On August 11, 2018, residents of Venkatapur Thanda village in Vikarabad district took out a rally to protest the encroachment of four acres of land, which was donated to them as a burial ground by a Hyderabadbased family. According to a news report, the village residents allege that the land has been encroached upon by Kishan Naik, a powerful resident of the tribal hamlet. Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prohibits criminal trespass i.e. entering on to the property of another with an intent to insult, intimidate or annoy.** **The residents, therefore, took to a rally and lodged a police complaint. They also planned to approach the district collector to demand their right over the land. Naik currently serves as the chairman of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society and is the director of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited. He had contested the 2009 Legislative Assembly elections as an independent candidate from Pargi constituency. The village residents allege that Naik had sold the plot to realtors as land prices in the district are rising. They argue that it is common land and was not mentioned in the asset declaration affidavit submitted by Naik for the 2009 elections. At a press meet on August 12, 2018, Naik denied the allegations and stated that he is ready to face action if the charges against him are proved, according to a media report. In January 2020, Finance Minister T. Harish Rao stated that the government plans to give Venkatapur Thanda a facelift. Among other utilities, the common burial grounds will be provided with water supply, he stated. This implies that the villagers have not lost their common burial ground to the realtor. Yet, whether Naik was penalised remains ambiguous.
Demand for legal recognition of land rights, Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Other, Procedural Laws
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 441 [Criminal trespass - Whoever enters into property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass]
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:
Forced evictions/ Dispossession of Land, Lack of legal protection over land rights
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)
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors
Official name of the criminal law. Did the case reach trial?
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Nature of Protest
Protests/marches, Complaints, petitions, memorandums to officials
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
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?
Name, Designation and Comment of Corporate Authorities Approached
Other Parties Involved in the Conflict: