Right to possess forest land not limited to Adivasis and notified forest-dwellers: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the right to possess land in notified reserved forests is not limited to Adivasis, notified forest-dwellers or backward communities alone, and anyone with legitimate claims has such right [Hari Prasad Shukla and Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.]
A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah underscored that even persons not belonging to such notified communities have a right to be heard before they are evicted from the forest lands they possess.
The Forest Department should hear their objections before carrying out their eviction, the Court said.
"The right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. 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 said.
The Court explained that forest communities consists not only of recognised Adivasi and other backward communities.
it also includes other groups residing on forest land, the Court noted.
"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," the Court observed.
The observations came while allowing an appeal against a 2013 Allahabad High Court order, which had effectively allowed the eviction of certain persons (appellants) who claimed to be bhoomidars (landowners) of certain forest land.
The High Court's 2013 order came on a writ petition filed after several rounds of litigation before the trial court. The trial court had ruled in favour of the appellants.
On the other hand, the Forest Department authorities claimed that the settlers in question did not have title rights but lived on a temporary lease from the then-zamindar. The High Court ruled in the Forest Department's favour.
The Supreme Court, however, opined that the High Court had erred in re-appreciating evidence.
The apex court observed that it was settled law that High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence of the courts below unless there are perverse findings, which was not the case in the present matter.
The Supreme Court proceeded to set aside the High Court order on this ground as well.
Advocate Anil Kaushik appeared for the appellants.
Senior Advocate SR Singh assisted by advocate Kamlendra Mishra represented the respondents.
