IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT, 2006

  

IN HIMACHAL PRADESH

THE CHALLANGES AND TASKS AHEAD

                                                                        Compilation

                                                                        P S Draik, IAS

 Mob: 7876065728

Email: psdraik@gmail.com

THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT, 2006   [ F R A ]

Background

• Several Acts and policies such as the three Indian Forests Acts of 1865, 1894 and 1927, consolidated State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India. But inherent rights of forest dwellers/ dependents and poor were not adequately recognized and recorded resulting in historical injustice to them. 2.6 crore hectares additional land was converted to forests during the period from 1951 to 1988.

• As a sequel to order of Honourable Supreme Court of India in 2002, forest dwellers and poor were ejected from 1.52 lakh hectares of forest land.                                                

• Quantum of forest land transferred by Governments to capitalists, industrialists and for infrastructure is more than what is in the possession of forest dwellers/dependents.

Objective of FRA

• To recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) whose rights could not be recorded (preamble of FRA). 

Misconceptions and challenges

• FRA is being implemented in Tribal area of HP w.e.f. 4.03.2008. It was made applicable to rest of the State vide letter No. TD(A) 3-1/2011-Loose dated 27.07.2012. The last thirteen years saw hardly any activity other than formation of Forest Rights Committees. On March 20, 2025, Honourable Revenue Minister, Government of HP, announced that FRA will be implemented in the State in mission mode.  In a bid almost to counter this move, Principal CCF (HoFF), HP, issued parallel guidelines-albeit sans authority-to Dy Commissioners and Forest Officers in the State vide letter No. Ft-486/96(Mgt) Vol. XXIII dated 11.04.2025. Crux of the communication is that rights of OTFD have been settled and FRA would lead to regularization of unlawful encroachments. Some contents of this letter are ultra vires of FRA. The letter has been withdrawn but its spirit prevails. “A senior IFS officer defended its purpose as an internal advisory to caution officers during claim verifications....He pointed out that there are about 3 lakh claimants and with each eligible person entitled to 4 hectares, the total potential forest allocation could reach 12 lakh hectares-a third of State’s total forest area” (The Indian Express, Chandigarh,  April 19, 2025).

• In his D.O. No. 23011/26/2012-FRA(pt) dated 28.02.2013, Sh V. K. Chandra Deo, Honourable Central Minister, Tribal Affairs, wrote to Honourable Chief Minister of HP that 

“8. The State Government has been consistently taking the stand that rights over forest land had been settled long back and recorded in settlement and therefore, there is limited scope of implementation of the Forest Rights Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

9. The stand is not correct and in many States, rights over forest land had been settled but that rights of forest dwellers were not recorded properly and as the Preamble of FRA states, that this Act is meant t undo this historical injustice.

10. It is pertinent to mention that after settlement, fresh rights accrue over a period of time. Therefore, implementation of FRA cannot be set aside due to settlement done in the past.” 

• In reply submitted on 27.09.2013, to contentions made in CWP No. 11189 of 2011, Kisan Sabha Tehsil Committee, Baijnath Vs State of HP and other, filed before HP High Court, the Central Government pleaded that 

“22. It is submitted that the Forest Rights Act is culmination of decades of efforts by forest dwelling communities, government of India, State Governments and other concerned groups to correct the historical process by which tribal and forest dwelling communities in the country were alienated from the right to their forest land and forest resources. Thus the Forest Rights Act follows a series of legislative precedents and administrative measures by the Central government and Government of Himachal Pradesh to recognize forest dwellers rights over the land, community lands, forest produce and ancillary matter with a respect for both forest ecology and the right to livelihood of forest dwellers. The implementation of Forest Rights Act in letter and spirit is not only a legislative requirement, it is also a Constitutional imperative.”  

   In the same reply the following has been submitted in another para:

“6. The implementation of Forest Rights Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh has not, unfortunately, kept pace with the rest of the country and the answering respondent is loath to state before this Hon’ble Court that it has been compelled to issue directions and clarifications to the State Government in  order to ensure that the legislative intent is not rendered futile...Given that the State of Himachal Pradesh has a high proportion of forest dwelling communities, the statistics are cause for concern.”

• The stand of State Government as delineated in the D.O. letter of  Sh V. K. Chandra Deo, Honourable Central Minister, is as a matter of fact stand of HP Forest Department which is still persisting and coming in the way of implementation of FRA. 

• A bare reading of FRA makes it clear that the Act is not for regularisation of encroachments or for land distribution. Such misconception has been deliberately and systematically disseminated to create atmosphere to stall justice to the poor and weaker sections of the society. FRA aims to undo historical injustice to those who fit in the eligibility criteria.

• Illustrative progress figures of implementation of FRA:

                           Individual claims-- as on 31.12.2024

[Ministry of Tribal Affaires I.D. No. 23011/3/2016-FRA dated 7.02.2025 read with unstarred Lok Sabha question No 3325 answered on 20.03.2025]

• Tripura and Chhattisgarh are the best implementing States.

• 3.6 acres is the highest average in the country followed by 1. 98.

• Where does Himachal Stand?

• Wild projections of IFS officer-land at the rate of 4 hectares per claimant-is a cruel joke on people vis –a- vis progress figures.

• The result is that Himachal is yet to take off for implementation of FRA. The real challenge is to come out of the malaise created methodically.

                         Glimpses of Historical Injustice

1.   Settlement Operation

           Settlement of land and assessment of land revenue dates back to the Mughal period followed by the Britishers with certain modifications-having no uniformity throughout the country. Britishers adopted systematic and traditional methods of survey of land. At present Government of HP undertakes settlement operation under Section 33 of HP Land Revenue Act 1953, read with among others, Standing Order No. 13 of the Financial Commissioner and by issuing settlement instructions under ‘Collection of Settlement Instructions 1998 (updated)’. The procedure for settlement is available in Punjab Settlement Manual which is also applicable in HP. 

During British Rule settlement took place in small hill States in the late 19^th century in merged areas of HP and in early 20^th in Shimla Hill States. In case of Rampur Tehsil it was done in 1914-15, Rohru Tehsil (1915-16), Jubbal Tehsil (1907), Kinnaur (1926-28). After independence the settlement operations were conducted in Tharoch, Sangri, Koti of erstwhile estates of Mahasu District. Thereafter settlement was done in Chamba (1952-1958), Mandi (1958-70) and Kangra (commenced in 1970)

The record of earlier settlement was in dilapidated condition in Chamba and therefore, it was ignored and fresh record was prepared as per individual possession as agreed by the estate holders. It is called regular (Kanooni) settlement. After the completion of settlement operation in Mandi encroachments were regularized on payment of nazrana equivalent to the charges/rates in vogue for nautor land.  

       In case of Shimla District post independence settlement commenced in the year 1979. In Rampur Tehsil it started in 1979 and was completed in 1994. In case of Shimla Disrict (Rampur Tehsil) in contradistinction of settlement practiced in estates of erstwhile Mahasu District, Chamba, Mandi for illustration, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and the like were not consolidated as  revenue villages or abadi deh or parts of them-conversely, clustered habitation was segregated and separate  cases for each individual habitation were made out. This is in contradistinction of Settlement Manual. In Douie’s Punjab Settlement Manual, Appendix VI, para 11, which deals with Abadi Deh, this is what it stated:- 

“The village site should be measured in one number, together with small plots attached in which cattle are penned, manure is stored, and straw is stacked and other waste attached to the village site. The entry in the column of ownership and occupancy will be simply Abadi Deh.” 

      In the Shajaras this number is inked in red so that in common parlance Abadi Deh is known as the area within the Lal Lakir.

            Barring stray individual cases, old habitation in Sarahan is the only exception which was made part of abadi deh. Some of the old habitations were not even surveyed. Cases made out during settlement were kept out of the process of eviction for which instructions were issued vide letter No. Rev.B.A. (3)12/95-II dated 7.02.2001.  Thereafter in the year 2002 instructions were issued to process the eligible cases out of such measured cases for regularization-albeit the regularization did not happen despite sanguine intention of the Government. Therefore, old habitations and village settlements became encroachments in the eyes of law despite existing framework, convention and precedent which provide legitimacy for such settlements.  

                          Forest settlement is done under the Indian Forests Act 1927 and the HP Forest Settlement Rules 1965. Forest settlement was carried out alongside the Mahal settlement. However, most of them were done without surveys & demarcation. The Comptroller and Audit General (CAG) claimed in a report that more than 54% of HP’s forest area remained undemarcated (Times of India, May 19, 2025). Therefore, common rights were not properly recorded and individual rights such as habitation, cultivation etc within the forests were mostly ignored during such settlements. This position was acknowledged by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India in 2004 (in IA No. 1126 in Writ Petition 202 of 1995) where it drew the attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court towards the issue of so called 'encroachments'. A key portion of the affidavit is reproduced below:-

"(7) That, for the most areas in India record of rights did not exist due to which rights of tribals could not be settled during the process of consolidation of forests in the country. Therefore, the rural people, especially tribals who have been living in the forests since time immemorial, were deprived of their traditional rights and livelihood and consequently these tribals have become encroachers in the eyes of law".

• Rule 20 (ii) of the HP Forest Settlement Rules 1965 provide that “...The areas under near cultivated lands and ABADIS may not be proposed to be declared as Protected Forests sufficient areas are to be left out for legitimate use of the right holders….” But this has not been done in case of Rampur.

• A large Part of forests has been declared as sanctuary under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 which has curtailed the common rights. 

   

 Conversion of villages on forest land into revenue villages and   settlement of other old habitations.  

                        Government of India, in the Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife, issued circular No. 13-1/90-FP dated 18.09.1990 to Secretaries of Forest Departments of the States suggesting following measures to resolve the outstanding issue of forest villages and other types of habitations existing in forest lands:

“3.1 Forest Villages: 

 Forest villages may be converted into revenue villages after denotifying requisite land as forest. “

“3.2 Other Habitations:   

1. …wherever encroachments for agricultural cultivation are regularized, the house sites and homesteads too may be regularized…

2. …habitations more than 25 years old involving sizeable group of families, may be examined case by case...

3. ST and rural poor not covered under (i) and (ii) above should be resettled in noon-forest land…”

But the State of HP in the Department of Forests just ignored this circular. 

2.  Gaps in Implementation of Land Reform Legislations and Land Allotment Schemes

                                                   Background

Efforts to provide land to the tillers were made even before Independence.            There were Beth and Begar in Himachal Pradesh which was found derogatory to the human dignity and therefore, a Conference under the Chairmanship of the then British Resident was held in Woodville  Palace Shimla on August 24, 1943 in which all the Rulers or their representatives participated. On the basis of deliberations held in the conference Model Policy on Beth & Begar was published in April 1944. 

           One of the main consequences was the consensus that the Beth & Begar shall be abolished forthwith. It was also decided that the Beth (system of unpaid labourer working for the Raja or Landlord) shall be recorded as occupancy tenant if the Bethu were in possession for three or more generations and rest were ordered to be recorded as non-occupancy tenants and provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 were made applicable in all the Shimla Hill States. The same provisions were incorporated in application of Laws Order 1948 issued with respect to Himachal Pradesh. 

HP Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953 provided to give ownership rights on making an application of Revenue Authority.  The erstwhile Rulers & Landlords allowed to vest the surplus land in the Government which was under tenancy with poor landless people. In most of the cases such tenancy was not recorded though the cultivators were actually in cultivating possession. 

                            

     Under HP Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 surplus land vested in the Government.  In good number of cases the land so vested had tenants recorded and were entitled to get proprietary rights. Most of the poor were deprived of the titles and became encroachers in the eyes of law. State of HP framed “Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1974” to allot land to the eligible persons out of the land vested under this Act. But predominant part of lands so vested was converted to forest lands. Many persons who were issued pattas and handed over the possession were not recorded as owners.  Eventually they became encroachers in the eyes of law.

 

HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was made applicable from 1975. 

This Act provides suo motu vestment of proprietary rights on occupancy and non occupancy tenants. But even under this law many tenants could not get propriety rights. Tenancy on government land was abolished in 1987 and the poor persons became encroachers in the eyes of law.

      Under HP Nautor Land Rules 1968 and 1975 in many cases pattas were not issued. Propriety rights were not recorded in case of many allottees those were issued pattas and handed over possession after lands were allotted under these Rules.  They are also encroachers in the eyes of law.

3.  Shamlat Land

           The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 defines Shamlat deh as “lands described in the revenue records as shamilat, taraf, patties, pannas, and tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village” inter-alia.

           It is well known fact that prior to independence different Princely States had different land tenure systems in their respective jurisdictions. Even for the purpose of management of village common land popularly known as Shamlat land, there was uniform system for its utilization and its allotment for the villagers to meet their agricultural and habitation needs. While Shamlat land was properly documented and found place in Record of Rights, especially in merged areas viz: Sirmour, Solan, Manali, Bilaspur etc, clear entries were not recorded in rest of the areas nor was there explicit provision for allotment to the villagers mentioned in Panchayat and Revenue record. However, the entitlement for the use of common land was equally applicable everywhere. This becomes explicit from the record of rights prepared in the post village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization, Act 1974 era and the Wazib-ul-Arz had entry in respect of village Common Land everywhere in the State. 

         Shamlat lands were allotted to the village poor by the khewatdars or the village elders for agricultural needs as well as for habitation in Rampur (Shimla). As discussed heretofore, most of such allotments/possessions did not find place in the revenue record. 

         With passing of the HP Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 all rights of the landowners (with the exception of legal partition /transfer, built up habitat) were extinguished and vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances-albeit on payment of compensation to the landowners. Almost all the allotees in Rampur became encroachers with the passing of Vestment Act and vestment was to be effected after removal of said encroachments. But the transition of land was made a smooth and quiet affair without any payment to the landowners or without removing the said encroachments. Consequently, the owners/allottees remained in possession over lands so vested. 

                   Two pools (common and allotable) were to be created of the land vested in Government. An area not less than fifty percent was to be reserved for grazing and other common purposes. Remaining land was to be earmarked for allotment under the HP Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Scheme, 1975. But no allotable pool was made in Shimla District whereas such pool was made in some other Districts. 

          HP Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 was amended in 2001 and the land recorded as “shamlat tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari” or by any other name in the ownership column of jamabandi and assessed to land revenue and which has been continuously recorded in cultivating possession of the co-sharers so recorded before 26.01.1950 was exempted from the operation of this Act [Section 3(2)(d)]. This amendment was made applicable from 1974. Again Shimla District was not benefitted-some others were. This Act was further amended in 2015 to pave way to confer proprietary rights on the chakotadars (lessees) under the Panchayats [Section 8B].  There were 1237 beneficiaries- 981 in District Solan, 184 in kangra, 36 each in Hamirpur and Una Districts.

                              iv)   Miscellaneous Cases.

a) Erstwhile Rulers and Landlords granted lands (pattas) along with instant spot possessions to their sewadars and other persons. Many such pattas were not recorded and because of operation of Ceiling Laws the land vested in the Government.

b) In many cases where lands were allotted under the Nautor Rules, pattas and possessions were delivered-but mutations did not take place. Therefore, the allotees became encroachers.

c) Sufferers of natural calamities were orally rehabilitated by Government, but the place of such resettlement was not regularized.

d) Thousand of families were displaced due to multipurpose and hydroelectricity projects. Many families were deprived of resettlement in alternate places. Per force some of them entered Government/forest land for sustenance and became encroachers.

                                     

                                Homestead for self sustenance. 

            Shelter and livelihood is a Fundamental Right. Poor people occupied forest lands as source of shelter and livelihood and have been living on that from generation to generation. In most cases such occupation has not been recorded-neither during settlement nor otherwise. Nor could they file any claim whatsoever because of poverty and ignorance- not even under the regularization policy of 2002. Such class is encroacher in the eyes of law.

 Dependence on forest produce and use of forest lands for specific needs.

             Villagers have been using forest lands for fodder collection, grazing, fuel wood and the like. Similarly they have been dependent on forest resources like timber for house repairs, herbs, wild fruits, worship material and so on. These community rights have been inadequately recorded in case of large number of villages in Rampur Tehsil. With the creation of wildlife sanctuary, rights of villagers have been extinguished/curtailed.

                                Definition of Forest Land

          As per notification dated 25.02.1952, issued on behalf of Chief Commissioner, provisions of chapter IV of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, have been made applicable to all forest lands and waste lands in HP. Therefore, all forest lands and waste lands in HP are protected forests. 

            

              Treatment of claims of right of title/ occupation

             Government of India, in the Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife, issued circular No. 13-1/90-FP dated 18.09.1990 to Secretaries of Forest Departments of the States  suggesting following measures to resolve claims of local inhabitants of forest for title on certain forest lands:

1.  Review of disputed claims over forest land

“2.1. The States/UT Administration should review the cases of disputed claims over forest land…..”

“2.4. Once the bonafides of the claims are established through proper enquiry, the State/UT Government may consider restoration of titles to the claimants…”

2. Disputes regarding patta/leases/grants involving forest land

“2.1. All the cases of pattas, leases, grants involving forest land …should be review by State/UT Government. Such review should enable the State/UT Government to identify those cases in which the pattas/lease/grants were awarded under proper authority and the assignees continue to be in possession of the land….” 

It has been stated that such pattas/lease/grants should be honored. 

But no action was taken by the Forest Department.

Instructions on similar lines were issued by State Government to the Deputy Commissioners in HP vide FC-cum-Secretary (Rev) letter No. Rev. B-F (7)-1/94 dated 15.11.1995. The District Collectors were requested to review the cases of following nature:

1. The persons who were allotted land and where the apttas/certificates and mutations have not been attested, the same should be issued/attested immediately;

……………………………………………………………………….

2. In cases where allottee is in possession of land at place other than the place where it was allotted, the same may be sanction to them upto the extent of allotment made to them by canceling previous allotment….”

        But these instructions were also not implemented.

                                                     Settlement cases

              Rights and titles old homestead and other cultivation made for sustenance on forest lands were not settled and instead individual cases were made out to be presented to Settlement Officer for decision. Such cases were kept out of the process of ejectment for which instructions were issued vide letter No. Rev. B.A. (3)12/95-II dated 7.02.2001.  Thereafter in the year 2002 instructions were issued to process the eligible cases out of such measured cases for regularization-albeit the regularization did not happen despite sanguine intention of the Government.

                           Claims filed under Regularization Policy of 2002.

             State Government notified “the HP Regularization of Encroachments (in certain cases) on Government Land and Disposal of Government Land Rules, 2002”, on 02.07.2002. A total of 1, 67, 339 claims were received for regularization under this Policy. But regularization did not happen because of interim order of Honorable High Court of HP in CWPs No. 998/2002 and 1028/2002.

                                   Listed Facta Significant Evidence

         In recognition of de facto historical injustice discussed heretofore, Government of HP, in the Department of Tribal Development, vide letter No. TBD-F(TDM)1-2/2007-Vol-II dated 04.08.2008 has directed that:

     “12.         While submitting the claim and verification thereof, in addition to the documents prescribed under the Rules, the documents pertaining to encroachments during settlement, cases where nautor were sanctioned by competent authority but pattas have not been issued so far and the claims/applications received upto 31.12.2002 under scheme for regularization of encroachment floated by the Government, which is presently under sub-judice, may be entertained for verification….”  

                          

                          Rights recognized and vested under FRA.

             Section 3 read with section 4 of FRA recognize and vest following rights, among others:

1. Rights of settlement and conversion of forest villages, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and other villages in forests, whether recorded or not into revenue villages;

2. Right to hold and live in the forest land for habitation or for self cultivation  for livelihood;

3. Rights over disputed lands under any nomenclature where claims are disputed;

4. Rights for conversion of pattas or leased or grants issued by any local authority or any State Government on forest lands to titles;

5. Rights of uses or  entitlements such as grazing and traditional resource access;

6. Rights of ownership, access, use, and dispose of minor forest produce;

7. Right to rehabilitation in case of illegal eviction or displacement. 

                             Authorities and procedure for vesting of rights

              Section 6 of FRA, Forest Rights Rules 2007 and amendment Rules 2012, read with instructions issued by Government of India, prescribe the authorities and procedure for recognition and vestment of rights.

• Identification of hamlets or settlements and process of their consolidation (rule 2A).

• Panchayat shall prepare a list of unrecorded hamlets or hamlets or habitation and have the list passed and submit it to Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SLDC).

• The SLDC shall formalize village either by adding to the existing village or otherwise.

• List is finalized by District Level Committee (DLC).

[Detailed guidelines are contained in letter No. 23011/33/2010-FRA dated 8.11.2013 form Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs;   

 (P                             )]

• In case of rights listed from (b) to (g) above.

• Gram Sabha 

• Shall invite claims within three months and authorize Forest Rights Committee (FRC) to receive claims

• shall meet to consider the findings of FRC

• hear the stakeholders

• pass resolution and send cases to SLDC

• maintain a register of claims 

• FRC 

• shall receive and acknowledge claims, prepare record of claims, consolidate the claims

• visit spot, verify claims and prepare map/report, present findings to Gram Sabha

[As per proviso to Rule 12(10) claims can only be received by Gram Sabha or the FRC. Claim forms shall be provided by SLDC]

• SLDC 

• shall examine the proposals of Gram Sabha and prepare record of rights

• submit cases to DLC.

[Detailed guidelines are issued by Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, vide letter No. 23011/32/2010-FRA [Vol.II (Pt)] dated 12.07.2012, (p                           )]  

{Guidelines to process claims step by step are contained in a booklet “forest rights act--a field guide” prepared and issued by Government of India}.

                                   Evidence in support of claims

           Rule 13 of FR Rules contains inclusive list of evidence for determination of forest rights. Illustrations are as follows:

1. public documents, survey and settlement reports, record of rights, pattas or leases, government notifications etc

2. physical attributes such as house and cultivated land

3. house tax, domicile certificates

4. quasi-judicial and judicial records including orders and judgments

5. shajara nasab

6. written statements of elders 

7. wazib-ul-urz in case of community rights

                          Applicability of FRA in Municipal/Urban areas.

   Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, vide F. No. 19020/02/2012-FRA dated 29.04.2013 and No. 19020/02/2012-FRA (Vol II) dated 5.03.2015

 (p                      ), has clarified that FRA is applicable in Municipal/Urban areas. These communications also carry detailed guidelines regarding implementation in such areas. 

                  Immediate Task- Moratorium on eviction.

                  Honorable High Court of HP, in CWPIL No. 17 of 2014 and CWPIL No. 9 of 2015 decided on 8.01.2025, has made series of directions to State/ Central Government Officers/Officials to prevent fresh encroachments and remove old /existing occupation of Government lands. Compliance of these directions is being monitored by the Court. If the operation of this order is not halted, implementation of FRA will be put to jeopardy and could be rendered meaningless.  

Section 4(5) of the FRA provides that “save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete.” In Orissa Mining Corporation Vs Ministry of Environment & forests [(2013) 6 SCR, p. 939] the Honorable Supreme Court has held that “section 4(5) of the Act is very specific and provides that no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers shall be evicted or removed from forest land till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. This clause is of an absolute nature an excludes all possibilities of eviction of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers without settlement of their forest rights as this section opens with the words, ‘save as otherwise provided’….Therefore, no eviction should take place till the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights is complete.”

              In his D.O. No. 23011/12/2015-FRA dated 10.04.2015, Shri Manoj Pingua, Jt Secretary, GoI, wrote to Principal Secretary of State that “the SLMC also needs to specifically ensure that section 4(5) of FRA in implemented in letter and spirit and no forest dweller is evicted or removed till the process of FRA implementation is complete”. 

               In compliance of order dated 06.04.2015 of HP High Court in CWPIL No. 17 of 2014, eviction of encroachment drive was taken up including in tribal area. Gram Vikas Society, Ramni (Kinnaur) & another filed CWP No. 3141 of 2015 in HP High Court submitting that the FRA was under implementation in tribal area and prayed the Government may be directed to settle the rights of occupants in time bound manner and till then occupation of forest land may be protected. Government replied that it has been taking steps to implement the FRA. On 30.08.2016 the Court ordered to expedite recognition of rights process. Therefore, eviction halted in tribal area. 

                 A group of forest right holders from Rampur/Chopal filed CPM No. 10019 of 2016 titled as Pratqap Chand and others Vs State of HP, in CWPIL No. 17 of 2014, seeking to be heard ob section 4(5) of FRA and for speedy implementation of FRA.

               With increasing pressure for dispossession drive from Courts and enforcing agencies, poor OTFD are under fear and agony of losing their sources of sustenance. There, order dated 8.1.2025 of Honorable High Court requires moratorium till the process of verification and recognition is complete.

                                                                        Compilation

                                                                         P S Draik, IAS

 Mob: 7876065728

Email: psdraik@gmail.com