Kerala identifies 584 lease violators holding government land worth ₹665 crore; minimal recovery exposes weak land governance

In a striking revelation, the Kerala government has identified 584 individuals and organisations illegally occupying government-leased land, with cumulative dues reaching a staggering ₹665.30 crore. The data, compiled from district-level reports, shows an extensive pattern of lease violations across all 14 districts, exposing deep administrative lapses in the state’s land management system.

Ernakulam district tops the list with ₹280 crore in unpaid dues from just 60 violators, reflecting the high market value of land in Kerala’s commercial hub. Thrissur follows with 15 violators owing ₹201.34 crore, while Thiruvananthapuram, the state capital, records 157 violators with dues amounting to ₹104.70 crore. Other districts, including Kollam, Kottayam, and Kozhikode, also report significant arrears, ranging between ₹14 crore and ₹33 crore.

Interestingly, Idukki reported the highest number of violators—256 cases—but the dues are minimal, totaling only ₹5.5 lakh, likely due to small agricultural plots and inherited leases in the high ranges. Palakkad, Wayanad, and Kannur also feature on the list with comparatively smaller dues. Pathanamthitta reported two cases with no pending amounts, completing the statewide tally.

Despite the scale of violations, land recovery has been negligible. Revenue Minister K. Rajan informed the Assembly that only 2.737 hectares of government land have been reclaimed so far. This figure, when compared to ₹665 crore in arrears, highlights the state’s weak enforcement of lease terms.

The government said notices have been issued to all defaulters, with proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. In cases where lease conditions were violated, actions are being taken under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to cancel the lease and reclaim possession.

However, the minister admitted that the government does not maintain a consolidated record of illegally held leased land, relying instead on fragmented district-level data. This gap raises serious questions about transparency, governance, and the ability of the state to safeguard its land assets amid growing demand for public infrastructure and housing projects.