Aaratchar land falling prey to sharks in Kanyakumari

 

The land, originally, belonging to the King of Travancore-Cochin state was given to Aaratchars along with a monthly salary of Rs 18 as ‘Service Inam’ during the reign of Srimoolam Thirumal (1885-1924). As per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Inamdars are entitled for permanent occupation subject to continuing in service. The job of Aaratchar was abolished in 1970, which automatically invokes the provision of the Act and vests the land with Tamil Nadu government.

 

However, a few influential persons have prompted Aaratchars to sell the land at paltry rates, created land records colluding with revenue officials, forced land conversion from agricultural to residential and are now trying to sell the land whose current market value is estimated to be over Rs 200 crore, said D. Sulif, convener of Kanyakumari chapter of Tamil Nadu Land Rights Federation and member of central committee of Marxist Communist Party of India United (MCPIU).

 

The official records show pattas were given to 65 persons, most of whom were not even members of any Aaratchar family. In fact, the sub court of Nagercoil in 1992 disposed three suits. One suit was filed by Pitchakkara Pillai claiming to be the legal heir of Aaratchar and other two suits were filed by third parties. The court has dismissed all the three suits in a judgment and decree dated October 27, 1992, holding that none of the private parties are entitled for any claim and the land belongs to the government. The court has also categorically stated that Aaratchars don’t have exclusive right to the properties. After the enactment of Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Act, the land vests with the state government. The local activists and left parties in the district allege that former Congress MLA from Thiruvattar constituency Appu Natesan was a major encroacher, who marked out a layout in Aaratchar land and tried to sell it. In fact, a case of criminal trespass was filed by Asaripallam police based on a complaint lodged by Kaniyankulam village administrative officer Pazhani Anju last year.

 

Documents available with the Deccan Chronicle reveal that Agasteeswaram Tahsildar, in his report dated February 2, 2014 said that the land falls under the category of ‘Service Inam’ and they are not alienable lands as the Inamdar does not have proprietary right over the lands. The sub-collector of Nagercoil, in the impunged order, said as on date the lands were found to be in favour of irrelevant persons and ordered for the cancellation of all the pattas and the lands be restored to the original state. He said the transaction made in the lands were without legal basis as the Tarwad had only right to permanent occupation subject to continuing the service and all mutations effected since July 21, 1979 are to be cancelled.

Unfortunately, Appu Natesan filed a writ petition in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in 2014 and secured a favourable order hiding the previous sub-court order and other government orders.

 

When contacted, Kanyakumari district collector Sajjansingh R. Chavan told this newspaper that the district administration has already gone on an appeal against the court order and said it will do whatever it takes to retrieve the land.

 

Ramesh, a member of erstwhile Aaratchar family who runs a small medical shop for a living, said his uncle was an Aaratchar and they have already sold the land. “My family got the land as a gift from Travancore king and I am not sure whether we have the right to sell or not. But, it has been already transferred in the name of other people”. Another social activist Dr R.S. Lal Mohan, former scientist in ICAR and chairman of Conservation Natural Trust, demanded a high level probe into the case.

 

In their defence, the former MLA and other buyers said in the writ petition that the there was no abandonment of service by Aaratchars, but it was the case of abolishment and there can be no failure on the part of the service holder to perform service for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the Minor Inam Act.  

 

However, the district administration contend that the writ petitions were filed by subsequent purchasers and not by original grantees and none of the petitioners have produced any document to show as to in whose favour the Service Inam was granted and there is no proof to show that the vendors of the petitioners are the legal heirs of the inamdars. So there is no basis for the argument. 

Finally, the local activists demand that the land be retrieved by the district authorities and be utilised for public purpose. The authorities can construct bus stand in the area, which is a necessity.

 

 

Mohan, a researcher from Kollam in Kerala said there are copper plates that suggest the Aaratchars were in existence from the 17th century. The evidence also shows that paddy fields were given to Aaratchars and the produce from it was used to bear the expenses for conducting rituals in Mariamman temple in Vadasery, Pathrakali temple in Chenbagaraman Puthur and Murugankoil in Kumarapuram.