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Farmers land acquired under Mansarovar Housing Scheme in Lucknow

Maharashtra
Maharashtra

Citizens unite against cycle track around Powai, Vihar Lakes in Mumbai

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Families displaced by Mandal Dam in Jharkhand opppose project resumption

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Jharkhand approves Adani's thermal plant, farmers allege violation of LARR Act

Gujarat
Gujarat

Pastoral Community in Gujarat's Banni Grasslands Demands Titles Recognising Community Forest Rights

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Builder Encroaches Upon Farmers Land in Gosaiganj Lucknow, 150 Allottees in Lurch

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Demand for promised land

Adivasis continue to fight for land rights in Wayanad, 15 years after the Muthanga agitation

Reported by

Dr. K.H. Amitha Bachan

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

January 29, 2017

May 17, 2022

Edited on

January 29, 2017

Sector

Conservation and Forestry

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Protected Areas

Starting Year

2002

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

7932

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

4718

State

Kerala

Sector

Conservation and Forestry

People Affected by Conflict

4718

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

7932

ha

Starting Year

2002

Location of Conflict

Valavayal

Wayanad

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Protected Areas

Land Conflict Summary

In 1985, a part of the Nilgiri Reserve in Kerala's Wayanad was declared as the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary . There are 2,612 households, belonging to the Kattunaikar and Mullu Kurumba community, who live in the area now diverted for the sanctuary. Most of these families have certificates called Kaivasa Rekha proving possession of forestland given to them by the government in 1940s50s. The Kerala forest department made a proposal in 2002 to relocate 950 tribal families from the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary as they wanted to recover about 400 ha of land in the sanctuary. These tribal families have been struggling to claim the forest land since decades. In 2003, a significant struggle took place in the Muthanga Forest region, where thousands of tribal families gathered to occupy land. The state police brutally suppressed the agitation, killing one and injuring several others. "It was following this agitation that the concept of Bhoomi Samaram (Protesting for land) became significant", said CK Janu, a female activist from the community, in a news report. After the implementation of the FRA in 2006, nothing has changed much. A compensation of INR 1 lakh for one acre of land was decided to be given to each family for relocation. Between 2008 and 2013, a total 185 tribal families were relocated from the sanctuary with this compensation. Later the government revised the compensation scheme offering INR 10 lakh to each family for relocation. On June 27, 2013, 40 families from the Kottamkara hamlet were relocated under this scheme However, the families alleged that only 24 families got INR 10 lakh compensation. Some stated that the forest department had not been considering adult sons as separate families eligible for compensation. Some of the relocated families came back to the sanctuary.In September 2017, the Kerala Government sought INR 100 crore for the relocation of families in protected areas. In 2018, the relocation was delayed. However, most of the families in the sanctuary have been demanding recognition of their rights over forestland under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and have refused to leave the land. As of January 2020, the resistance is still going on with 200 families still living inside the Sanctuary. The tribal communities are still demanding forest rights titles.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Demand for promised land

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Land Acquisition Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Section 3: Rights over the forest land (rights to hold and live, community rights, access to forest produce); Section 4(1)(a): Vesting forest rights with the residing Scheduled Tribes; Section 4(2)(d) and 4(2)(f): Mentions that the forest rights can be modified if compensation is offered, and that people can be resettled only after facilities and land allocation as per the compensation package is completed
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 41: Contains special provisions for Scheduled Tribes [41(3) Prior consent of Grab Sabha; 41(6) At least 1/3rd compensation needs to be paid as first installment, and rest can be paid after taking possession]
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

No items found.

Legal Status:

Out of Court

Status of Case In Court

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Physical attack

Killing

Reported Details of the Violation:

On February 19, 2003, the police evicted hundreds of Adivasis who had occupied the muthanga forest in Wayanad district to protest against the delay in the government's distribution of cultivable land that it had promised to Landless Adivasis. In the clash that followed, an adivasi protestor, Jogi, died and hundreds injured. The adivasis, however, maintain that 16 of their community members were shot that dead.

Date of Violation

February 19, 2003

Location of Violation

Muthanga Forest, Wayanad

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Waynad Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala Forest Department, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Wayanad Prakruthy Samrakshana Samithy

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Other Land Conflicts in Kerala

cross
    Not a member yet?
    Sign up now
    Conflicts Map
    Conflict Database
    About Us