Thiruvananthapuram sub-Collector Divya Iyer accused of listening only to private party  

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The order by the Sub-Collector to hand the land over to a private party led to allegations being raised that she had heard only the private individual’s version, instead of hearing both versions, including that of the Tahsildar. Varkala MLA V Joy accused Divya Iyer of handing over the government land to a private party. In a complaint to the Revenue Minister, he urged the government to order a vigilance probe. There were allegations about the involvement of Divya’s husband K S Sabarinadhan MLA too. 

In his complaint, the Varkala MLA said the Sub-Collector issued the order against the Tahsildar’s report of taking over 27 cents in Ayiroor, along the Parippally-Varkala state highway, that was earmarked to construct a permanent building for the Ayiroor police station. Joy told mediapersons the land is poramboke and the private party has been occupying it illegally for many years. “The land was finally taken over and was earmarked for the new police station. So I doubt whether there should be any involvement of K S Sabarinadhan MLA,” he said. 

Last year, the Tahsildar issued an eviction notice to the private party under the Land Conservancy Act indicating the property was under the possession of the state government. Apparently, the Revenue Department took over the land.However, the individual approached the High Court seeking intervention. In the petition, the individual requested the court to ask the Sub-Collector to hear them as the Tahsildar had not given enough time to produce all the records. The HC ordered the Sub-Collector should hear the petitioner and an appropriate decision should be taken. Following this the Sub-Collector cancelled the Tahsildar’s order and released the land to the individual. 

Divya welcomed the government decision to go for a probe. “I have done my part as an officer by coming to a judgement that the said land has to be released to the private individual. I have heard the arguments from both parties before coming to a conclusion. Moreover, we received conclusive evidence favouring the individual,” she said.