A writ petition presently before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has brought into focus an increasingly important question in the governance of tribal regions: can eco-tourism projects in Scheduled Areas be implemented without the consent of the Gram Sabha? The case concerns the establishment of a Community Based Eco-Tourism centre at Vanajangi village in Paderu Mandal of Alluri Sitarama Raju District, a region located within the Scheduled Areas of Andhra Pradesh.
Vanajangi has recently become a major tourist attraction due to its scenic “sea of clouds” phenomenon, drawing large numbers of visitors during the winter months. However, what began as a tourism initiative has now evolved into a legal dispute over tribal rights, environmental governance, and the role of local self-government institutions.
Nine tribal residents of S. Kothuru village in Vanajangi Gram Panchayat have approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. All the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe communities and claim to depend on agriculture and forest resources for their livelihood. The Vanajangi Gram Panchayat consists of three habitations: Vanajangi, Kallu Bayalu, and S. Kothuru.
The habitations of Kallu Bayalu and S. Kothuru are located closer to the hill area. Their grievance is that the Forest Department has proceeded with an eco-tourism project in the area without obtaining the mandatory consent of the Gram Sabha and without the approval of the Project Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency Paderu, who functions as the Agent to the Government in Scheduled Areas.
According to the petitioners, the project interferes with their customary and legally recognized rights over forest resources. They rely on Individual Forest Rights Recognition titles issued under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, their claim over forest land and resources, including community rights in the area. The petition also refers to proceedings issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests granting permission for the establishment of the eco-tourism centre within the Vanajangi Vana Samrakshana Samithi area.
The proceedings further affirm the conversion of the Vanajangi VSS into a Community Based Eco-Tourism centre. The petitioners argue that such permission was granted without consulting the tribal community or obtaining approval from the Gram Sabha.
A representation was submitted to the authorities objecting to the project and demanding compliance with legal safeguards. However, the petitioners claim that the authorities proceeded with the project without considering their objections. They further contend that their goddess Bolinga Talli is located on the hill, and the tourism activity interferes with their cultural and traditional rights associated with the hill.
According to them, tourists defy their beliefs by visiting the sacred hill wearing shoes or chappals and engaging in activities such as consumption of liquor, which they consider disrespectful to the sacred site.
The petition relies on several constitutional and statutory protections available to tribal communities in Scheduled Areas. Foremost among them is the Panchayats Act, 1996. The law recognizes the Gram Sabha as the core institution of governance in tribal areas and grants it significant authority over natural resources and development activities within the village. The petitioners also rely on the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which recognizes both individual and community rights of tribal communities over forest lands and forest resources. Section 5 of the Act specifically empowers the Gram Sabha to protect and manage forest resources.
According to ITDA Paderu sources, around fifteen tribal families have individual forest land rights over 30.33 acres in Vanajangi Gram Panchayat. In addition, the petition refers to the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, which restricts land transfers in Scheduled Areas and places responsibility on the ITDA administration to safeguard tribal land and resources.
However, the Forest Department of Andhra Pradesh has filed a counter affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioners. According to the department, the eco-tourism project is located entirely within the notified Vanthala Reserve Forest area and does not affect tribal lands or habitations. The structures constructed for tourism purposes are described as temporary and minimal in nature, such as toilets, shelters, and ticket counters. The department further argues that no diversion of forest land has taken place and therefore the legal provisions relating to land transfers in Scheduled Areas do not apply.
Another major contention of the department is that PESA provisions are not applicable in this case, as the project relates to forest land managed by the Forest Department rather than revenue lands or village lands. From the department’s perspective, the eco-tourism initiative is a regulated conservation effort aimed at preventing environmental degradation that had allegedly occurred when tourism was previously managed informally by local groups. It also claims that the project generates livelihoods for local residents and that tourism revenue is being reinvested in habitat restoration.
The case raises several legal questions. The conversion of the Vanajangi VSS area into a CBET project raises issues concerning the powers of the Gram Sabha under Section 5 of the Forest Rights Act and the recognition of individual and community forest rights. According to available sources, there are 306 VSSs encompassing 38,561 acres in the Paderu Revenue Division.
The Forest Department’s argument that PESA does not apply because the land is Reserve Forest may not fully settle the matter. The Forest Rights Act explicitly recognizes the role of the Gram Sabha in protecting and managing forest resources, even within forest areas, particularly in Scheduled Areas such as the Paderu Revenue Division.
The petitioners also argue that the Project Officer of the ITDA must play a central role in decisions affecting tribal lands and resources under Regulation I of 1970. The extent to which the ITDA administration was involved in approving the eco-tourism project may therefore become a relevant issue before the court. Regulation I of 1970 applies to all immovable property situated in the Scheduled Areas of the State.
During a field visit by the Joint Committee of the National Green Tribunal to the Vanajangi CBET area in March 2024, the committee reportedly observed an enormous amount of waste and garbage due to the heavy inflow of tourists. The committee emphasized the need for restoration of the forest area through effective pollution control and forest management measures, in a matter related to OA No. 254 of 2024.
Finally, the case highlights a broader policy dilemma: how to balance environmental conservation initiatives with the constitutional commitment to tribal self-governance. Across India, eco-tourism is increasingly promoted as a strategy for conservation and sustainable livelihoods. However, in tribal regions governed by special constitutional protections, such initiatives must operate within the framework of laws designed to protect indigenous communities. The Vanajangi dispute therefore goes beyond a single tourism project. It raises a fundamental question about the relationship between state institutions and tribal self-governance in Scheduled Areas.
The High Court’s decision in this case may have implications not only for Vanajangi but also for similar eco-tourism initiatives being developed across tribal regions in the country. At its core, the case presents a challenge that policymakers and administrators must confront more carefully: development and conservation in tribal areas cannot succeed unless they are built upon the foundation of genuine community participation and respect for the legal authority of the Gram Sabha.
Comments