Subscribe
A bench of the Allahabad High Court has passed an order quashing a 2021 order by the District Level Committee (DLC) of Lakhimpur in Uttar Pradesh that refused to finalise the forest rights claims of the Tharu community.
The bench, comprising of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, noted in its order that the DLC ‘presumably’ short-circuited the existing rights of the tribal group.
The court was hearing 107 petitioners from the Tharu community, a forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe notified in June 1967 under the Constitution of India. These claims were submitted from 20 Gram Sabhas.
According to the provisions of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, tribals have rights to land title, collection and usage of minor forest produce, including firewood and reeds.
The petitioners challenged the 2021 DLC order which had rejected their claims for community forest rights (CFR). The committee’s rejection was based on a 2000 interim order from the Supreme Court related to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court judgment referred to by the DLC in the impugned order was passed in the year 2000 in reference to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
“The impugned order does not take into account the factum of the Act overriding the interim order passed by the Supreme Court,” the counsel said.
Citing provisions of the FRA, they argued that the Act recognises and vests the forest and occupation in forest land with forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded.
The FRA seeks to provide for a framework for recording forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in respect of forest land.
“Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) was specifically enacted to address historical injustices and secure the livelihoods of forest dwellers,” stated the counsel.
The petitioners underlined that a circular issued in 2013 by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs circular clarified that the 2006 Act, being a subsequent statute, overrides all preceding court judgments or orders of prior date.
The court noted that FRA provisions also include a non-obstante clause, wherein it is stated that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government recognises and vests forest rights in the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in States in respect”.
It further observed that the Act recognises essential rights for the Tharu community, adding, “We see that the primary objective to be achieved by the Act is not only limited to recognising and vesting the forest and occupation in forest land to these forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes but also to ensure their livelihood and food security.”
The bench also noted that besides the provisions, it was patently clear that the forest dwellers have been living for centuries in the forests and had been provided with the forest rights as per the provisions of the FRA.
“Apparently, it seems that with the enactment of the Act, the legislature in its wisdom has not created any new rights for these forest dwellers; rather, it has recognised the existing rights and occupation of these people, who had been traditionally restricted to this place of dwelling in forest owing to various reasons,” it said.
Noting that the true character of a law must be ascertained by its object, purpose and context, the court said that the DLC has been granted sweeping powers under the Act which states — a decision of the said Committee shall be final and binding on the records of the forest rights.
It further said, “We do not find any plausible reason as to why the Committee ought not to have made an assessment of the forest rights of the forest dwellers, without taking into account the object and scope behind the Act.”
The court noted: “Having, discussed the object and scope behind the enactment of the ‘Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006’, we find ourselves in total disagreement with the impugned order. Although the impugned order has been passed on March 15, 2021, however we find that the Authority concerned has neither discussed nor appreciated the specific intent of the Act and has presumably short-circuited the existing rights of the petitioners by relying on an interim order of the Supreme Court, without even discussing as to whether the said interim order is applicable to the petitioners in the present facts and circumstances or not.”
“In our view, (the DLC) has not taken into account the relevant provisions of the Act and has only dealt with the Supreme Court interim order that was passed in the year 2000, previous to enactment of the Act,” the court said.
Quashing and setting aside the 2021 order, the court directed the authorities to grant an opportunity to petitioners or their representatives to hear them out and pass a fair order in accordance with the law.
Y Giri Rao, executive director of the Bhubaneswar-based non-profit Vasundhara, is a prominent advocate for the FRA. He told Down To Earth, “The judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court assumes wider significance. It does more than resolve a single dispute—it establishes that authorities cannot act arbitrarily or in isolation.”
Giri added that the authority’s decisions must align with the objectives and spirit of the FRA, ensuring that the rights of forest-dwelling communities are upheld.
“In doing so, the Court has made the decision-making process more accountable, compelling officials to discharge their statutory duties in both letter and spirit. It has wider implications. Even the DLC can’t use provisions to reject any claim,” he added.