Skip to main content

Telangana tribal eviction follows 'rejection' of 92,000 forest land claims, half of total

By Palla Trinadha Rao

Telangana is using brute force and dispossessing tribals from their forest land occupations without recognizing their preexisting forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006. The fear of eviction looms large over several tribal habitations in the erstwhile Khammam, Warangal, Adilabad and Mahaboobnagar districts affecting nearly one lakh tribal families.
The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 recognizes and vests diverse pre-existing rights of STs and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generation but whose rights could not be vested. The intendment of the Act is to undo historical injustice done to tribals and other forest dwellers.
The Supreme Court (SC) stayed its order of eviction in 2019 modifying its earlier order of evictions in rejected cases in the matter of Wildlife First & Ors Vs. Ministry of Forest & Environment &Ors. In fact the Writ Petitioners have mainly challenged the constitutionality of the Forest Rights Act, the preliminary issue required to be decided.
Without deciding on the main pleading of the petitioners, the enquiry has moved towards its application, the rejections of claims and evictions of rejected claimants. The modified order now requires completion of the process of re-verification of all the rejected claims and serve the reasoned orders for rejections, on unsuccessful claimants. Evictions have been kept on hold by the SC.
Therefore the government has to recheck whether the rejections have been as per the law and followed the procedures prescribed. The claimants and the concerned Gram Sabhas ought to have been informed of the rejections by the Gram Sabha/Sub-Divisional Level Committee/District Level Committee as the case may be. Proper reasons for rejection are to be provided in writing so that the claimant is enabled to file statutory appeals to the appropriate adjudicating body.
However, defying the orders of the SC, the Government of Telananga is resorting to eviction drive for eviction of tribals from over 3.3 lakh acres by using coercive methods. Several forest land conflicts between the tribals and forest department staff, and incidents of physical violence, are reported daily. Both the forest department personnel and tribals have been at loggerheads.
The Government of Telangana reported to the SC in July 2019, that of the total individual forest land claims 2, 03,976( 6,95,892 acres) received, 94,774 claims (3,03,970 acres) were approved while 89,956 (3,27,880 acres) were rejected. However, as of July 2021 the number of rejections has further increased to 91,942 (3, 33,837 acres) against the total individual forest land claims 2,04,176 (6,96,016 acres) received for recognition of individual forest rights.

Rejection orders are questionable

Most of the claims were rejected reportedly in Bhadradri Kothagudem district (21,952), and Mahabubad (12,720) followed by Adilabad district (8,426). The reasons shown for the rejections of claims before the SC are questionable. The Gram Sabha, for the purpose of the Forest Rights Act, is at village/habitation etc as defined under Section 2(g) and 2(p). But the adjudication process of the claims was taken up at Gram Panchayat level Gram Sabha against the rules who are not the statutory authority to determine the rights of the claimants.
The high rate of rejections of 30,601 (50%) claims is attributed to claims on forest land after cutoff date of 13th December 2005stipulated by the law for recognition of forest rights. The sole basis for these rejections is satellite imagery evidence. Forest Rights Act Rules (11) (2) say the satellite imagery and other uses of technology may supplement other form of evidences and shall not be treated as a replacement of the evidence themselves.
In 2013, the Gujarat High Court held that satellite imagery cannot be made a mandatory requirement for recognition of forest rights. Thus, the rejections on this ground alone are invalid. Rejections should be based on the field inquiry reports of the Forest Rights Committee where the forest officials are expected to attend.
Around 12,819 claims (21%) were rejected ascribing the reasons that the claimed land is not in actual cultivation. In fact the word ‘self cultivation’ used in the FRA includes the lands kept fallow and also used for allied activities to cultivation. Nearly 6,641 (11 per cent) claims were rejected for the reason that there was a lack of sufficient documentary evidences.
The law actually requires the Sub-Divisional Committee to suo-moto provide all pertinent official and non-official records to each Gram Sabha. The District Level Committee is to ensure that this indeed has been carried out. This is to ensure that the Gram Sabhas and the claimants have complete access to all the records, denied until now, that could be used as evidences.
As per the FRA Rules, the Sub Divisional or District Level Committee shall remand the claim to the Gram Sabha for reconsideration instead of rejecting it for want of additional information or if the resolution is incomplete.
The definition of forest land adopted by the FRA is in accordance with SC ruling in the Godavarman case in the widest possible sense to entertain the claims on forest lands irrespective of ownership. Around 4,096 claims were junked on the ground that the claimed land is a non-forest area.
Furthermore, 1,873 (3 per cent) claims were shown as rejected on the ground that the claimed land fell in the area accessed by Van Samrakshana Samithies(VSSs) of the Forest Department. Section 2(d) of FRA Act defines the term ‘forest land’ as land of any description falling within any forest area.
Government has to recheck whether rejections have been as per law and followed procedures prescribed
The Governor of Andhra Pradesh, exercising his power under Vth Schedule to the Constitution of India issued a notification in 1977, modifying the definition of the word ‘forests” under section 28A of AP Forest Act 1967, which includes all the lands situated in the Scheduled Area which have been or are proposed to be grant Ryotwari pattas under different land tenures including lands covered by Board of Standing Orders, containing trees, shrubs, and coppice growth shall be forests.
Therefore no adjudicating body under the FRA shall reject the claim filed on the land situated in the scheduled area if the land is covered by the notification issued by the Governor in the United AP.
The Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs issued instructions to the State governments not to deny forest rights to families, merely because one of the spouses is holding government job also. But in Telangana claims in respect of 30 families were rejected on a ground that the member of the family is a government servant. As per the rules no rejection is permissible on technical grounds.
It is pertinent to note that there is no procedure prescribed under the FRA and its Rules to evict the unsuccessful forest land claimants. Therefore, the due process of law is to be complied in the case of rejected claims attaining finality under the existing Central and State legislations. Moreover, until the entire process of rights settlement is complete, the FRA protects against dispossession and eviction under Section 4(5).

CFR titles given to VSSs unlawful

In 2008 the Government of undivided Andhra Pradesh issued operational guidelines (G.O.Ms. No.102) to implement the FRA, 2006. The GO allows the members of Vana Samrakshana Samithis (VSSs) to claim rights within the operational area of the VSSs. The Government further issued a GO (Ms No 162) in the same year making VSSs eligible to claim community rights.
In 2010, the Govt of AP granted Community Forest Rights(CFR) titles in favour of 1669 VSSs over 9.43 lakh acres of forest land instead of Gram Sabhas. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), Government of India, held in 2013 that the grant of CFR rights titles to VSSs is unlawful and directed the Government to with draw them and confer the same on Gram Sabhas.
There are around 822 such titles still in the name of VSSs in Telangana State over 5.64 lakh acres. There is a somehow a positive move in the State of AP, which has directed the concerned departments to withdraw such titles granted earlier to 844 VSSs over 3.79 lakh acres while empowering the adjudicating bodies to grant either individual or community rights as per the eligibility of the claimants under the provisions of Forest Rights Act 2006. Therefore similar steps also needed in the Telangana State to recognise the forest rights over the forest landscape in Telangana.

Comments

TRENDING

'Enough evidence': Covid vaccines impacted women's reproductive health

By Deepika*  In 2024, the news outlets have suddenly started reporting about covid vaccine side effects in a very extensive manner. Sadly, the damage is already done.

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

Dadi, poti discuss 'injustice' under 10 yr Modi rule: Video campaign goes viral

By Our Representative  Watan Ki Raah Mein, a civil society campaign of the Samvidhan Bachao Nagrik Abhiyan, has released a short video conversation on social media of an exchange of letters between a dadi and her poti discussing poverty, unemployment, corruption and women’s safety. The letters also raise the question of  suppression of our fundamental rights of speech, expression and justice. 

US 'frustrated' with India’s discomfort: Maritime exercise in South China Sea

By Vijay Prashad*  In early April 2024, the navies of four countries -- Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and the United States -- held a maritime exercise in the South China Sea. Australia’s Warramunga, Japan’s Akebono, the Philippines’ Antonio Luna, and the United States’ Mobile worked together in these waters to strengthen their joint abilities and -- as they said in a joint statement  -- to “uphold the right to freedom of navigation and overflight and respect for maritime rights under international law.” 

'Uncertainty in Iran': Raisi brokered crucial Chabahar Port deal with India

By Pranjal Pandey*  Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian President, and the country’s foreign minister were tragically found deceased on May 20, 2024, shortly after their helicopter crashed in foggy conditions. In response, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei swiftly appointed a relatively unknown vice president as the interim leader.

Informal, outdoor workers 'excluded': Govt of India's excessive heat policies

Counterview Desk  Top civil rights network, National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), has demanded urgent government action to protect millions of outdoor workers from extreme heat and heatwaves, insisting declaration of heatwaves as climatic disaster.

WHO move can 'enable' India to detain citizens, restrict freedom, control media

Counterview Desk  In an an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with copies to concerned Cabinet ministers, bureaucrats and MPs,  health rights network  People’s Alliance for Public Health (PAPH alias JanSwasthya Morcha), has urged that India should not be a signatory to the World Health Organization ( WHO) Pandemic Agreement and Amendments to the  International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005  to be adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva from 27th May to 1st June, 2024.

Desist from academic censorship, stop threatening scholars: Letter to ICMR

Counterview Desk  In a letter to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) director, the Universal Health Organisation (UHO) which consists of prominent health experts, has insisted that the Government of India’s top medical research agency should lead high quality research on vaccine safety and “desist from academic censorship”.

Vaccine nationalism? Covaxin isn't safe either, perhaps it's worse: Experts

By Rajiv Shah  I was a little awestruck: The news had already spread that Astrazeneca – whose Indian variant Covishield was delivered to nearly 80% of Indian vaccine recipients during the Covid-19 era – has been withdrawn by the manufacturers following the admission by its UK pharma giant that its Covid-19 vector-based vaccine in “rare” instances cause TTS, or “thrombocytopenia thrombosis syndrome”, which lead to the blood to clump and form clots. The vaccine reportedly led to at least 81 deaths in the UK.