Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Notice Preventing Forest Dwellers From Entering Forest Lands; Restrains Further Action Till Their Rights Are Decided

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a notice by the Range Forest Officer, Krishnanagar which prevented forest dwellers from entering into forest land for the purpose of staying or cultivating.

In setting aside the notice upon observing that the interests of the forest dwellers had not been accounted for, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held that:

No process of recognition rights as envisaged in Rule 12A of the 2007 Rules have been initiated in the locality. Notice issued by the Forest Range Officer, Krishnagar Range, which was not preceded by any such exercise and purports to oust the petitioners from their forest dwellings and to deprive them and others of the locality on similar footing of their rights under the 2006 Act, was de hors the law and palpably without jurisdiction. 

Counsel for the petitioners stated that they came under the definition of "other traditional forest dweller" under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which means any member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs.

Petitioners produced documents to prove their domicile, heirship and status as required under the 2006 Act and Rules.

It was however stated that the process of recognition of rights had not been commenced by the respondent authorities under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007 (2007 Rules). 

It was argued that Rule 12A of the rules envisages a detailed procedure where, at several tiers, an assessment is made as to the claims of forest dwellers and a decision is taken on the recognition of their rights.

It was argued that the petitioners had made their claims under the said provision along with other similarly placed forest dwellers but nothing has been done by the respondents.

It was stated that in the meantime, the impugned notice was issued without any mention of the addressees and was affixed in the locality indicating that the forest dwellers would be stripped from entering the forest or cultivating therein.

 Counsel for the State submitted a report and stated that the writ petition could be disposed of and the state did not wish to file any affidavits.

In the report, it was stated that the petitioners had no right over the forest land in question.

However, in negating these submissions, the Court stated:

However, the very premise of such arguments of the State is misplaced, in the absence of anything to show that the process of recognition rights as envisaged in Rule 12A of the 2007 Rules have been initiated in the locality at all. Without undertaking such exercise, it does not lie in the mouth of the State to deny the rights of claimants on such count. 

Accordingly, in observing that the process prescribed had not been followed before preventing the forest dwellers from entering the forest, the Court set aside the impugned notice and stated that no further action shall be taken till the rights of the forest dwellers were decided according to the prescribed statutes.

Advocates for the petitioners: Mr. Shantanu Chakraborty, Mr. Abhishek Sikdar, Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty, Mr. Deeptangshu Kar, Ms. Sahili Dey

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 90

Case: Ashadul Sekh and others v The State of West Bengal and other

Case No: WPA No. 8027 of 2024

Click here to read order