Residence In Forest Area And Doing Cultivation For Livelihood Necessary To Be Declared As Forest Dwellers: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the object of the act was to protect the livelihood of forest dwellers. The court thus dismissed the petitions filed by a group of persons claiming “forest dweller” status. The court noted that the parties had not produced anything to show that they were entirely dependent on the forest for their survival.

“The very spirit of the Act is to protect the livelihood of the forest dwellers. Therefore, it must be established beyond any pale of doubt that they are residing in forest area and doing cultivation for their livelihood. In the absence of any proof to establish the essential ingredients and the spirit under the provisions of the Act, the appellants are not entitled for any relief as such sought for in their application,” the court observed.

The parties had originally approached the writ court challenging an order passed by the District Collector rejecting their application to declare their right to possess the land declared as “Reserved Forest”. Since the writ court dismissed their plea, they filed an appeal.

The appellants claimed that their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the property and cultivated land, put up residence and were living in the forest area for more than 75 years. It was submitted that during the construction of Panamarathupatti Lake and reservoir, vast extent of lands were acquired. Though the appellants filed an application to declare their right to possess the land, the application was rejected by the Collector.

The appellants argued that the Act was not only applicable to the Scheduled Tribe but also to “Other Traditional Forest Dwellers”. While the appellants accepted that they were residing in some other place, they submitted that they continued to cultivate in the land. Arguing that their ancestors were living and cultivating in the forest area for more than 75 years, they claimed that they were entitled to the relief.

The state objected to the claim and submitted that there was no evidence to show that the appellants were cultivating the lands and primarily residing in the land for more than 75 years. The State argued that the appellants were not local residents and were living outside the forest area. It was also submitted that the appellants did not belong to the tribal community. Thus, arguing that appellants were not dependent upon the forest for their livelihood, the state argued that they could not claim benefits under the Act.

The court noted that as per Section 2(o) of the Act, “other traditional forest dweller” was any member or community who, for at least three generations prior to December 13,2005, was primarily residing in the forest and was dependent on the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs.

The court noted that while dealing with the issue, the writ court had correctly noted that cultivating for bonafide and livelihood purpose would mean that ploughing, irrigation and planting for the purpose of livelihood and not for commercial exploitation. In the present case, the court noted that when the forest land was being exploited for commercial purpose, it could not be said that the appellant were depending on the forest produce.

The court added that even if it was presumed that the ancestors of appellants were originally residing in the forest area, they were now residing somewhere else and thus would not be eligble for claiming the status of forest dwellers.

Thus, noting that the appellants had not established any legal right to secure declaration, the court noted that no further interference was required and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Subramani

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. K. H. Ravikumar, Govt. Advocate

Case Title: AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118

Case No: WA No. 1992 of 2023