THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Sub-collector Divya S Iyer’s decision to cancel the order issued by Varkala tahsildar to take over government poramboke land that was being held by a private individual, has run into controversy after the revenue department and the local MLA took exception to the matter.
The sub-collector issued the order cancelling the previous order taking over of 27 cents in
Ayiroor in Varkala along the
Parippally-Varkala state highway that was earmarked for constructing a permanent building for Ayiroor police station that is currently functioning in a rented premises.
Varkala MLA V Joy has taken up the matter and has petitioned revenue minister
E Chandrasekharan, seeking his immediate intervention in the matter.
“The land is poramboke and the private individual has been illegally occupying it for many years. The land was finally taken over and was earmarked for the new police station. The minister has promised immediate intervention in the matter,” Joy said. It is also reliably learnt that the additional tahsildar also has furnished a report against the sub-collector’s decision to the district collector.
Chandrasekharan said that to his understanding the land was taken over earlier as poramboke land and he would examine the circumstances under which the sub-collector cancelled the order. “The MLA has handed over a letter detailing the matter, which will be examined and necessary action will be taken immediately,” Chandrasekharan said.
The eviction notice was issued by the tahsildar on June 26 last year under the Land Conservancy Act, and was served to the individual on July 11. After receiving the notice, the individual approached the high court, citing the sub-collector as the sixth respondent in the petition. In the petition, the individual requested the court that the tahsildar had not given enough time to produce all the records and the court should ask the sub-collector to hear them. The high court ordered that the sub-collector should hear the petitioner and an appropriate decision be taken.
Sources said that the subcollector did not hear the tahsildar, who is well-versed with the land in question, but heard only the individual who was holding the land illegally. “The individual has a land with proper title sharing the boundary with the land in question. While he holds all the records for his other land, there are no records for the land in question, and after conducting the survey, it was found to be poramboke,” district revenue department sources said.
Meanwhile, sources close to the sub-collector said that the matter was only a routine legal decision that is being blown out of proportion by parties with vested interest. “There are legal remedies available which they should seek instead of defamation stunts. A revision petition has to be filed before the land revenue commissioner which has been intimated,” sources said.
However, revenue department sources said that it was the private parties who should appeal to the land revenue commissioner with their grievance. “In this case, the order is in favour of the private individual and it is the government that is aggrieved,” a top revenue department official said.
