Forest communities do not only consist of people from recognised Adivasi and other backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said land
Forest inhabitants other than Adivasi or backward communities are also an integral part of forest communities, the Supreme Court of India observed while hearing a case on July 5, 2023. People not belonging to such notified communities also have a right to be heard before they are evicted from the forest lands they possess, it said.
The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 recognises the rights of forest dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers to forest resources.
The Supreme Court (SC) was hearing an appeal against an impugned order and judgment by the High Court of Allahabad on February 4, 2013, that had allowed the eviction of the appellants, Hari Prakash Shukla and others.
The appellants claimed they were bhoomidars (landowners) of a part of forest land in Uttar Pradesh. They were using the land for agriculture under a permanent lease executed in their favour by a zamindar in 1952, the appeal said.
However, a piece of land, including a portion that belonged to the appellant, was declared as reserved forest under Section 4 of the Forest Act by the forest department. This notification resulted in the locals being evicted from the land.
The locals filed a writ petition in the SC to fight for their right, referring to ruling in the Banwasi Seva Ashram case. On November 20, 1986, the SC directed the constitution of a high-powered committee in the case, which directed the claims be heard by the forest settlement officer.
The officer heard both parties and held the appellants had rights over the land as they were in possession even prior to 1385 Fasli (a harvest-based calendar system).
The forest department then approached the Allahabad High Court in 2013 by filing a writ petition and the court allowed the appellants’ eviction.
The appellants then approached the apex court to review the order. Taking cue from the Banwasi Seva Ashram case, the bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah raised whether the judgment granting land rights was limited to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes and other backward communities.
The bench observed that in the Banwasi Sewa Ashram case, specific adivasi communities in the area were evicted from their homes under the same Section 4 of the Forest Act.
The court then held that residents held rights for their claims to be heard by the concerned forest officer, who alone had the power to go into the merits and narrow down the details to make the decision on claims of the inhabitants.
The bench stated, “The above mentioned Banwasi Sewa Judgment (Supra), when read into detail, would show that it confers upon the inhabitants of the subject land, only a procedural right to be heard by the appropriate authority, and not a substantive right of possession/inhabitation of the land.”
In simpler terms, this would mean that the Allahabad HC, while delivering the said judgment, did not go into the merits of each claim but only provided an appropriate forum for the claims to be heard, the SC further said.
The object of such judgment is to be used to deliver substantive justice and guarantee that every party with genuine claim over the disputed land is heard in detail and not evicted using arbitrary power by the state, the order added.
The SC order said:
It must be noted that forest communities do not only consist of people from recognised Adivasi and other backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said land. These other groups, who do not get recognition under the law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest communities and are essential to their functioning
Further, there can also be several instances of people ancestrally being forest dwellers, however, due to lack of documentation, are not able to prove the same, it added.
The bench also recognised that the appellants in the case did not belong to a backward community and neither did they made such a claim, but the Banwasi judgement (Supra), if interpreted in a narrow manner, will only benefit specifically recognised forest communities and harm other communities.
The right to be heard,is to be “granted to all claiming possession of the subject land,” the court opined. The right of granting or denial of the land is to be possessed by the competitive authority.
It also pointed out that the right to possession of any land under the ambit of Section 4 of the Forest Act goes beyond adivasi and other forest dwelling communities, such as proof of residence, date of possession and other aspects.
“If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same?” the court orders stated.
Thereby favouring the issue in favour of the appellants, the court put aside the 2013 Allahabad HC order to restore the decision passed by the forest settlement officer.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Photo: iStock.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.