LAND ACQUISITION IN FOREST AREAS

By

Name of the Student: C ANAND HITESH

Roll No.: 2016027

Semester: IX

Name of the Program: 5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

Name of the Faculty Member

Mr. ARVIND NATH TRIPATHI

Date of Submission:

30-01-2021

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

“Firstly, I am, highly grateful to Mr. Arvind Nath Tripathi, of Damodaram Sanjivayya
National Law University, for his support and guidance throughout this paper. I acknowledge
with deepest sense of gratitude, guidance and his support throughout the course of this
research paper. Through his guidance and insights, I have been set on the path towards
developing a successful thesis.

Secondly, I would also like to thank all information providers without whom this research
paper would have been incomplete.”
CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. FOREST DWELLERS AND THEIR RELATION WITH THE FORESTS

3. STATUS OF FOREST DWELLERS

4. RESTRICTIONS ON FOREST DWELLER

5. ACQUISITION OF FOREST LAND

6. ANALYSIS ON FOREST RIGHTS ACT

7. ANALYSIS ON LAND ACQUISITION ACT 2013

8. RADICAL SHIFT IN MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE OF THE

FOREST

8.1 Right to own the land

8.2 Right to use the forest resources and forest land

8.3 Conservation rights

8.4 No arbitrary dislocation

9. CASE LAWS

10. CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION

“Earlier the tribals in India used to dwell in the hilly region and in the forest areas.
They depended on forest products for their livelihood. Around 90% of the tribal areas in India
are rich in minerals. For example, the Niyamgiri hills of Odisha which is the home for
DongriaKondh tribes are rich in bauxite. After the independence, many private firms
exploited the tribal areas that were rich in minerals and forest products. The tribals were
denied of their share in minerals and the profit was enjoyed by the firms. Due to loss of their
habitat and livelihood, the tribals lived under poverty and malnutrition. The government
began to take certain steps in order to help the tribals from the issue of land acquisition.”

FOREST DWELLERS AND THEIR RELATION WITH THE FORESTS

“The forest dwellers have always been dependant on the vegetation found in the
forests. It was the government rules that made life of the forest dwellers miserable and the
collection of fuel wood, fodder etc. were severely restricted. In West Bengal, post
independence right over the forests has always been the cause of problem between the forest
department and the local forest dwellers, who happen to be tribals. In few states such as
Arunachal Pradesh, the right of the forest dwellers were acknowledged and they were
allowed to make their livelihood freely from forests, both reserved and unclassified. In all
other states, such a privilege of the rights is available either free or at a minimal cost only
from protected or unclassified forests. These however are available under strict government
restrictions and regulations.” The tribals have always believed that by virtue of their heritage
the right over the forests, is their first. Major problems that the tribals have faced in the post
independent India are-
1) Grazing in the forests has been prohibited.
2) High rates for permits were charged by the government for little forest produce (e.g.
Tussar cocoons)
3) Agriculture land that comes under the forests which was allocated before has now been
asked by the government to be vacated.
4) The cattle trenches that are dug to protect the forests prevent free flow of water that was
being supplied to their lands.
“The forest department however does not agree with the misery of the tribals as mentioned
above and therefore there has always been a conflict between the two in regards to who is the
rightful owner of the forests. The forest department has always shown a callous attitude
towards the forest dwellers and the tribals and have often shown indifference and neglect
towards tribals. Such as in the forest department of Karnataka, the tribal was asked to vacate
where they planned to open a game sanctuary. Moreover, there were no alternate
arrangements made for their resettlement. In another example, the roads constructed for the
welfare of the tribals made by NGOs have often been neglected by the forest department as
they were responsible to look after the maintenance of these roads. In another example, the
water in the tanks within the reserved forests is never released for the benefit of the tribals
unless there is an intervention by the local social welfare department. Similar activities by the
forest department were seen in Andhra Pradesh, where the forest department in a bid to
vacate all encroachers not only seized the tribal land but also made sure that heavy fines were
imposed on those who resisted in giving up these lands. Land with no trees were also
attached to the forests and in a haste to improve the land mass, even brought forest to the
boundaries of the villages.”
Significant segregation in Tamil Nadu was seen against the tribals, when land was given to
the non tribals on rent or for all time. The tribals just got consent to develop the lands on
yearly premise. It was seen that a great deal of forest land was being developed despite the
fact that it was not approved. The serious issue that came for the tribals was that without long
haul rent they couldn't take soil preservation measures. Forest department likewise hassled
those making further difficulties for the tribals. Serious questions ejected between the
neighborhood tribals and the forest department. While the two of them accused each other for
the seriousness and cruelty in disposition towards one another, it was the forests that
confronted the brunt of this tussle. The tribals grumbled of provocation by the forest
authorities and this was a typical component in many pieces of Tamil Nadu.1

STATUS OF FOREST AFTER INDEPENDENCE

“Forest Policy of 1952 maintained that for the conservation and protection of forests it was
important to control the exploitation of minor forest produce, and the forest conservation act
of 1980 was brought in to play. All forest land was put under the control of the central
government and the old acts from the colonial rule continued to play their part in the name of
public good and development.”

STATUS OF FOREST DWELLERS

The new rules and regulations of the forest department put the forest occupants on the
leniency of the forest department, particularly the lower level authorities who for their own
advantage would hassle these local people. Significant reasons for this sort of separation were
likewise ignorance and poor financial states of these forest inhabitants. In certain zones of
Andhra Pradesh forest gatekeepers had a cut in the minor forest produce and in others tribals
needed to work with no remuneration.2
Since the forests covered tremendous land mass it was almost unthinkable for the forest
authorities at significant levels to investigate these territories leaving local people helpless
before the lower level authorities. These were a typical component in these pieces of Andhra
Pradesh. The probationers noticed that in various regions of the express the tribals were being
misused at various levels. It was the lower level functionaries that were abusing who went
from the patwari to nearby constable reach. Forest inhabitants have additionally succumbed
to commercialisation of forests. Since the early occasions, the forest inhabitants have been
deceived both by project workers and nearby high going authorities to do untalented
positions. It was then prescribed to present a relationship of neighborhood occupants in the
misuse of forest produce as Forest Labor Societies were in the then Bombay state. The object
was to propose full work rates for these adivasis and to prepare them in assuming up liability
for the forests and other related zones by participation among local people and the forest
departments.

1
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/126508/9/09_chapter%202.pdf
2
https://www.careerride.com/view/tribal-land-acquisition-protection-by-government-20433.aspx
RESTRICTIONS ON FOREST DWELLER
Removal of the forest inhabitants has hence proceeded due to helpless job. Ousting
from their tribal forest lands by the forest department has likewise added to their development
from the forest lands. The Wild Life Protection Act of 1972 and its resulting revision in the
year 1999 further confined the privileges of the forest occupants in untamed life safe-havens
and public parks. These were additionally a reason for the disengagement of the forest
occupants. Since the tribals were being abused from all areas, it united the tribals and a social
development joining the tribals came in to play. They were joined together and begun voicing
their discontent with the current framework and began requesting their privileges to vocation.
The National Forest Policy of 1988 under tension from different social associations perceived
these rights and made the principal strides towards recognizing them. The MoEF gave a
bunch of round in 1990 to assist individuals with comprehension and execute these
progressions made to the forest demonstration. Public Advisory Council over the last piece of
2004 chose to discover an answer for this issue unequivocally, they went in to conversation
with the MoEF and ancestral rights activists concerning the infringement of the forest land
After due conversations.
“In an affirmation to the Apex Court, in June 2004, the Government of India admitted
to the recorded treachery that had been demanded upon the tribals and the forest tenants of
the subcontinent. This chronicled bad form began by the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (the
'WPA') and was trailed by the Forest Conservation Act 1980 (the 'FCA') was for the sake of
ecological assurance. In any case, these Acts has consistently been at lumberjack heads
versus acknowledgment of privileges of the tribals. The issues proceeded with development
of new rules and regulations even in the post autonomy period and a need of prompt location
to the circumstance had emerged. This time the Government of India at last perceived the
privileges of the tribals. This confirmation was critical as it was the acknowledgment by the
public authority of India that it had received the pioneer discerning to the issue of the forest
administration and had neglected to do what it was decided to do. It had distanced the tribals
and had ousted an enormous number of them from their hereditary lands.”

ACQUISITION OF FOREST LAND

Section-2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 inter-alia provides that notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State
Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central
Government, any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for
any non-forest purpose. Therefore, use of forest land for various development projects,
including development projects in urban areas, requires prior approval of the Central
Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.3
“The preamble of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Rights Act or FRA) states
that the Act was passed to undo the historical injustice committed against the forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in the forests
for centuries, but whose rights could not be recorded. It may be interesting to know what is
The Forest Rights Act, what are its salient features, why this act was required, various hurdles
that are observed while its proper implementation and why there was a requirement for 2012
FRA Amendment rules. This legislation is no doubt hailed as the first correct step in
recognizing the fact that the forest dwellers are also a part of the forest and they have the
equal right to live there as any flora or fauna.”
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006 (or FRA) is an invite piece of enactment to perceive the standard privileges of
forest ward booked clan and non-planned clan networks who have been living in such forests
for ages yet whose rights couldn't be recorded. According to the preface of the Act, it is an
endeavor to fix the "recorded treachery" done to tribals and forest tenants since pre-freedom.
It has been a since quite a while ago created contention that this enactment came at an
extremely later stage, notwithstanding, at any rate there is a confirmation that the forest
inhabitants are given lawful acknowledgment and protections from now into the foreseeable
future. The Act offers a system for recording the forest rights and the idea of proof needed for
such acknowledgment as for forest land. FRA perceives that forest tenants have the
equivalent rightin the forests as widely varied vegetation and they are a significant and
fundamental piece of the forests.
The arrangements that cherish in FRA is that it perceives that forest occupants ought to be
associated with supportable turn of events, protection of biodiversity and upkeep of the
natural equilibrium as they have an immense conventional information on such practices.
Such a training was just required under the Joint Forest Management (JFM) conspire that
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) had begun before FRA.
The forest occupants are currently seen as the defenders and conservators of the forests and
not as encroachers anymore.FRA depicts that during the time spent clash with respect to
3
https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/data/FRARulesBook.pdf
advancement choices, inclination will be given to the forest tenants. This was the first
occasion when that an authentic foul play to forest-abiding planned clans and other
customary forest-inhabitants were recognized, and the means to redress such a position were
taken as FRA.
FRA is an invite piece of enactment as history has seen the barbarities submitted towards the
forest tenants and their terrible outcomes. This Act has made conceivable that by making a
harmony between the job needs of forest dependenttribal and non-ancestral networks and
legislative advancement programs, the law acquires a status of concordance and
democratization in the field of forest administration.

FRA 2006
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs was approached to set up a draft of The Scheduled Tribes
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, which was set before the Parliament in 2005. This bill
accompanied the scenery of globalization, advancement and fast development. The inflow of
global organizations made disorder in the existences of the tribals who should profit by this
approach of these organizations in to their regular living space.
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act (or basically known as
Forest Rights Act-FRA) was at last passed in 2006 and came into power on January 1, 2008.
It advised in the Rules the privileges of the forest dwelling individuals, remembering them in
the Indian forest strategy arrangement unexpectedly. The inquiry presently is whether
because of presence of inconsistencies and covering of the connected forest acts and
proceeded with tussle between the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ministry of Tribal
Affairs, executing of FRA is delivered insufficient.

Salient Features of FRA

Following are the salient features of FRA for proper understanding of the Act.
a. “The act is in fact a means to recognise the rights of thesetribals and gives rights to FDSTs
and related forest dwellers. These rights have been recognised in Sec. three of the act that
includes right to forest land in terms of living, holding, occupying the forest land. Rights to
use the forest produce to collect and use it and any other rights that had been held by the
forest dwellers traditionally. However, a certain number of rights were reserved with the
government and were a subject to agreement of the Gram Sabhain order to divert land use for
certain purposes.”
b. “The FRA is basically of a right vesting nature and provides for consolidation and
recognition of pre existing rights which meant that the rights were already in existence even
before the FRA was formulated. It recognises that there has been a failure in recognition of
rights of the forest dwellers and tribal people. These people had been living in the forests and
their rights had been constantly been ignored and which hadresulted in discrimination against
these people.”
c. “The act also talks about the rights and duties that the forest dwellers hold in terms of
protecting the wild life and diversity of the forests and other ecological areas to promote
sustainability in these areas. Chapter IV covers these areas and generally covers the
procedures for enforcement of these rights.”

“- Forest Rights Act, 2006 – The Forest Rights Act was passed on December 18, 2006. The
Act grants legal recognition to the rights of the tribal communities that dwell in the forests. It
also gives an opportunity to the public to raise their voice for the forest conservation.” 

“- PESA, 1996 – The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, was enacted by
the Government of India on 24 December 1996 to enable the gram sabhas to manage their
natural resources. It extends Panchayati Raj system in tribal areas and minimize the
intervention by the government.” 

“- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act 2013 – The bill was introduced in the LokSabha on September 7,
2011 and received the assent of the President of India on 27 September 2013. The Act finally
came into force on January 1, 2014. The Act provides a fair compensation to the affected
families whose land has been snatched away from them. The act provides adequate
provisions for the affected people for their rehabilitation and resettlement.” 

“- The Land Acquisition ordinance 2015 - It seeks to address the grievances of the tribals
by undertaking certain measures. It was compulsory to get the approval of the tribal councils
and sabhas before taking any decision regarding their territories. Special benefits are given in
case of any dislocation to the tribals.”
“-A lot of tribal welfare programs are being added in the CSR activities.
-Before any new project takes place in the tribal areas, rehabilitation and compensation
should be given to the tribals who are affected.”

- Tribal welfare ministries are formed at the Centre and State level to deal with the problem
of land acquisition. 

- MNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) has been
implemented at all the tribal areas of the nation.4 

The new Land Acquisition Act, which looks to in a general sense adjust the arrangement of
land acquisition, is predicated upon the conviction that each land proprietor should be given a
satisfactory chance to guarantee that his advantages and concerns are given due thought
during the cycle of acquisition.The Act further perceives that each local area has a novel
arrangement of concerns which must be tended to in a way predictable with the
compassionate and agreement based arrangement of acquisition that this Act hypothesizes.

The current arrangement of land acquisition is described by inescapable imbalances which

subvert the fundamental standards of a populist social request that the designers of our
constitution looked to make. Despite the fact that the new Act has been scolded in certain
quarters for the extensive and complex framework that it looks to make, it's not possible for
anyone to reject that the arrangements that the Act makes to assist generally minimized areas
of society will go far in profoundly improving the dealing force of those whose worries have
up to this point been essentially ignored.A far reaching part has been independently cut out
which decidedly declares the privileges of land proprietors having a place with booked
stations or planned clans.Following is a list of the pertinent provisions that the Act creates for
the empowerment of the SC/ST communities under section 41&42:

Acquisition of land as last resort: The Act gives uncommon insurance to land having a
place with SC/ST people group, as it makes it richly evident that such land ought not
conventionally be gained; it should just be procured as a certifiable final hotel. At the end of
the day, fitting and convincing reasons should be appeared for the acquisition of such land.
4
https://www.survivalinternational.org/about/fra
Besides, regardless of whether pertinent reasons exist for the acquisition of such land, the
acquisition should just be finished with the assent of neighborhood establishments of self-
administration including any self-sufficient boards that may be in presence.

A special development plan: An advancement plan should be set up to obviously portray the
privileges of those having a place with SC/ST people group that have not yet been settled.
Moreover, the title of such people should likewise be reestablished on estranged land by
attempted an extraordinary drive. The arrangement should likewise envelop arrangements for
the improvement of substitute fuel, feed and non-wood forest assets on non-forest land. The
previously mentioned assets should be made accessible inside a time of 5 years to address the
issues of these networks.

33% sum as first portion: The longing to reasonably and quickly remunerate individuals
having a place with the SC/ST people group for the land that is obtained from them
additionally discovers articulation in the arrangement that proposes that 1-third of the pay
sum should be paid to land proprietors having a place with these networks in advance. The
leftover sum can be paid after the ownership of the land changes hands.This arrangement will
positively go far in mollifying the disquiet of devastated land proprietors who intensely
depend on their land for acquiring their vocation.

Land for local meetings: Land will be accommodated parties in resettlement territories to
individuals from SC/ST communities.This arrangement further reaffirms the responsibility of
the lawmaking body to maintain and advance the conventions of these networks and to
protect their special ethos.

Resettlement in a similar territory: All potential endeavors should be made to guarantee

that individuals having a place with the SC/ST people group, who must be given substitute
convenience because of land acquisition, are given convenience in a similar planned zone,
ideally in a minimal square.

This won't just empower them to remain associated with their own local area, however will
likewise permit them to save their social character. The Act perceives that individuals having
a place with these networks may think that its difficult to conform to a totally new climate,
and, accordingly, cuts out this arrangement for the protection of etymological and ethnic
personality of influenced families.

Extra advantages whenever resettled external planned territories: If, because of some
pertinent explanation, influenced families having a place with the SC/ST people group must
be resettled external the booked zone in which they were formerly remaining, at that point the
measure of recovery and resettlement advantages to be given to them will be raised by 25%.
What's more, they will be qualified for a further installment of Rs. 50,000/ - . This
arrangement will make the change cycle a great deal smoother and will make it workable for
influenced families to flawlessly coordinate into their new networks.

No acquisition in repudiation of existing laws: Any administration authority that plans to

get land that is claimed by individuals from these networks should do as such as per all
current hard and delicate laws. Laws that try to shield the interests of these networks would
be fundamentally subverted if their arrangements are not carefully followed to.As an
outcome, any exchange including the acquisition of land in negation of existing laws would
be void.

RADICAL SHIFT IN THE MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE OF THE

FORESTS
“It was for the first time, however in the Indian forest law that a radical shift was seen
in conserving the forest eco systems. Before the formulation of the FRA the forest
communities were more or less excluded from the decision making processes, in regards to
conservation of the forests. This was changed and it was finally recognised that the forest
communities were an essential part in conservation of forests. This was a change from the old
school of thought that believed that the forest dwellers were a cause for dwindling forest
ecological system. Stress was given on this fact throughout the act and much emphasis given
with defining their duties and responsibilities towards the conservation of forests. The debate
that had been occurring in terms of conservation of the forests as against the livelihood of the
tribal community has been put to rest as there is a clear demarcation in the act in regards to
the food security and livelihood of these communities.”5

5
http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/case-studies-on-forest_and-common-land-
acquisition-spwd-2012.pdf
More over yonder is an affirmation that in the past unfairness had been done to the ancestral
and they had been ousted from their lands as far as public turn of events. This was something
that should have been amended now and the demonstration made itclear that both protection
and recovery of the forests could happen at the same time. The demonstration is clear in
characterizing the classifications in which the individuals who are qualified for these rights
fall in to. The demonstration clarifies that such individuals are the ones who have been living
in the forests and are subject to the forest produce for their job. Also, the demonstration
clarifies that such inquirers need to demonstrate that they have been satisfying these
conditions throughout the previous 75 years and is forest tenants. Under S.4 (1) of FRA 2006,
the inquirer can likewise be an individual from the timetable clan or dwelling in a region that
has been set apart as home for them. The demonstration perceives various rights that can be
guaranteed by these people and are as the accompanying.

1. Land held by networks or zamindaris, which were named as Nistar or client rights to such
land by these interval systems.

2. Essential option to live and involving the forest lands for self-development are installed in
the Constitution of India just as FRA.

3. Maybe the most questionable of the relative multitude of advantages given was the directly
over land that was in contest with the nearby or state specialists. Option to change over leases
or awards gave by the state government were to be changed over in to proprietor transport
rights or title deeds.

4. The option to utilize the forest produce or to sell minor forest produce that had been
gathered by these forest occupants in a conventional technique inside or outside their towns.
These incorporated all non-lumber forest produce, for example, bamboo, brushwood, spices,
and different plants and creature items, for example, nectar and wax.

5. The forest inhabitants would likewise be given guide regarding advancement and the focal
government would help being developed of offices, for example, schools, emergency clinics
water system offices and streets et cetera. These were to be overseen by the public authority.
Anyway these zones would be absolved from incorporation under the Forest Conservation
Act of 1980. It was clarified that the utilization of forest lands for every one of these reasons
would be restricted to short of what one hectare and not in excess of 75 trees would be
chopped down for such purposes. It was vital for take the consent of the Gram Sabha for
advancement of such activities before they would be appointed.

6. The demonstration additionally included different rights, for example, option to fish and
different items that could be acquired from the waterways and occasional produce,
conventional rights, for example, that for touching were likewise followed for migrant and
pastoralist networks. Rights were additionally given to networks that were especially helpless
and other horticultural networks.

7. Right were likewise given to the forest tenants to moderate, secure, oversee and recover the
forests and holds that they had been saving and ensuring beforehandin a supportable way.
Rights that had been as of now been perceived by the state or nearby committees as under the
law that depended on neighborhood conventions and customs. Option to moderate and access
the biodiversity since the neighborhood local area had the information dependent on customs
and culture that was identified with the nearby forest territories. The law likewise
incorporated whatever other rights that haven't been referenced previously. This anyway did
exclude chasing and catching of untamed life creatures that were a piece of the nearby
verdure. Selling of creature bones and skin were likewise disallowed as it straightforwardly
negated with different laws of the area. The forest occupants were likewise given ideal for
restoration in the event that they had been strongly or illicitly expelled from a forest land
without accepting any lawful qualification for their recovery.
8. The forest inhabitants were offered option to settle and change over towns in to income
towns that had fall in the classification of old home, unsurveyed towns and forest towns prior
on. To sum up, the Forest Rights Act perceives three kinds of rights.

Right to own the land

“The act has given the people the right to own the land of title deeds in case they have been
engaged in cultivation of these lands before December 13, 2005. No documentary proof was
necessary for those who had been cultivating land up to four hectares, as long as it was done
to satisfy their own needs. People who had taken up the land on lease or were on a
government lease and whose land had been forcefully or illegally taken up by the forest
department and was a subject to dispute could now claim title to these lands. However this
land cannot be sold or transferred except for the right of inheritance.”
Option to utilize the forest assets and forest land

The law clarified what could and what couldn't be gathered from the forests and were as
following.

1. Forest inhabitants reserved the privilege to gather minor forest produce for instance they
could gather tendu leaves, restorative plants and spices and so on that had been gathered
before likewise generally. They anyway couldn't gather wood or fell trees for assortment of
the equivalent.

2. Brushing zones would be separated and water bodies for a similar reason would likewise
be referenced.

3. The zones would likewise be set apart for conventional traveling networks that moved
every now and then looking for vocation as against different networks that were primarily
founded on farming.

Preservation rights

The forest tenants were given an option to secure and moderate the forest regions that they
had been living in. They were offered ability to moderate the forest assets and of the
demonstration gave the local area ability to secure untamed life, forests and so forth This
privilege was of most extreme significance as it gave the local area the option to secure their
encompassing being a piece of fundamental edge administration.

No discretionary separation

In the public parks of the country particularly the natural life saves, it was frequently seen
that the individuals were powerfully moved for the sake of saving the untamed life species
and keeping them liberated from the human mediation. Anyway this movement has not been
effective in saving what it had been set out for. All it oversaw was to disengage individuals
powerfully. Notwithstanding, such removals are exposed to certain rule that should be
satisfied for such movement to occur. Initially it should be demonstrated deductively that
human intercession is really causing the natural life to endure and henceforth such movement
is essential this must be done after due thought and general assessment. Besides local people
who are influenced should be persuaded that such movement is essential for their own
wellbeing and the untamed life encompassing them. What's more, finally such a migration
ought not just give another and better spot to live yet additionally guarantee business forthese
individuals. Comparable conditions were likewise remembered for the natural life insurance
act so there were no inconsistencies or hotspots for debate explicitly in cases that elaborate
tiger saves, etc. 6

CASE LAWS

FerozShabbar Hussain vs The State Of Maharashtra7

Brief facts

“The land in question was originally held by one Narayan GovindShete and bore survey No.
27, Hissa No.4. On 24th January, 1961 a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forests Act
was issued and the landlord was called upon to show cause as to why the land be no declared
as a private forest. The Petitioner claims to be legal representative of deceased Smt.
RubbabaiShabbar Hussein, who had acquired the land in question from the original holder,
namely, Narayan GovindShete. An application was submitted for grant of licence to extract
stone/rubble/murum from a natural quarry available in the said land. The licence was issued
but later on cancelled. The Petitioner and Smt. Rubbabai, predecessor in title of the
Petitioner, had preferred a writ petition challenging the order of cancelling licence for
quarrying in the said land. The petition was, however, dismissed on 4th September, 1990.
Thereafter an application was filed on 11th March, 1991 before the Sub-Divisional Officer /
Deputy Collector, Panvel to start inquiry under Section 22-A, suomotu and to release
the land from declaration as forest land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Panvel, granted the
application and held that though notice under Section 35(3) of the Forests Act was issued, yet
Notification under Section 35(1) of the Forests Act was not issued and therefore
the land could not be treated as private forest. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Panvel, held that there was no need to proceed under Section 22-A of the Maharashtra

6
https://thewire.in/136976/forest-rights-dwelling-communities/?utm_source=alsoread
7
AIR 2006 Bom 256
Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. It was declared that the Petitioner was free to enjoy
the land in question. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition was preferred by Respondent
No.2. The revision petition came to be allowed by order dated 4th October, 2000 passed by
the Minister for Forests. It is this order, which is subject matter of the challenge in the present
petition.”

Issues raised

“Whether a part of land used for quarrying purposes declared as forest land?”

Judgment

“In its decision, the court observed that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Panvel, would show that due to absence of Notification under Section 35(1) of
the Forests Act it was declared that the land in question cannot be treated as private forest.
This approach of the Sub-Divisional Officer / Deputy Collector, Panvel, is itself incorrect. So
also, in the case of ChintamaniGajananVelkar v. State of Maharashtra,8 , it is laid down that if
notice is issued under Section 35(3) of the Forests Act prior to the appointed date i.e. 30th
August, 1975 then the land will have to be regarded as private forest. Needless to say the
absence of notification under Section 35(1) of theForests Act could not be treated as a ground
to declare the land in question as outside the definition of expression "private forest" as was
done by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panvel.”

“True, the part of the land in question is used for quarrying purpose. We cannot overlook the
fact, however, that predecessor in title of the Petitioner, namely, Smt. Rubbabai started using
a portion of the land for quarrying only somewhere in 1981. A part of the land could be used
for quarrying purpose only after obtaining licence in 1981 but that will not change the nature
of the land. The subsequent events and change of user are immaterial once it is found that
notice under Section 35(3) of the Forests Act was issued. The provisions of Section 6 only
deals with power of the Collector to decide the question where the dispute arises as to
whether or not any forest is a private forest or whether or not any private forest or portion
thereof is vested in the State Government.”

“A plain reading of sub-clause (1) of Section 22-A of the Forests Act makes it manifest that
such application has to be filed by an owner of private forest within a period of six months
8
(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 143
from the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition)
(Amendment) Act, 1978. The application was not filed within a period of six months after the
commencement of the said Act but it was filed long thereafter on 11th March, 1991.
Obviously such application was barred by limitation and could not have been entertained by
the Sub-Divisional Officer / Deputy Collector, Panvel. The pendency of such another petition
(Writ Petition No. 390 of 1982) had nothing to do with the inquiry under Section 22-A in as
much as it pertained only to the extent of licence for quarrying in the land, which was
subsequently revoked. Under the circumstances, the Revisional Authority has rightly held
that when the notice under Section 35(3) was issued much prior to the commencement of the
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 then the land did vest in the Government
as a private forest. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference.”

State Of Maharashtra AndAnr. vs Maharashtra Land Development9

Brief facts

“On 27th August, 1975, a notice was issued by the State Government to the Company under
sub-section (3) of section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 calling upon the Company, the
owner of the land, to show cause as to why notification under sub-section (1) of section 35 of
the Act should not be issued for regulating and/or prohibiting the non-forest activities on
the land. The said notice was issued in respect of total area of land bearing Survey No. 345-A
admeasuring 209 acres.”

“On 30th August, 1975, the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 came into
force under which land bearing Survey No. 345-A stood acquired and vested in the State
Government on the appointed day i.e. August 30, 1975. Accordingly, on October 8, 1975, the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Sub-urban District, in exercise of power under section 5 of
the said Act, issued notice to the company to hand over possession of the entire land of
Survey No. 345-A admeasuring 209 acres. The company filed a reply to the said notice
contending that the land bearing Survey No. 345-A was not forest much less a private forest.
The company also called upon the Collector to hear and decide the question as to whether or
not the land was forest or private forest and whether it vested in the State Government under
the Act. By an order dated 12th November, 1975, the Sub-Divisional Officer held the land to
be private forest and stood acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra. The company
9
2004 (1) BomCR 24
was, therefore, called upon to hand over possession of the land within 10 days to the
Collector of Bombay.”

“The Special Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order passed by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is not in consonance with law and deserves to be quashed and
set aside. It was submitted that admittedly land bearing Survey No. 345 was forest. The
original character, however, was never lost and hence it cannot be held that Survey No. 345-
A was not forest. According to the learned Counsel, had all these facts been appreciated in
their proper perspective, the Tribunal ought not to have come to the conclusion to which it
has arrived. The order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside
by allowing the petition and by declaring the land as private forest under the provisions of the
Act.”

Judgment

“The honourable court was also of the view that some of the facts and circumstances
considered and taken into account by the Tribunal cannot be said to be germane or relevant.
For instance, the Tribunal in the impugned order conceded that the land was described as
forest (jungle) in all records. Admittedly, the entire Survey No. 345 was forest. Survey No.
345-A i.e. part of Survey No. 345 admeasuring 209 acres and 25 gunthas was withdrawn
from acquisition by an order passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Park,
Borivli on 15th September, 1973. The said action was taken as the land was not found
convenient and suitable for the purpose for acquisition. In our view, however, this has
nothing to do with the nature and character of land. A piece of land may not be "forest" or
private forest and yet it may be required under the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose.
On the other hand, a piece of land may be forest or private forest and yet it may not be
convenient or suitable for acquisition for a public purpose and hence, may not be acquired.
Acquisition of land has something to do with public purpose and acquisition of land under the
relevant statute. It has nothing to do with the nature of character of land. Hence, to say that
the land was not found to be convenient, appropriate or suitable for acquisition for public
purposes and, hence withdrawal notification was issued does not make forest or private forest
land to be non-forest land. There is nothing on record to substantiate or countenance such a
conclusion as has been done by the Tribunal.

CONCLUSION:
A coherent policy response to the tough social questions raised by compulsory land
acquisition in India is long overdue. Conflicts have escalated, while successive governments
failed to enact a law protecting the livelihoods of affected people. The proposed Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill
2011 is a major step forward in this regard. Otherwise, it will not respond adequately to the
sensitive nature of India’s land situation and instead, make the conflict more intractable by
covering unchanged practices under a new law.

“The aforementioned provisions, if implemented correctly, will go a long way in

restructuring the land acquisition system in such a way as to prevent the exploitation of
vulnerable land owners and communities. They will not only help to significantly reduce the
disparities in the present system, but will also pave the way for a more just social order – a
social order in which the concerns of every community would be given the attention that they
deserve.”