The Forest and Revenue departments are locking horns over the nature and allocation of 9.904 hectares at Chethalayam for landless families in Wayanad.
The February 17 order of the Revenue department allocating the land to 19 Scheduled Caste members has caught Forest department off guard as it turned down the department’s claim that the holding was forest land.
The Revenue department held that the holding was not marked as forest land in the Basic Tax Register, Re-Survey and Re-Settlement Register, and the Survey and Settlement Register. It was marked as Forest Palayam Land in revenue records, which cannot be considered as forest land. Moreover, it was also recorded as revenue land in Revenue records, according to the order.
However, the Forest department claimed that the holding was forest land considering its nature and vegetation. It has been in the continuous possession and control of the department since the British time. The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 insists that no forest land can be diverted for non-forestry purposes without the prior approval of the Union government, it argued.
The department contended that the area was frequented by wild elephants. It was designated as the headquarters of the Kurichiat Range under the Wayanad Wildlife Division. It qualified the definition of forest as mentioned in the Forest (Conservation) Act. Recently, the Supreme Court had asked State governments to stick to the dictionary meaning of the word forest, while defining forest. Chethalayam qualifies to be classified as forest on all these counts, according to an objection raised by the Forest department.
The patch of land supports good and luxuriant natural vegetation and is home to around 12 faunal species including mouse deer and Asian palm civet. It is also an active elephant corridor used by wild elephants to migrate between Kurichiat and Kuppadi range forests. A meeting convened by the Chief Secretary on February 24, 2020, had decided to reserve the area as forest considering its legal and ecological status, according to a Forest department note.
Revenue officials maintained that the decision was taken after discussions at various levels. The holding was found to be revenue land and hence the decision to allot it to the landless, a senior official maintained.
