Palla Trinadha Rao: May 2016

Wednesday 25 May 2016

Brutal suppression of tribal rights in Andhra Pradesh

THE HANS INDIA | May 25,2016 , 03:32 AM IST

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao

tribal rights

The recent attack on an adivasi woman in the agency areas of West Godavari district is raising serious concern about the effectiveness of the tribal development agencies in implementing land rights protections extended to adivasis.

Non-tribals cannot have rights on tribal lands as per LTR 1 of 70
Officials for over a decade dithered on restoring land to her

An adivasi women land rights activist, Chodem Durga of Andhra Pradesh Girijan Sangham affiliated to CPI (M), has been spearheading land struggles against non-tribal occupations in the Scheduled Areas of West Godavari district. She is embroiled in several criminal cases, and is herself a victim of oppression and exploitation by non-tribals and unscrupulous revenue administration.

According to her, she filed a petition (SR NO 15/2005) before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) court at KR Puram in West Godavari district, seeking restoration of land Ac 4.72 and other parcels of land Ac 6 in Survey No 1469 and Ac 5.56 in 572/1 from the illegal possession of non-tribals. The disputed land is situated in the scheduled village of Turpurekulagunta village in Buttayagudem mandal in the district.

The court allowed her claim under Land Transfer Regulations 1 of 70 in 2006 to the extent of Ac 4.72 in Survey No 1469 and further directed the Tahsildar, Buttayagudem, to take possession of the land from non-tribals and induct her into the possession. However, the Tahsildar has been sitting pretty over the order of the court for the last decade.

Non-implementation of the court order for about a decade speaks volumes of the fallacy of legal structures as well as the monitoring mechanisms from district to the State level meant for protecting the tribals in agency areas. With the support of other tribal women in the village she lodged a fresh application in April seeking implementation of the court order.

The Tahsildar this time raised a query asking her to show boundaries to the land for Ac 4.72 in the court order. The illiterate woman had no option and approached the SDC Court again and expressed her displeasure over the response of Tahsidar in implementing the order. The SDC court directed the Tahsildar to conduct a filed survey and fix the boundaries for the land Ac .4.72 separately and hand over the same to her.

Despite several representations seeking the implementation of order, there is no response either from district administration or Tahsildar in specific. Against this background, the adivasi activist, who experienced a decade of negligence of law enforcing officials in implementing the order in her favor, unable to contain her frustration and humiliation, stepped into the land with the support of other tribal women and plucked the harvested mango crop and brought it to home, declaring their disgust at the apathy of officials and exploitation of non tribals.

The non tribals and their supporters brutally attacked them in their village Turpurekulakunta on May 17 and snatched away the mangoes. The tribal woman received severe injuries, and a case against non-tribals was registered by Buttayagudem PS in Cr No 86/2016. The entire episode has a direct correlation to the erratic revenue administration in the Scheduled Areas which is leading to unwarranted land conflicts, without implementing the tribal land laws.

One can gauge the neglect of the law enforcing authorities on the basis of a number of land holdings of non-tribals. The land under occupation of Scheduled Tribes officially is only 58.50 per cent, the remaining land is held by non tribals. Non-Tribals could able to gain access to tribal lands in spite of LTR 1 of 70 which completely bans the land transfers in the Scheduled Areas in favour of non-tribals.

As per the reports of ITDA, K R Puram, by August 2014, tribals could able to succeed in only 2,584 (22 per cent) cases covering an extent of Ac.11082, while non-tribals could retain the land covering an extent of Ac 30774 by getting favourable orders in 8,923 cases (78 per cent). There is an urgent need to implement the tribal protective land laws without further dillydallying and put an end to the growing unrest among the adivasis in the Scheduled Area of West Godavari district.

Wednesday 18 May 2016

Move to remove tribals from natural habitats

THE HANS INDIA | Dec 05,2015 , 01:17 AM IST

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao

Telangana government has now set the stage to dispossess thousands of adivasis from Kawal Tiger Reserve (KTR) and Amrabad Tiger Reserve (ATR) areas of Telangana by issuing the GO 214 for their relocation. The current moves of the government are not only a violation of the law but also a breach of trust since the TRS came to power promising that it stands by the aspirations of the adivasis

It is surprising that the Telangana government is moving relentlessly to push tribal areas into a serious crisis, instead of working towards bringing peace and building trust among the most deprived sections, who constitute hardly one tenth (9.34%) of the state’s population.

The Telangana government has now set the stage to dispossess thousands of adivasis from Kawal Tiger Reserve (KTR) and Amrabad Tiger Reserve (ATR) areas of Telangana by issuing GO 214 for relocation of people. The Chenchus who are a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group in Mahabubnagar district and Kolams in Adilabad districts, besides Gonds and Naikpods are now threatened with eviction without settling their rights.

The order of the government violates Section 4(5) of Forest Rights Act which ensures that adivasis shall not be evicted or removed from forests till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. The government issued this GO last month appointing a State Level Monitoring Committee and District Level Implementation Committee for relocation of villagers from the core area (Critical Tiger Habitat) of both KTR in Adilabad district and ATR in Mahabubnagar district of this newest State.

The GO is also legally questionable and untenable in the eye of Wild Life Protection Act 1972 (WLPA) as amended in 2006 under which these Tiger Reserves were notified earlier. The Kawal Tiger Reserve was notified in 2012 in a core area of 892.23 sq.km and a buffer zone of 1,123.21sq.km. Amrabad Tiger Reserve was carved out from Nagarjuna Sagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh State and is spread over core 2,166 sq.km and 445 sq.km buffer areas in Mahabubnagar district.

The WLPA requires the core or critical tiger habitat to be inviolate – free from human habitation and use. Buffer or peripheral to critical tiger habitat requires lesser degree of protection promoting coexistence between wildlife and human activity under the Section 38 V of the WLPA. However, the GO directs relocation of villagers from KTR and AMR without any differentiation. In fact the tiger reserves should be notified in consultation with an expert committee in the case of core areas and in consultation with Gram Sabhas also in the case of buffer zones. Gram Sabha is as notified under the provisions of Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Area Act, 1998, and Rules made thereunder in 2011 in the Scheduled Areas of Adilabad district.

The resettlement package ensuring ‘secure livelihood’ and not mere compensation, has to be approved by the affected Gram Sabhas. Even in the case of voluntary or involuntary relocation of villagers, the government should scrupulously follow the provision 38 V of the WLPA Amendment 2006 in protecting the rights of adivasis and other forest dwellers inviolate areas. The procedure contemplated under the WLPA was not followed for the notification of these Tiger Reserves; neither were their rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act.

Moreover, both the government and the Gram Sabhas should have agreed that there are no possible ways to coexist with tigers in the area, which then is to be demarcated as the Critical Tiger Habitat. This conclusion must also be corroborated by independent ecological and social experts. In the case of KTR, it is aimed to create conducive environment for transient big cats from the borders of Maharashtra without any analysis of viable population of tigers.

Thus, relocation of villagers is not essential and cohabitation of animals and people is possible in both the core or buffer areas. The State is under legal obligation to see the rights of adivasis are not adversely affected while creating inviolate areas. Issuing of GO 214 deems that people are willing to move voluntarily under the revised centrally sponsored scheme of Project Tiger. In such cases, the government should come up with advisories for complying with the provisions of both Amended Wild Life Protection Act and Forest Rights Recognition RA 2006.

But the government without complying the provisions under both these Acts issued this GO paving the way for relocation of adivasis from the KTR and ATR areas. The habitat rights of Kolams and Chenchus should be determined under the Forest Rights Act besides community forest rights and individual forest land claims in the proposed relocation areas.

The current moves of Telangana government to relocate the adivasis in Mahbubnagar and Adilabad districts are not only violation of the law but also breach of trust since the Telangana Rashtra Samithi came to power promising that it stands by the aspirations of the adivasis. The government should take steps for withdrawal of the GO and look for other alternatives without disturbing the adivasi hinterland.

A wilderness of tribal voices for justice

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao | THE HANS INDIA | Feb 03,2016 , 01:20 AM IST

Adivasis are crying foul over the illegal land acquisitions for the Polavaram Project in the agency areas of West Godavari district also. Their grievance is that non-tribals are cornering the monetary benefits by showing illegal land deeds and affecting their rights. As officials are flouting the Constitution, the Governor should invoke his powers under the Fifth Schedule and take necessary action

The Polavaram Project has become a boon to non-tribals to encash their clandestine land deeds in the Scheduled Areas of Godavari districts. Land Acquisition Officers (LAOs) are playing spoilsport over land acquisitions, negating the land rights of adivasis under the tribal protective Land Transfer Regulations (LTR).

They are not taking into consideration land orders issued against non-tribals and several cases pending against them under the LTR before various courts. For instance, an LAO paid compensation of Rs 2.33 crore in 2013 to an absentee non-tribal lord in Manturu village in Devipatnam mandal, whose right over the land was negated by a court order in LTRP No 1/96 under the LTR.

The LAOs are paying huge compensation amounts to non-tribals, unmindful of similar orders passed by the LTR Courts in 1996 when the possession of tribals was upheld. The LAOs also have not been caring for the 40 appeals filed by tribals disputing the title of non-tribals over the lands covered by Polavaram Project before the Director of Survey and Settlement court at Rampachodavaram since 2010.

The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Rampachodavaram, acquired 10.92 acres covered by Survey No. 175 and 177 in Indukuru village in Devipatnam mandal and disbursed huge amounts to non-tribals in 2005. But later the PO, ITDA, passed a judgement in 2009, holding that non-tribal claimants have no legal right over the lands.

By taking note of the agitations of adivasis, the ITDA Project Officer, Ch Nagarani, genuinely tried to reach out to adivasis in 2013 by giving directions to the LAOs not to pay compensation to non-tribals without determining the land rights of adivasis. For reasons best known to vested interests, her power as Polavaram Project Administrator was denuded and it was transferred to Joint Collector, East Godavari.

In fact, this order is in violation of the notification issued (GO 193) under Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, designating the Project Officers of the ITDAs as Additional Agents to Government on a par with District Collectors for the administration and regulatory matters. While the matters are so, adivasis are crying foul over the illegal land acquisitions for the Project in the agency areas of West Godavari district also.

Their grievance is that non-tribals are cornering the monetary benefits by showing illegal land deeds and affecting their rights. This is evident from fact the seizure report of the Tahsildar of Buttayagudem in 2015, which shows that several revenue records and title deeds were recovered from a non-tribal in Buttayagudem village.

Maintenance of official land records of Buttayagudem mandal is also a test case of access to title deeds for non-tribals to make wrongful gain under the project. For instance, the total extent of lands in Buttayagudem Mandal was 57,557 acres as per the Resurvey Settlement Register (RSR), but it swelled to a magical figure of 69,555 acres as per the official Web land data.

This is not out of place to mention that earlier CB-CID booked a case against revenue officials and private individuals for creating of fake pattadar passbooks and court orders in land matters. There are about 292 registered land transfers effected between non-tribals in Polavaram mandal, and 195 in Buttayagudem mandal, as per the records of Sub Registrar, Jangareddygudem against the provisions of LTR 1 of 70.

However, unmindful of these illegal land deeds, the LAOs continued to pay compensation to non-tribals. In fact, here is no special machinery to conduct legal scrutiny whether the land deeds being produced by non-tribals are fake or original. The State Rehabilitation policy (GO 68) mandates the LAO to pay monetary compensation for acquisition of lands from non-tribals in the Scheduled Areas only after verification of their claims under the LTR.

The orders from the office of Special Deputy Collector (SDC), K R Puram, in West Godavari district are a smokescreen for payment of compensation to non-tribals by the LAOs. Adivasis are agitating against the SDC on the ground he is holding enquiries in land cases in unjust and unfair manner without giving an opportunity to rival tribal claimants in the cases.

The project authorities are even unwilling to recognise individual or community forest rights of adivasis in submergence mandals, negating the very objective Forest Rights Recognition Act 2006. Gram Sabha, Sub Divisional Committee and District Level Committee are the statutory adjudicating bodies under the Act.

However, the project authorities are dispossessing adivasis without determination of their forest land claims in the proposed submergence area of Polavaram Project. Since the State officials are failing to protect the interests of adivasis, the Governor of AP should invoke his powers under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India and take necessary action.

AP tribal voices in the wilderness

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao | THE HANS INDIA | Feb 21,2016 , 04:00 AM IST

What does the apex court say?

In the administration of justice in the Fifth Scheduled Areas, Article 244 confers plenary power on the Governor to bring independent legislations in respect of tribal affairs in consultation with the Tribal Advisory Council (TAC).

*Tribals in AP worried as TDP govt wants to open up resource-rich mineral areas in Scheduled Areas to non-tribal owned companies for mining.
*Tribals are also facing displacement under Polavaram project, without any rights on land and forest.
*State govtseen delaying setting up of TAC as YSRCP represents 6 of the 7 ST constituencies in the State.
*TAC can object to unconstitutional actions of the State government. There is no constitutional mechanism to protect tribal interests.

The ruling TDP politics is subverting constitutional norms in the governance of Scheduled Areas in Andhra Pradesh. Tribal Advisory Council (TAC), a constitutional arm under the Fifth Schedule, has not been in existence since the TDP came to power in 2014. The reason for not setting up the TAC seems to be the TDP move to deprive the tribal representatives, especially those belonging to the opposition YSRCP, of representing tribal interests. YSRCP has secured 6 out of 7 ST reserved constituencies in the state. Neither the Governor nor the State Government is keen to constitute the TAC for smooth running of tribal welfare administration in the Agency areas.

The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution refers to administration and control over the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in the State. The Governor has powers over the administration of scheduled areas. The Fifth Schedule recommends the constitution of a TAC in each State having Scheduled Areas. The Council’s duty is to offer advice on matters pertaining to the welfare and advancement of the Scheduled Tribes in the State. The Governor is specially empowered under Fifth Schedule to introduce independent legislations or amend the legislations proposed by the State or the Centre to ensure welfare of the tribals in the Scheduled Areas.

The apex court dealing with a case in 1967 on the administration of justice in the Fifth Scheduled Areas held that the Article 244 confers plenary power on the Governor to bring independent legislations in respect of tribal affairs in consultation with the TAC. Thus, the role of TAC is very crucial in the governance of Scheduled Areas. Therefore, negligence to constitute the TAC amounts to negating the rights of adivasis and stalling the process of governance.

However, the Governor cannot escape from his liability, whatever the political reasons may be. On the role of Governor in Fifth Scheduled Areas, the National Commission advocated that “Governors be made more accountable with regard to their roles vis-à-vis Scheduled Areas, namely ensuring the implementation of constitutional provision protecting adivasi rights.”

Overruling an earlier judgement the apex court in Bhuri Nath vs State of J&K, held that the powers exercised by the Governor under the Fifth Schedule are discretionary, and, while doing so, the Governor does not act on the advice of the Council of Ministers as in the case of normal general administration. Thus the role of Council of Ministers headed by Chief Minister in State, aiding the Governor under Art 163(1), is subject to the constitutional plenary powers conferred on Governor under Fifth Schedule. Unfortunately due to political shades, these constitutional provisions remain elusive and unable to deliver goods to the adivasis.

Adivasis are more worried about the role of present ruling TDP government in going ahead with several anti-tribal measures in Andhra Pradesh. Serious moves in this direction include measures aimed at displacing adivasis in large scale under Polavaram Project without determining their rights over the land and forest, and giving clearances for bauxite mining in the Visakha Agency Areas. Now there is no constitutional mechanism in place to scrutinise the decisions of State government, which are affecting the interests of adivasis in the State.

The track record of the ruling TDP in relation to the tribal affairs has also not been impressive to showcase. In 2000, when the TDP was in power, it made a vain bid to bring constitutional amendment to Fifth Schedule of the Constitution in order to open up the resource-rich mineral wealth in Scheduled Areas to private mining companies.

This unconstitutional move was attempted by TDP government following a judgement pronounced by the apex court in Samata Vs State of Andhra Pradesh in 1997, banning the State from transferring its land to non-tribal owned mining companies in the Scheduled Areas.

The TDP government is moving files up and down to get the clearance from its friendly NDA Government at the Centre. Therefore, the role of TAC is very important to check the excesses and irreversible social costs of the State’s economic liberal interests. Special protections are need of the hour to protect tribals and their interests to withstand the negative fallout of new economic policies. It is tragic that old protective measures are also being violated by the TDP government by negating the role of TAC.

Thus a proactive intervention by the Governor is imperative to correct the widening gap between the spirit of the Fifth Schedule constitutional provisions and the State’s denial to put in place the constitutional body to safeguard the rights of adivasis.

AP, TS govts depriving girijans of their just rights

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao | THE HANS INDIA | Apr 15,2016 , 02:28 AM IST

The forest rights ensured under the Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006 (FRA) to undo historic injustice to adivasis are denied due to indifference of officials in both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh States. Several orders issued from time to time by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), GOI, for effective implementation of the FRA are virtually ignored.

Tribals’ claims on forest land are unjustly rejected on the pretext that land is located in Vansa Samrakshana Samithi (VSS) area or that the land is not classified as forest land or is out of reserved forests
Mandatory approval of the Gram Sabhas is not taken for diversion of forest lands
Both the Telugu States are running parallel bodies like VSSs, bypassing Gram Sabhas

The colonial forest bureaucracy is overstepping the functions of other departments and hampering the process of forest land justice to adivasis. Of the total 1,50,345 claims in relation to 3.36 lakh acres, only 83,874 claims were allowed. About 15,540 claims covering forest land of 32,850 acres were unjustly rejected on the pretext that the claimed land is located in the Vansa Samrakshana Samithi (VSS) area and 10,963 claims (26,758 acres) were junked on the pretext that the land was not classified as forest land or was out of reserved forests.

These exclusions are contradictory to the SC clarification in the case of Godavarman (1997) that forest land includes not only the classified forests but also other forests which would include revenue, private or community forests The status of forest land claims of adivasis in the scheduled area of East Godavari district shows that 812 forest land claims covering 3,165 acres were rejected on the ground that there was no record of cultivation.

In fact, the term ‘self cultivation’ under 12A (8) of the FRA Rules includes not only cultivation but also a host of other ancillary or allied activities of agriculture. Irony is that the failure on the part of officials has also become a ground for rejection of forest land claims of adivasi in the agency areas. For instance, about 1,020 forest land claims of tribals covering 3,726 acres were rejected on a ridiculous ground that no verification report of field staff was available.

Throwing the provisions of FRA to the winds, the Ministry of Forests and Environment (MoE&F), Govt of India, gave a final clearance in 2010 for diversion of 3,731 hectares of forest lands for the Polavaram Project in clear violation of the FRA on a false assurance of the Government of AP that no forest rights need to be settled in the project area under the FRA. This clearance is also against the rule of mandatory approval of the Gram Sabhas for the diversion of forest lands to non-forest purposes.

The apex court dealing with a mining case of Orissa Mining Corporation held in 2013 that the consent of Gram Sabha is mandatory for diversion of forests land for the projects. The MoTA directed withdrawal of the community forest land titles granted to 1,669 VSSs over 9.48 lakhs of acres, considering them to be illegal under the FRA. But no steps were taken yet by these governments to annul the titles granted to VSSs instead of community.

Both the Telugu State governments are running parallel bodies like VSSs or Committees under the Bio Diversity Act to the legally recognised body Gram Sabha which is the nucleus for the management of community forest resources. Girijan Cooperative Corporation is still exercising monopoly over minor forest produce against the provisions of FRA and infringing the ensured community forest rights of adivasis.

Whimsical functioning of forest bureaucracy is best illustrated by their role in implementation of FRA in Khammam district. The District Level Committee cleared the 456 eligible claims for 1,499 acres in Khammam district. However, the Divisional Forest Officer, Palvoncha, and the DFO, Wildlife Management, had refused to sign on the approved title deeds of 191,saying that they had instructions from higher-ups not to sign on forest land claims under the FRA.

An attempt by tribal welfare officials in Khammam for conversion of 102 VSS claims to Gram Sabhas on community forest resources was also foiled by the forest officials, citing instructions of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (file No 27554/TG/ October 2015) not to entertain fresh claims under the FRA.

Community forest resources within village boundaries are very potential and estimated at 25,96,732 hectares in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as per the preliminary assessment report of Vasundhara, an NGO working in Odisha. Thus, there is a need to decolonise Indian forests by empowering the forest dwelling communities and adivasis through decentralised and democratised forest governance which is their right.

Ingenious ways of injustice to tribals in AP State

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao | THE HANS INDIA | Apr 26,2016 ,

The AP Scheduled Castes Sub Plan and Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) Act 2013 was intended to ensure, accelerated development of SCs and STs with emphasis on achieving equality on all fronts and promoting equity among the SCs and STs. The enactment, first of its kind in the country, guarantees legally that funds should be earmarked from the State total plan outlay in proportion to the population of SC and ST in the State. The objective of the law is yet to be fulfilled due to neglect and malpractices in tribal development in Andhra Pradesh.

The Scheduled Tribe population in the AP State is 5.33 per cent and the total Tribal Welfare Budget of the State should be spent only on tribal development without any specific allocations under the TSP. The other departments should earmark funds to bridge the gap in tribal development. An analysis of the TSP budgets allocated under the TSP head account 796 alone reveals the ingenious ways of injustice done to the tribals.

Expenditure under TSP was 54 per cent against the budget allocation Rs 2,155.43 crore in 2013-14, and 93 per cent of the allocation Rs 911.35 crore in 2014-15 and 70% against earmarked funds of Rs 1443.38 crore in 2015-16. The share of expenditure on Non Divisible Infrastructure Works was 82% against allocation of Rs 329.42 crores in 2013-14, and cent per cent against Rs 110.58 crore in 2014-15. However, the expenditure was zero per cent against allotted amount of Rs 217.88 crore in 2015-16 in A.P. Thus there is a need to create a specific budgetary head to park unutilised TSP funds as non-lapsable pool.

The diversion of TSP budgets has continued unabated even after promulgation of the TSP law. TSP funds in AP to the tune of Rs 2.69 crore were allocated to purchase 12 buses in 2015-16 and Rs 2 crore in 2016-17 for operating buses in Scheduled Areas where more than 50 per cent population is non-tribal. In fact such expenditure on infrastructural schemes and other general development programmes can be met from the State Plan budget instead of the TSP budget because it is not benefiting exclusively tribals.

The forest rentals due on procurement of Minor Forest Produce (MFP) by Girijan Cooperative Corporation is booked against the outlay of TSP funds, while both the Forest Rights Recognition Act and Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Area (PESA) Act empower individuals and Gram Sabhas to collect and dispose of MFP without any restriction on payment of rentals.

Under utilisation of allocated TSP funds is another malpractice. For instance, the horticulture department in AP planned horticulture in 10,856 hectares under the Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH) under TSP with a budget of Rs 10.78 crore in 2014-15. But only Rs 3.83 crore was released and the actual expenditure was only Rs 3.22 crore.

The TSP funds allocation and expenditure in East Godavari District is a classic example of how the TSP law is turned into a mockery. Several departments like Zilla Parishad, AP. State Irrigation Development Corporation, Public Health, District Library, Collegiate Education, Vocational Education and Cooperation Department did not earmark any TSP funds for the years 2013 to 2015.

Kakinada Municipal Corporation reported zero expenditure against the allocation of Rs 355 lakh in 2013-14, and only Rs 14 lakh expenditure against total allocation of Rs 441 lakh in 2014-15. Surprisingly the Ground Water Department allocated Rs 2.75 lakh in 2013-14 and Rs 1 lakh in 2014-15 but failed to spend a single rupee. Similar is the case with the Animal Husbandry department.

Wages paid to ST households under the MNREGA were also shown as expenditure under the TSP head by District Water Management Agency. Around Rs 777 lakh was paid as wages for 25,600 tribals households in 2013-14 and Rs 3,106 lakh for 39847 households in 2014-15. It is an irony that MNERGA wage are included in TSP while this right to wages is claimed by all sections across the country. Thus there is a need to monitor and track the TSP funds and its utilisation should be in consonance with the provisions of TSP law.