series of land scams triggering in its wake a sustained row during the initial phase of the election campaign has exposed the chinks in the revenue administration, apart from blowing the lid on how the political leadership and the bureaucracy will work on even minor loopholes in rules and regulations to hand out large parcels of revenue land to individuals and institutions.
Exposure on the Cabinet decision in violation of norms came as a real surprise to the landless and the marginalised sections which cherish the dream of owning a small piece of land to build a shelter. The government chose to muffle the protest by repealing the controversial orders such as those granting exemption to setting up IT parks in 127 acres of land in Ernakulam and Thrissur districts, clearance accorded to a medical tourism project on 47 acres of land at Kadamakkudy village, and the tourism resort village at Kumarakom in Kottayam. This was explained as the natural culmination of a routine bureaucratic procedure.
The complaint arose at a time when the process of issuing title-deeds to the landless was progressing at a snail’s pace. Also it challenged the Acts unanimously passed for enforcing land reforms and conserving wetlands and paddy fields.
When reports about the government allocating 20 acres of land to fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya for setting up a brewery at the industrial cluster at Kanjikode in Palakkad surfaced, Revenue Minister Adoor Prakash explained it as a decision made in 2013 following the end of a protracted legal procedure spanning more than three decades. But the late Communist leader N.E. Balram’s daughter Geetha Nazir has explained it as a mere sham and has clarified that the statement of Chief Minister Oommen Chandy was false.
As the Revenue, Industries, Tourism and other departments continued the blame game over the land allotment, the key question that remains unanswered is where will the buck stop. Violation of key provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 would amount to criminal conspiracy and those culpable may attract imprisonment up to five years or a fine up to Rs.2 lakh.
Equally stringent provisions have been stitched into the Wetland Conservation Act too. But fixing the responsibility in such cases would not be easy.
For, the political leadership would attempt to put the onus on the bureaucracy; the latter would promptly plead helplessness. The notion of creating a sizeable number of job opportunities cannot be faulted for obvious reasons; and as the debate goes on, the loopholes that facilitate such land transfers are likely to remain unplugged.
