Kerala Government’s assertion that the land earmarked for the widening of the NH 85 (Kochi-Dhanushkodi) stretch between Neriamangalam and Valara is a revenue holding that was disreserved long ago goes against the grain of the State Forest department and the objections raised by Forest officials at a recently held meeting.

The State Chief Secretary had filed a fresh affidavit in the Kerala High Court the other day after retracting its earlier position that the disputed land parcel was an integral part of the Malayattoor Reserved Forest.

Earlier affidavit

The senior official also informed the court that the earlier counter affidavit filed in the petition challenging the National Highway Authority of India’s (NHAI) construction of the road, allegedly without obtaining the clearance under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, “did not demonstrate correct factual and legal position” and many documents regarding the nature of the land were not available at the time of the filing the counter affidavit.”

The State also argued that it was not “legally or factually sustainable that only this stretch of a continuous road, existing for nearly ninety years, could be treated as forestland.”

However, the State Forest department had earlier categorically concluded that the Neriyamangalam-Valara stretch of the road had never been disafforested. It went on to argue that the disafforested blocks of Malayattoor Reserve were distinct and in no way physically connected with the contentious stretch.

The department had earlier opposed the NHAI’s move by asserting that the portion of the Neriyamangalam-Valara road, where work was progressing, continued to be reserved forest unless it was specifically dis-reserved through a notification.

The statement of facts prepared by the Forest department for filing the now retracted counter affidavit in the case had noted that survey numbers of the area in question were recorded as part of the Malayattoor Reserve in the Basic Tax Register records of Mannamkandam village.

The Forest department also contended that the disputed area was never put to non-forest use and continued to exist as forest as per all legally defined meanings of forest.

Senior Forest officials are understood to have raised these contentions at a recent meeting convened by the Chief Minister to discuss the issue. However, the objections were reportedly overruled after a senior official from the Revenue department argued that the land in question was a revenue holding, sources indicated.

It was also pointed out at the meeting that the disrevered area began from the 46 mile 5 furlong of Aluva-Munnar road and extended up to 56 mile 5 furlong, which is now in the Adimaly town and not on the Neriyamangalam-Valara stretch as contended by the government, those privy to the meeting said.

The Kerala High Court will consider the case next week.