HC slams foresters ‘evicting’ tribal sans legal process

Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court slammed the forest department for trying to ‘evict’ a tribal, without following due process of law, from a patch of land where he had been staying for nearly 50 years.
Observing that the tribal was in possession of forest land for a long time in Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR), Justice Mukulika Jawalkar at the high court said, “Though forest officials have been given ample power to remove encroachments, at the same time, protection is also granted to scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers under Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.”
The judge added that the department may be right in submitting that the respondent cannot be treated as a traditional forest dweller. “However, there has to be adjudication on that issue and the same is required to be communicated to him so that he can take appropriate steps,” said Justice Jawalkar before dismissing the department’s case.
The original suit was filed by respondent Bhante Gyanjyoti Thero contending that he was residing in Tapovan Buddha Vihar Bhikkhu Sangha at Chimur town of Chandrapur district from 1976. It is a public trust falling under compartment no. 60, which is an area of four hectares of the forest land near TATR buffer.
After the ministry of law and justice enacted Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, Bhante staked his claim over the land before the forest rights committee (FRC) stating that he was president of the trust.
In a meeting of sub-divisional level committee in Warora, it was recommended to grant the same land to Bothali Gram Panchayat for setting up a social centre on April 7, 2011. Bhante filed a new claim before the FRC on May 4, 2022.
However, the range forest officer issued a letter to him on May 17, 2022, for removal of his encroachment, which Bhante challenged in the trial court. This court rejected the department’s application, which then moved the HC.
Quoting documents, Justice Jawalkar said though it is stated that the respondent’s claim was rejected under Section 3(2) of the Act, nothing is placed on record to show that there was any hearing granted to the aggrieved party or order of rejection is duly communicated.