We all refused: Adivasis contest lease of 2,730 acres to private firm in Attappady, Kerala

On 8 February 2019, the Attappady Cooperative Farming Society leased roughly 2,730 acres of land to LA Homes, a Thrissur-based construction company, in a highly controversial decision. The society is a state-run project in the Attappady village of Kerala’s Palakkad district and was set up in 1975 to provide land to 420 Adivasi families. The pattayam, or title deeds, of this transferred land are in the names of these 420 families. However, the families found out about the transfer, which is effective for 25 years, in early 2020 when businessmen began touring the land. The families now feel deceived by the ACFS and accuse it of breaking a 44-year-old agreement between the state government and the society to protect Adivasi land and livelihoods. Since 2018, Adivasi groups in Attappady have organised major protests demanding that the full land be returned to Adivasis and these protests have intensified after locals found out about the deal with LA Homes.

As per the ACFS’s website, the society’s primary goal was to return land to Adivasi families, whose traditional lands had been forcibly acquired by governments and plantation owners over the past century. It had been established “with the aim of improving the life of 420 landless tribal families of Attappady.” The collective was formed under the Western Ghats Development Programme, a centrally funded project launched in 1974. An evaluation report of the programme from 1982, released by the Planning Commission, noted that the ACFS had helped to improve the economic status of tribal families “while taking care to maintain the ecological balance of the area.”

Almost four decades later, the ground reality is starkly different. Several local activists, a journalist, a farmers’ union leader and an Adivasi leader of the affected families told me that the cooperative, in collusion with government officials, has defrauded them of their land rights. The members of the society are entirely Adivasi but its governing body is made up of various government officials. Adivasi activists told me that D Balamurali, the district collector of Palakkad and the president of ACFS was present at general body meetings held in early 2019, where Adivasi members of the cooperative vetoed any proposal to bring LA Homes on board. They said the society still went ahead, leased the land and claimed that the Adivasi members had given their consent for the transfer. The activists also contested the government’s assertions about when these meetings were held. In addition, AK Balan, Kerala’s minister for welfare of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, has made confusing statements about the Adivasis right to the land and its ownership.

On 18 September 2020, fifty Adivasi activists, from various tribes of Attappady, filed a petition against the ACFS board’s decision before the Kerala High Court. On 22 September, the court stayed the contract for a period of two months, pending further proceedings. On 20 November, the court further stayed the contract for another three months.

The legality of transferring Adivasi land has always been hotly disputed in Kerala. Today, Dalits and Adivasis constitute 85 percent of landless people in Kerala but the two communities were largely ignored during land reforms enacted by the state in 1970. Since then, Adivasis in the state have organised widespread protests for land. The state government responded to these protests by creating farming collectives or cooperative societies, often with central government aid, in which Adivasis were given land and infrastructure to build a livelihood. The ACFS was one such project.

In 1975, the state government passed the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act which restricted the buying of Adivasi land by non-Adivasis. In 1999, the act was updated as the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to the Scheduled Tribes Act, which stated that “any transfer effected by a member of the scheduled tribe, of land possessed, enjoyed or owned by him on or after the commencement of this Act, to a person other than a member of a scheduled tribe, without previous consent in writing of the competent authority, shall be invalid.” The law declared 24 January 1986 to be the cut-off date and invalidated any land transaction to a non-tribal person after this date.

Sukumaran Attappady, the state president of the All India Krantikari Kisan Sabha, a farmers’ union, is one of the leaders of the movement to reclaim tribal land in Attappady. “In 1999, when the Kerala government approached the Supreme Court to amend the tribal land law at the time, it had given an assurance that it would protect the land of all tribes from any such transactions,” he told me. “The court granted permission to amend the 1975 land laws based on this assurance.”

However, in defiance of its own laws, Adivasi land is often seized by the Kerala government and the forest department. A study by the LK Ananthakrishna Iyer International Centre for Anthropological Studies—an independent research institute based in Palakkad—found that in Attappady alone, over 10,796.19 acres had been alienated from Adivasis between 1960 and 80. The study also stated that Attappady region had the highest instances of Adivasi land being alienated in Kerala. In 2010, more than 85 acres of Adivasi land in Attappady was encroached by a windmill firm, which submitted fabricated documents with the help of government officials. The land has still not been restored to the Adivasis and the government officials who participated in the illegal transfer are all back in government service.

The ACFS’s decision to lease land follows this pattern of violations of Adivasi land-rights in Attappady. As per the ACFS’s website, its objectives include “bringing about Socio-economical and cultural changes among STs of Attappady and creating sufficient employment opportunity to STs.” Accordingly, the ACFS set up four farms in the Attappady block of Mannarkad taluk, in the villages of Chindakki, Karuvara, Pothupaddy and Varadimala. The farms were spread over 1092.79 hectares of land and were meant for cash crops such as pepper, coffee, nutmeg, cardamom and areca nut.

The ACFS website explains the group farming project in detail along with other welfare measures undertaken for the benefit of the tribal members, but only makes a brief reference to their ownership of the farmlands. Referring to the society’s 816 registered members, the website states, “since majority of them are expired, an initiative to find out their legal heirs and assign the land with them is taking place.” It is unclear why the society has contracted the land to LA Homes for 25 years if such a process to locate the heirs to the land is underway.

Sukumaran told me, “As per the original objective of the society, when it was formed in 1975, crops like coffee and cardamom were to be cultivated on the land and after a period of five years, it was supposed to be handed over to the 420 tribal families so that they could become self-reliant.” Shivadasan Pothupady, one of the Adivasi members of ACFS, corroborated this and said that, “within five years, they were supposed to hand over five acres of land to each family, including land in which they would be housed.”

But authorities never fully transferred the land to the Adivasis from the very inception of the cooperative society. In the late 1970s ACFS issued pattayams to all 420 families, but allowed them to use only 50 cents—half an acre—of land each, for their homes. TC Suresh, who was a secretary on the board of ACFS from 1988 to 1996, told me that the society had taken a loan of Rs 1.29 crore from the Perinthalmanna Sahakarana Karshika Vikasana Bank—the Perinthalmanna Cooperative Farming Development Bank—to fund the farm cultivation. “The registered society presented the pattayams before the Perinthalmanna cooperative bank to procure funds,” he told me. However, ACFS never returned the pattayams to the Adivasis after the loan was taken.

Documents of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Department corroborated the fact that the state promised to distribute five acres of land to each Adivasi family. The Caravan is also in possession of a copy of a pattayam, issued in March 1978, which clearly shows that five acres of land was registered in the name of an Adivasi individual, and not in the name of the society. When I reached out to Balamurali to ask him about the ownership of the land and the legality of its transfer, he refused to answer any questions and directed me to Arjun Pandian, the current sub-collector of Ottapalam, in Palakkad. Pandian is also the ACFS’s current managing director and he flatly denied that the land was owned by Adivasis. “It is a farming society formed on the basis of a government order,” he said. “And nowhere it says that it will be given back.” Pandian’s assertion on the return of the land is curious as the pattayams clearly show that they are already registered in the names of Adivasis and thus signify their complete ownership of the land. Suresh agreed that the land was supposed to be distributed to the 420 families in parcels of five acres but claimed to be unaware of the reasons why the ACFS never followed through.

Referring to the society, Suresh said, “It suffered losses right from the beginning. It did not bring the expected profits. The returns were lesser than what was being spent.” He continued, “It was only around 1995 that it somewhat became profitable.” TR Chandran, the general secretary of Adivasi Bharat Mahasabha—a left-leaning Adivasi organisation—said that the society had become nearly defunct over the years. “This society has moved away from the purpose for which it was formed and moved to other programmes,” Chandran told me. “They are unable to maintain the society while simultaneously receiving government grants worth two crores each year. No work is being done. Coffee plants have grown to become coffee trees. The crops are not being pruned.”

Pandian, however, disagreed with Chandran and Suresh’s judgement. “If you take the three government farms in Kerala, this is the best-run of the farms,” Pandian told me. “All others are struggling to give salaries to the members. But this is the only farm which is running in good conditions.” However, he almost immediately contradicted himself and said, “2000 acres are there. Out of that, 500 acres are well-maintained and going good.” He continued, “You should not compare it with the private farms. Because with government, problems will be there. It depends on the government funds also.”

The Adivasis, for whom the cooperative society was created and who worked the fields, have lived in penury even after the creation of the ACFS. “Some 840 members used to work in the farms,” Shivadasan told me. The ACFS website however, only mentions 816 members. “The pay was very basic in the 80s and 90s. It was Rs 3.50 and Rs 4.50 per day.” The living conditions in the farm were also sub-standard.  “When you say quarters, those were just houses built with mud walls,” he said. “They collapsed completely. The houses lasted for just ten years. The families moved away because it was not inhabitable. The houses were very small. We have been permanent residents of this land for generations,” Shivadasan said. “The society came into the picture much later. They took over our land by promising to make it suitable for farming.”

Chandran said that among the 816 members of the society, many have passed away, while many others have given up farming and moved elsewhere on the lookout for jobs. R Sunil, a journalist who has been covering Attappady for eight years, told me that a total of 120 families were settled in Varadimala initially. “It was six–seven years ago that the families were still living there,” Sunil said. “Today, there is not even a single family in Varadimala. The claimants have increased from 120 families to over 300 families as the population grew. The society has not maintained an account of the number of claimants. How will such a society call a general body meeting? They just conveniently choose a few people and hold a general body meeting for the sake of it.” Several members are still struggling to survive without any source of income.

On 17 September 2020, the Malayalam daily Madhyamam reported that ACFS had contracted over 2,700 acres of land to LA Homes, after which fresh protests erupted across Attappady. “The society needs the consent of the owner of the pattayam to transfer it to anyone else,” Chandran said. “But they kept the pattayam locked up in a suitcase and the members remained unaware of the clauses in it.” On 25 September 2020, Balan, the minister, sent a letter marked urgent to the Scheduled Tribes Development Department’s principal secretary, instructing him to examine the contract signed between the ACFS and LA Homes. “The terms of the contract prima facie appears to be in contradiction with the objectives of the formation of the society,” the letter stated. The minister sought a report from the principal secretary with information concerning “the subject of whether the contract was drafted with the knowledge of the farm’s administration and whether the programme is being implemented without the permission of the government.”

On 30 September, Rajesh, then secretary of ACFS, submitted a report to P Pugazhendi, the director of the STDD justifying the decision to enter into the agreement with LA Homes. “At a meeting called by the principal secretary of the Scheduled Tribes Development Department in 2018, it was decided that organisations which are suffering losses would be shut down,” the report stated. The report further noted that the farms have huge potential to implement a tourism programme that would increase the profits of the society. The report claims that a proposal for a farm-tourism programme, which would involve leasing of the land, was discussed and accepted at a general body meeting held on 2 November 2018. On 25 November, at least two local papers had carried advertisements by the ACFS, inviting bids for the farm tourism programme. Curiously, Rajesh’s report also said that a shutdown would negatively impact the 420 families “who have worked for this organisation for 45 years.”

The society’s website does allude to a series of problems under a section titled “constraints.” Describing the infrastructure facilities in the farms as “very pathetic,” the website states, “as the society is in a dire financial state, it cannot afford to construct new quarters or houses for the members which results in their deserting the farms for greener pastures.” It is unclear what the society’s officials meant by “greener pastures” considering the members continued to reside in Attappady as they had for generations before. On 28 October, Madhyamam carried a copy of Rajesh’s reply to a right to information request which said that Pandian had given verbal orders not to reply to any RTI regarding the LA Homes deal without his permission.

The ACFS general body comprises its management as well as all its Adivasi members. Pandian claimed that the general body had agreed to the land transfer, and even signed a petition allowing the sale. “We cannot do it without their consent” Pandian told me. “Around 300 families signed a petition … There is a general body. The farm is a registered society. All the families are part of the general body. And it was put before the general body and it was passed by the general body. After that, this agreement was signed.”

Sukumaran, however, disagreed and argued that the society’s management did not consider the views of the tribal members. “They hold general body meetings for the sake of it,” Sukumaran told me. “They make their own decisions and pass it. The tribal members do not have a say there.” The members attempted to oppose the transfer of the pattayam land to LA Homes at one such meeting. Sukumaran said the meeting had happened this year, but could not recall the exact date.

“The board asked us for our views on signing the contract, all of us, all the 420 families, refused to hand over the land,” Shivadasan told me. Shivadasan could not recall exactly when the meeting took place. “We clearly stated our opposition. And they even said that they will not go ahead with the contract.” Shivadasan said that Balamurali had been present at the meeting. Later, he said, they came to know that the board had signed off the 1092.79 hectares of land without the consent of any of its members.

According to Rajesh’s report, the ACFS issued a media advertisement inviting proposals to execute the tourism programme. After examining four proposals, the society selected LA Homes. The report attempted to assure Pugazhendi that the company’s role is limited to implementing the farm-tourism programme for the lease period of 25 years. It stated that the employment opportunities created out of the project “should give preference to the extent of 50% or 25 persons, whichever is higher, to the members/ their dependents. At the very least, 25 persons from Attappady who belong to scheduled tribes must be employed.” The report is accusatory in its tone while referring to the complaints raised against the project, stating that “several complaining members are still coming to work even after retiring from the society and are accessing the benefits.”

Balan’s stance on the entire episode has vacillated from support for the Adivasis to denial of their claims. He first asked for a report on the issue in September but during a press conference on 1 November 2020, Balan said that “the government had no knowledge of it.” He continued, “The society has informed the government that they have the power to do this as per the society bylaws. The principal secretary has been asked to examine this. The principal secretary will take necessary action.” Balan went on to suggest that the land is vested with the society, and not the Adivasi families it was meant for, while also stating that it could not be sold by the society to any other party. “That land in Attappady is not meant to be distributed to individuals. It is meant for the society,” he said. “They had collectively and voluntarily given the land for cultivation to sell the products through the society. The society was formed with the consent of the Adivasis. The profits from all the society’s activities is for the Adivasis. The Adivasi land cannot be sold to anyone else.” The minister added that the society has informed the government that the 25-year lease to LA Homes is also meant to aid the society’s profit. Balan did not respond to emails asking about his official position on the legality of the land transfer.

“The society’s only defence is that this is permissible under the Societies Act,” Sunil, the journalist, said. “Yes, the society was established under this act but the land is only meant for the tribals. The issue is whether or not tribal resettlement land can be leased out. If that happens, the forest department”—who held claim to the land before 1975—“will take the land back. If the conditions are violated, the land will be taken back. That is another dangerous aspect to it. They keep calling it ‘society land.’ Don’t forget that it is tribal resettlement land.”

“The society is free to go by its bylaws if it concerns their land,” Sukumaran said. “But does the society have any land? The title deeds to the land were given to the Adivasis 40 years ago. The question of distributing land to Adivasis, as the minister mentioned, does not arise. It was already completed this in the pattayams.” He once again reiterated the point that the society officials collected the title deeds to withdraw a loan after which the documents were never returned to the families. Sukumaran added that they managed to procure photocopies of some of the pattayams to approach the high court. He argued that LA Homes has no intention of initiating anything that could benefit the families. “It is a front to earn money in bulk. That is their only intention.” Sukumaran said

According to the website of LA Homes, it was founded in 2010 with focus on a concept of construction called prefabrication. The company mentions resort cottages, farmhouses and bungalows among its projects. Latheesh VK, the director of LA Homes, was a signatory on the lease with ACFS, along with co-directors Anoop KV and Ashokan KV. All the locals I spoke to in Attappady told me that LA Homes is connected to Boby Chemmanur, the chairman of the Chemmanur International Group, which is predominantly invested in gold and diamond retail. While Chemmanur’s name does not appear anywhere in the documents or publicity material concerning the projects of LA Homes, Latheesh has reportedly worked with Chemmanur in other ventures.

In March 2020, the Malayalam daily Mathrubhumi reported that Chemmanur donated about 200 portable living spaces as quarantine facilities to various government hospitals free of charge. The Facebook page of Chemmanur International Jewellers, owned by Chemmanur, has a post about the living spaces which says that “Dr. Boby Chemmanur, Mr. Latheesh V .K … are the minds behind this great venture.” Chandran told me that Chemmanur made multiple visits to Attappady to oversee the LA Homes venture. “Boby Chemmanur came and stayed here to make enquiries,” he said. “He stayed in a farm here for five-six days.” Locals began searching for evidence of the transfer and started the protests only after noticing vehicles with Chemmanur’s name.

Pandian also confirmed that Chemmanur had expressed interest in the project, while clarifying that the Kerala government had nothing to do with it. “Actually, they (LA Homes) were trying for investments to this project,” Pandian said. “They were connecting to so many businessmen to invest in this. We were in agreement with LA Homes but LA Homes was looking for investors. Like that they would have approached Boby Chemmanur. Actually, he visited that place once during lockdown. He didn’t take permission for that.”

Latheesh did not respond to any questions about the objections raised by the tribal communities and said that he could not offer any further comment because the case was sub judice. Latheesh also did not respond to questions about Chemmanur’s relations to the company or his role in the deal with ACFS. Chemmanur did not respond to emails about his relation to LA Homes or the farm tourism project.

Adivasi organisations and left-wing unions have been organising major protests in Attappady against the transfer. “The Ottapalam RDO”—revenue divisional officer—“and other authorities are depriving the tribal people of their land through this decision of an illegal transfer,” Sukumaran said. “We are going to meet the governor to demand action against them.” On 1 October, K Mayandi, the chairman of the Palakkad Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Coordination Committee, and several other activists associated with Dalit and tribal-rights organisations in Kerala held a satyagraha outside the Ottapalam revenue division office. On 10 October, the Communist Party of India (Marxist Leninist) led a protest march to the LA Homes’ office in Thrissur district against the transfer of tribal land to the “tourism mafia,” a term used by the party in its protest poster. On 5 November, protestors presented a petition to the office of Arif Mohammad Khan, the governor of Kerala, demanding the pattayams be returned to Adivasis.

Sukumaran told me that village officers, political parties and companies often worked together to alienate Adivasi land. “When it comes to Adivasi lands in particular, they are not given tax receipts, or the pattayam documents and if they are given the pattayam documents, they are not allotted the land itself,” he said. “The government has never provided any benefits to them as far as land is concerned.”