Idukki site from where cross was removed is a forest land, reveals RTI response
The RTI reply said: 'A recent report by the Thodupuzha tehsildar, Jayakumar O.S., to the Idukki District Collector indicated that the village officer had submitted a status report regarding the area to the Forest department. As per the report, the area concerned is a forest land.' 'As per the 1993 Land Assignment rules, the title deed-related issues should be taken by the Karimannor Land Assignment (LA) office based on the verification,' said the report.'
The report further said that a detailed inspection was necessary before initiating steps to resolve title deed-related issues in the disputed site and nearby areas.
On April 12, the Forest department removed a cross erected the previous day by St Thomas Church, under the Syro-Malabar Church, on a property beside the Neyyassery-Thokkumban Road at Naranganam. The department also booked a case against the parish priest for erecting the cross on forest land. On April 19, the Church organised a Way of the Cross procession to the spot. Following this, Church authorities alleged that the department booked another case against Kothamangalam diocese general Vincent Nedungattu, Chancellor Father Jose Kulathur and parish priest Father James Ikaramattom on the charges of trespassing.
After the incident, the Vannappuram village officer submitted a report to the Forest department stating that the disputed spot fell within forest area. However, farmers' groups and Church authorities opposed the report and staged protests against it.
Mr. Mani said that the RTI reply also stated that a total of 458 families were included in the list of forest land encroachments after 1-1-1977 under the Kaliyar forest range. 'The reply further stated that the revenue and forest lands were divided by fixing Janda (border stones), and that the 458 families were living in area outside the Jandas fixed by the department,' he said.
'While the CPI(M) district secretary and other ruling party leaders earlier claimed that the site is revenue land, the tehsildar's report clearly said that the area is a forest land. The Revenue department report reveals the double standard of the State government,' alleged Mr. Mani.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
23 minutes ago
- Hans India
HC issues notice to govt over Greater Bengaluru Authority Act
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has issued a notice to the state government and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of the newly implemented Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, which proposes the formation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). The PIL was filed by noted filmmaker T.S. Nagabharana and others. The matter was heard on Monday by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi. After hearing preliminary arguments, the court directed the state and the BBMP to file their objections within four weeks. Senior advocate M.B. Nargund, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Act violates the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which was enacted to strengthen local self-governance through urban local bodies. He contended that the state government is undermining the constitutional mandate by attempting to centralize control over municipal administration, effectively bypassing elected representatives. The petitioners have also requested the court to direct the government to conduct BBMP elections within three months. The petition expresses concern that under the new GBA structure, elected municipal representatives will be sidelined, with legislative and executive powers being extended to Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly. It claims that municipal plans and decisions will now require GBA approval, thereby reducing the autonomy of the BBMP and weakening the role of locally elected leaders. Additionally, the PIL criticizes the lack of criteria ensuring that GBA members are local residents or elected representatives. It argues that this could lead to a disconnect between decision-makers and local communities, undermining accountability and citizen representation in urban governance. The petition also warns against dividing Bengaluru into multiple administrative zones under the GBA without conducting a scientific urban study. It points out that similar attempts in other cities have led to administrative failures and that issues such as population imbalance and social disparity could emerge. The move to appoint a Chief Commissioner over the entire GBA, while placing elected mayors and councillors under their authority, is seen as a blow to the democratic structure of urban governance. The High Court will take up the matter further once the state and BBMP submit their responses.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Was Varma notice in Rajya Sabha just submitted or was it admitted?
NEW DELHI: Was the notice for the motion of removal of Allahabad HC Justice Yashwant Varma only "submitted" or was it "admitted" as well. The seemingly technical issue goes to the heart of the fast-paced events that led to the resignation of Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday evening. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It acquires significance because a determination would decide whether the RS Chairman would have a role in the choice of the three members of the investigation panel which, under the Constitution, would examine the veracity of the charges against Justice Varma. Dhankhar is learnt to have earned the annoyance of the govt and the governing coalition by acknowledging the notice given by 63 opposition MPs to seek the launch of proceedings for the HC judge's ouster. Sources termed it as a "breach-of-faith" issue by pointing out that the govt had already announced its decision that the process should start in Lok Sabha and had taken the first step by getting 145 MPs from all parties to sign the notice which was submitted to LS Speaker Om Birla on Monday morning. However, Dhankhar sidestepped this, and the RS notice had signatures of only opposition members. Although technically correct, the decision flew in the face of govt's desire to make the proceedings against Justice Varma an all-party concern. On Monday afternoon in RS, Dhankhar cited the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to say that in a situation where such a notice is given in both Houses on the same day, "no committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the committee shall be constituted jointly by the speaker and the chairman". The ex-chairman said that the motion signed by 63 members "meets the numerical requirement of setting in motion a process for the removal of an HC judge" - reference to the stipulation that the motion for removal, in case of RS, needed to be signed by at least 50 members. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He stopped short of saying whether the motion has been admitted, but emphasised that the chairman or the speaker has no right to admit or reject if "a motion is presented on the same day in both the Houses". However, the 1968 Act doesn't mention such a provision. Dhankhar had directed the RS secretary general to take necessary steps. Sources, however, said the final call on the issue will now be that of the deputy chairperson, Harivansh, who started as the officiating chairman after President Droupadi Murmu accepted Dhankhar's resignation. "There is no certainty he would endorse what Dhankhar observed," said a source. "In any case, he has no special interest in matters concerning judiciary and is unlikely to diverge drastically from the speaker in the choice of the members of the inquiry panel," the source further said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
SC declines plea seeking transfer of Waqf Act petition from Delhi HC
A bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said that courts are increasingly being used for generating newspaper headlines rather than genuine legal redress Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking transfer of a petition challenging the 1995 Waqf Act from the Delhi High Court to the apex court. A bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said that courts are increasingly being used for generating newspaper headlines rather than genuine legal redress. The bench, which also comprised Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, made sharp remarks while hearing a transfer petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petition sought to move his challenge to various provisions of the Waqf Act from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court. "This issue is already pending before this court. Why do you want more petitions," the CJI asked at the outset. The bench noted that an earlier bench led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had already set a clear timeline for admitting such challenges. The court had also permitted fresh petitioners to file intervention applications in the ongoing batch of 11 petitions challenging similar provisions of the Act. Appearing in person, Upadhyay argued, "I was the first person to challenge this," insisting that his petition was the one that drew public attention to the alleged "land grab" by waqf boards involving over 40 lakh acres. "You are always the first. What is the hurry to rush to court? Only after seeing the newspapers? Petitions are nowadays being filed only for the newspapers," the CJI said. "We are not inclined to entertain the prayer." Upadhyay's writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 4 to 9 and Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He said that these provisions are arbitrary and violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, and 27 of the Constitution. A similar challenge to the Waqf Act and its 2025 amendments is already pending before the Supreme Court, where a batch of petitions is being heard.
