Tension broke out at Pariyathukavu in Kerala's Ernakulam district on Wednesday after an eviction attempt triggered protests by Dalit residents, leading police to use water cannons and remove demonstrators from the area.

The latest confrontation is part of a long-running land dispute that has remained unresolved for years. Multiple earlier attempts to carry out eviction orders had also faced resistance.

Hundreds of police personnel in riot gear were deployed to assist an advocate commission team that had reached the area to implement court directions. Protesters initially blocked officials from entering the colony and reaching houses marked for eviction.

After a stand-off lasting several hours, police used water cannons and detained protesters, including women and CPM activists. The advocate commission team later moved towards the houses, accompanied by police, but was again stopped by residents.

The commission and police later left the area following intense protests. The move was reportedly made after intervention by the new UDF government.

One commission member said officials had only tried to execute the court order.

"We did not provoke anyone or harm anyone. The Supreme Court orders have to be implemented, and anyone obstructing them has to be removed by the police," the commission member said.

What is the Pariyathukavu land dispute?

Pariyathukavu is located at Malayidamthuruthu Kara in Vazhakulam village under Kunnathunad taluk in Ernakulam district.

The dispute concerns around two-and-a-half acres of land where Pariyathukavu colony is situated. The land forms part of a wider 19-acre area linked to the dispute.

Eight economically disadvantaged Dalit families, who have lived there for decades, are at the centre of the issue. Residents have argued that the land forms part of government puramboke land (government-owned unassessed land ) and that they have the right to continue living there.

The dispute began after a private individual claimed ownership of the land and approached the court. What started as a property dispute later developed into a politically and socially significant issue.

What did courts examine in the case?

The legal dispute originated from a case filed by the private individual before the Perumbavoor Munsiff Court.

Residents argued that they were not parties in the original case and therefore the ruling should not apply to them. Courts, however, relied on the Doctrine of Substantial Representation, under which successors can also be bound if earlier parties had represented the same interests.

Courts also examined provisions under the Land Assignment Act and the Land Reforms Act. Among the questions considered were whether people living on government puramboke land without authorisation could receive land titles and whether land with registered ownership documents could be treated as government land.

The courts found that the private individual possessed legally valid ownership records. The ownership claim was supported by registered documents under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with registration requirements for property transfers.

Courts also found that the entire 19-acre area was not recorded in government records as government puramboke land and concluded that the property was privately owned.

Why has the issue remained unresolved?

Residents suffered an early legal setback when the Perumbavoor Munsiff Court dismissed their obstruction petition. An appeal before the Perumbavoor Sub Court was also rejected.

A second appeal was dismissed by Kerala High Court judge Justice Shyam Kumar V.M. on December 12, 2024.

Courts mainly found:

Residents did not possess documents establishing legal ownership beyond long-term occupation.

Allegations of fraud were raised but were not established through civil procedure.

The Munsiff Court's earlier rejection of the petition was legally valid.

Later, Justice T.R. Ravi of the Kerala High Court issued a final order on March 19, 2026, permitting implementation of the ruling. The ongoing eviction process is based on these court orders.

Despite court rulings favouring the private individual, implementation has continued to face resistance.

During the latest attempt, protests were organised under the leadership of elected representatives, including CPM MLA PV Sreenijin. They argued that surveys and eviction measures were being carried out unilaterally without notice under the Boundary Act, making the process unlawful.

More than 11 earlier eviction attempts have reportedly been blocked.

Supporters of the residents have argued that rehabilitation and livelihood concerns should also be considered alongside legal proceedings. Residents and elected representatives are now attempting to bring the issue back before the courts following the temporary suspension of eviction measures.