The prolonged failure of revenue authorities to resolve a long-pending land dispute in the non-Scheduled Area of Anakapalli district in Andhra Pradesh has culminated in two deeply troubling outcomes: the death of a tribal resident and the criminal prosecution of a legal activist assisting Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) families in securing their land rights.
The dispute concerns Survey No. 139, measuring 9.83 acres, located at Chatarjipuram village in MK Patnam Revenue Village of Rolugunta Mandal, Anakapalli district. The contesting parties are Gadaba PVTG families on one side and Scheduled Tribe Valmiki families belonging to the Vara family from Chittampadu village in Koyyuru Mandal on the other.
According to the Gadaba families, led by Kedari Raju and others, they have cultivated the land for several years, with their names reflected in official adangal records. They allege that their banana, mango, and cashew plantations were destroyed in September 2023 by members of the Vara Nukaraju family. Following this incident, Rolugunta police registered Crime No. 120/2023 against Vara Nukaraju and his family. A counter case, Crime No. 119/2023, was also registered, alleging an attack on Vara Nukaraju during the same period.
Importantly, civil suits concerning title and possession of the disputed land have been pending since 2022 before the Narsipatnam Civil Court, underscoring the essentially civil nature of the dispute. Despite this, revenue authorities failed to carry out demarcation or deliver a conclusive administrative decision, even after repeated representations by the affected families.
Advocate and social activist P.S. Ajay Kumar has been providing legal assistance to the Gadaba PVTG families, representing them before revenue authorities and courts. His role, by all available accounts, was limited to offering legal advice and pursuing lawful remedies within the institutional framework. However, prolonged administrative inaction allowed tensions to escalate, eventually leading to the death of Vara Nukaraju on 20 October 2025.
In connection with this incident, Rolugunta police registered Crime No. 88/2025 under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 351(3), 61(2), and 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Eight persons, including Kedari Rajababu and other PVTG family members, were named as accused. Advocate Ajay Kumar was arrayed as Accused No. 9, arrested on 11 December 2025, and remanded to judicial custody.
The sole allegation against Ajay Kumar is that he “instigated” the accused. Those supporting him argue that advising clients to pursue legal remedies cannot reasonably be construed as criminal instigation or conspiracy, particularly in a dispute that has long remained sub judice in civil courts.
Sarma has argued that dominant sections often assert illegitimate land claims, sometimes in collusion with segments of the revenue machinery, while genuine tribal claims remain unresolved for years. He has called for a speedy and impartial investigation and the immediate release of Ajay Kumar, warning that criminalising those who provide legal aid to marginalised communities effectively denies them access to justice.
The issue also drew strong reactions at a public meeting held on 4 January 2026 in Anakapalli. Presided over by Bugata Bangara Rao, State General Secretary of CPI(ML), and attended by Raja Ram Singh, Member of Parliament from Karakat, Bihar, as the chief guest, the meeting saw speakers, including Human Rights Forum activist V.S. Krishna, express concern over the harassment of Adivasi families and the prosecution of a legal activist in a criminal case arising from an unresolved civil dispute. The gathering demanded the withdrawal of what were described as false cases against Ajay Kumar and the Adivasi family members.
This episode raises serious questions about governance in non-Scheduled Areas with significant tribal populations. While the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and protective land laws provide safeguards against the alienation of tribal land in Scheduled Areas, no comparable statutory protections operate in non-Scheduled Areas. In the absence of timely administrative intervention, civil disputes are allowed to degenerate into criminal conflicts, resulting in loss of life and prolonged legal entanglements.
The present case illustrates how administrative negligence not only failed to prevent violence but also led to the criminalisation of legal assistance and rights advocacy. Unless systemic reforms ensure time-bound resolution of land disputes, accountability of revenue officials, and protection for legal practitioners assisting marginalised communities, similar tragedies are likely to recur—at immense human, legal, and constitutional cost.
Comments