The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM)’s MLA-businessman P V Anwar, known for his independent and influential position, has been gradually reducing his family’s landholdings while the investigation into potential excess land ownership by the LDF (Left Democratic Front) government has been dragging on for the past five years. Onmanorama.com conducted a thorough examination of court documents and election affidavits filed by Anwar in 2016, 2019, and 2021, revealing that his family currently possesses 21.20 acres of land, which is almost six acres less than what they had in 2019.
According to Anwar’s 2016 election affidavit, he owned approximately 198 acres across 14 plots, including a non-agricultural land measuring 175.81 acres in Malappuram’s Trikkalangode village, purchased on June 18, 2009. However, subsequent election affidavits filed in 2019 and 2021 did not mention this particular large tract of land (survey No. 62/241). Anwar’s office attributed this omission to a clerical mistake and stated that the total landholdings should be considered around 20 acres.
In October 2021, Anwar sold 90.3 cents of land in Koodaranji, Kozhikode district, to Shefeeq Alungal of Eranhimangad, Malappuram. This transaction was documented by RTI (Right to Information) activist K V Shaji, who had been actively involved in the case against Anwar since 2017. According to the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963, an individual’s land ownership is limited to 7.5 acres, while a family consisting of two to five members can own up to 15 acres, and a family with more than five members can possess up to 20 acres. Anwar’s landholdings, amounting to 21.20 acres, fall within the permissible limit, as he has four children from his first wife Sheeja, and his second wife Afsath owns 3.83 acres.
Shaji, the RTI activist, claims that Anwar actually possesses more land than what he has declared in his election affidavits and argues that it falls under the purview of the Land Reforms Act. However, he has not disclosed the locations or extent of the alleged additional plots, stating that he will share the details only with the High Court. The case of excess land ownership dates back to 2017 when the collectors of Malappuram and Kozhikode submitted separate reports to the government suggesting that Anwar may own surplus land. Based on these reports, the State Land Board directed the Thamarassery Taluk Land Board to register a case under the Land Reforms Act and initiate proceedings to take over the excess land. However, due to delays and frequent transfers of officials, the proceedings have not been concluded.
Shaji moved to the High Court of Kerala in 2021, which directed the Taluk Land Board to complete the proceedings within six months. However, the board failed to take action, leading Shaji to file a contempt of court petition. The board then submitted an affidavit stating that Anwar owned 22.82 acres and that they were actively pursuing the proceedings. Subsequently, the Taluk Land Board sought additional time on multiple occasions, but the High Court denied the requests and demanded an explanation for the delay by July 21, 2023.
During the course of the investigation, Shaji discovered that the Thamarassery Taluk Land Board had experienced frequent changes in its chairperson, with a total of 17 officials serving in that position over the past five years. The constant transfers, with each official holding the position for a brief period of around three months, have raised suspicions. Shaji questions why the government repeatedly changes the chairperson and why the proceedings have not been expedited, particularly when it could be easily done with today’s digital resources.
Anwar’s properties are located in three areas: Trikkalangode and Perakamanna villages in Malappuram district, and Koodaranji, a hilly village on the border of Malappuram and Kozhikode districts. In Trikkalangode, Anwar previously owned eight plots totaling 187.1 acres, including the potentially contentious 175.81-acre non-agricultural plot. Anwar’s personal assistant attributes the discrepancy to a misplaced decimal and explains that the revised affidavit corrected the error after the election. Furthermore, Anwar sold portions of other plots in Trikkalangode.
At Perakamanna, Anwar’s hometown, he originally owned four plots covering 48.52 cents. However, only one of those plots was included in his 2019 affidavit, which indicated an increased total landholding of 1.28 acres from five plots. The same information was retained in his 2021 affidavit.
Anwar’s holdings in Koodaranji expanded from two plots in 2016 to five plots in 2019, with a total area of 14.55 acres. This increase can be attributed in part to his second wife Afsath, who acquired 2.65 acres. Anwar also divided the amusement park property, PeeVeeAar Nature Tourism Village, with Afsath, resulting in his ownership of 6.6 acres and Afsath’s ownership of 4.4 acres. However, by 2021, Afsath’s share reduced to 3.83 acres. Additionally, Anwar allegedly sold 90.3 cents of land in Koodaranji in October 2021.
Anwar’s assets outside the state, such as his land in Karnataka’s Dakshina Kannada district and his metal crusher unit, are not subject to the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Shaji accuses the government of turning a blind eye to Anwar’s reduction of landholdings despite the ongoing investigation by the Taluk Land Board.
Shaji has filed a complaint with the Governor against Anwar, accusing him of concealing or providing false information in his election affidavit. The complaint was forwarded to the chief secretary and then to the Election Commission. If found guilty of filing a false affidavit, Anwar could face imprisonment of up to six months under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, it is worth noting that no such convictions have been recorded to date.
Shaji remains determined in his pursuit of the case and claims to possess information about Anwar’s properties held under shell companies, which he intends to share with the court at the appropriate time. The investigation continues, and the details surrounding Anwar’s landholdings remain subject to further scrutiny and legal proceedings.
Post Your Comments