Section 3. Forest rights of Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other tradional forest dwellers
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the following rights, which secure individual or community tenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands, namely:--
(a) right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers;
(b) community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those used in erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes;
(c) right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries;
(d) other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water bodies, grazing (both settled or transhumant) and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralist communities;
(e) rights including community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities;
(f) rights in or over disputed lands under any nomenclature in any State where claims are disputed;
(g) rights for conversion of Pattas or leases or grants issued by any local authority or any State Government on forest lands to titles;
(h) rights of settlement and conversion of all forest villages, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and other villages in forests, whether recorded, notified or not into revenue villages;
(i) right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use;
(j) rights which are recognised under any State law or laws of any Autonomous District Council or Autonomous Regional Council or which are accepted as rights of tribals under any traditional or customary law of the concerned tribes of any State;
(k) right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity;
(l) any other traditional right customarily enjoyed by the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers, as the case may be, which are not mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) but excluding the traditional right of hunting or trapping or extracting a part of the body of any species of wild animal;
(m) right to in situ rehabilitation including alternative land in cases where the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers have been illegally evicted or displaced from forest land of any description without receiving their legal entitlement to rehabilitation prior to the 13th day of December, 2005.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Central Government shall provide for diversion of forest land for the following facilities managed by the Government which involve felling of trees not exceeding seventy-five trees per hectare, nemely:--
(a) schools;
(b) dispensary or hospital;
(c) anganwadis;
(d) fair price shops;
(e) electric and telecommunication lines;
(f) tanks and other minor water bodies;
(g) drinking water supply and water pipelines;
(h) water or rain water harvesting structures;
(i) minor irrigation canals;
(j) non-conventional source of energy;
(k) skill upgradation or vocational training centres;
(l) roads; and
(m) community centres:
Provided that such diversion of forest land shall be allowed only if,--
(i) the forest land to be diverted for the purposes mentioned in this sub-section is less than one hectare in each case; and
(ii) the clearance of such developmental projects shall be subject to the condition that the same is recommended by the Gram Sabha.
How courts have applied section 3
- Claimants must satisfy the Section 2(o) definition for 'other traditional forest dweller' (three generations, 75 years prior to 13.12.2005); Scheduled Caste claimants cannot claim under Section 2(c).1,2
- Identification of claims is reserved for the Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee; a Divisional Forest Officer cannot decide qualification.3
- Section 3 confers no land ownership right in reserved forest, and the State's right over minerals is not ousted by the Forest Rights Act.4,5
- A declaration of a Wildlife Sanctuary does not extinguish forest rights under the Forest Rights Act.6
- Use of forest land under Section 3(2) requires following the prescribed procedure and fulfilling specified conditions.7
- A Gram Sabha resolution cannot validate construction on forest land without forest rights or diversion permission under the Forest Rights Act or Forest (Conservation) Act.8
- Rights vest only where occupation predates 13.12.2005 under Section 4(3); encroachers and rejected claimants get no protection.9
- Interpretation of Section 3 is purposive but cannot transcend express provisions; subordinate legislation remains subservient to the parent statute.10,11
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here engage with Section 3 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 mainly through claims to forest rights and the scope of those rights. Several cases concern who can claim rights: claimants who are not members of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe and fail to satisfy the 'other traditional forest dweller' definition under Section 2(o), requiring residence for three generations (75 years) prior to 13.12.2005, cannot assert rights. Similarly, a claimant belonging to a Scheduled Caste cannot claim under Section 2(c) and must meet the Section 2(o) test, and appellants who never pleaded or proved they are members of forest dwelling scheduled tribes under Section 2(c) or reside in forest areas cannot claim entitlement. The identification of claims is reserved for the Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee under the 2008 Rules, and a Divisional Forest Officer exceeded his powers by returning a finding on whether claimants qualify as Traditional Forest Dwellers.1,2,5,3
A recurring question is whether Section 3 confers rights over specific categories of land or resources. Section 3 confers no land ownership right in reserved forest. The State's right over minerals is not ousted by the Forest Rights Act. The right to collect and dispose of minor forest produce under Section 3(1)(c) was claimed in a representation seeking permission to dispose of traditionally collected minor forest produce and to remove dry and deadwood trees, but the court only directed consideration of that representation without entering into merits. Rights under Section 3 do not protect encroachers of Government land where occupation does not predate 13.12.2005 under Section 4(3), and rejected individual forest-rights claims confer no protection.5,4,12,9
Courts in these orders also read Section 3 in relation to other statutory frameworks. The provision is a beneficial legislation that must be interpreted purposively, but interpretation cannot transcend express provisions, and subordinate legislation remains subservient to the parent statute. A Gram Sabha resolution to shift a Panchayat office could not validate construction on forest land where no forest rights or diversion permission under the Forest Rights Act or Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was obtained. The declaration of a forest area as a Wildlife Sanctuary does not extinguish the forest rights of tribals under the Forest Rights Act, and fragmented land parcels continue to stand declared as protected forest, with State use under Section 3(2) permitted only after following the prescribed procedure and fulfilling specified conditions. Sacred groves/Orans of Rajasthan were directed to be granted the legal status of 'forests' under the Forest Conservation Act, and a Gram Sabha must examine claims regarding religious rights of a tribal community over hills before a final clearance decision.10,11,8,6,7,13,14
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
The Supreme Court directed the State of Jharkhand to notify the Saranda forest area (126 compartments) as a Wildlife Sanctuary, excluding six mining zones. The Court held that forest rights under the FRA are protected and mining ancillary activities are permissible.
Zudpi Jungle Lands; In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.; State of Maharashtra application for modification of directions dated 22.05.2025; para 138(vii) fragmented land parcels declared protected forest; para 138(x) encroachments; newly added para 138(x-a);
DisposedOpenSupreme Court of India, 18 December 2024, Mehta, J. (B.R. Gavai and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. on Bench) — IA No. 41723 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995, In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Directions issuedOpenThe Supreme Court directed the Gram Sabha to consider claims regarding religious rights of Scheduled Tribes over Niyamgiri hills before the MOEF grants Stage-II forest clearance. The Court also noted that the Alumina Refinery Project and Bauxite Mining Project are interlinked.
DisposedOpenThis judgment addresses the applicability of the Biological Diversity Conservation Act, 2002 to the commercial utilization of Tendu Leaves procured via statutory auction under the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta Adhiniyam.
DismissedOpenThis order dismisses a batch of writ petitions challenging the State Biodiversity Board's directive to recover 2% Access and Benefit Sharing from Tendu Leaf auction purchasers.
DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
Petitioners claiming status as Traditional Forest Dwellers challenged a Divisional Forest Officer's order rejecting their representation. The court held such determination lies with committee-level verification under the Forest Rights Act Rules, set aside the order, and permitted fresh application before the Competent…
AllowedOpenW.P.(MD) No.5004 of 2026 (connected W.M.P.(MD).No.4201 of 2026); Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice Krishnan Ramasamy; decision dated 24.02.2026; forest rights; Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006; Section 4(6); Section 3(1)(c); Section 3(2);
DisposedOpenAppellant claimed forest land regularisation under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 based on family possession since 1970-72 in Sy.No.47, Kothanur village. The Division Bench held he failed to establish three generations' residence prior to 13.12.2005 as an 'other traditional forest dweller', the land being forest land…
DismissedOpenA retired forest officer filed a PIL seeking enforcement of purchase-price provisions under the Tendupatta Adhiniyam, 1964 and quashing of the State's 03-11-2009 profit-sharing order.
DismissedOpenTwin PILs over realignment of a 200-feet road from Institute of Mathematics to Ekamrakanan via Infocity on Government land. Petitioners claimed forest rights protection; claims had been rejected and a civil decree for eviction existed against some.
DisposedOpenOrissa High Court PIL 2026; road realignment; modified Comprehensive Development Plan CDP-02/2017; Bhubaneswar Development Authority; Odisha Development Authorities Act 1982 Section 14; ODA Rules 1983 Rules 16-17; 200 feet road Institute of Mathematics to Ekamrakanan via Infocity; Chunukoli village;
DisposedOpen
Writ appeal against dismissal of claim for forest rights over 291.60 acres of reserved forest land in Salem. The court upheld the finding that appellants neither resided on nor depended upon the forest land for livelihood and thus were not traditional forest dwellers; appeal dismissed.
DismissedOpenWrit petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the President and Secretary of Aranya Hakku Samithi Handigudda Girijana Hady, Handigudda Kaval Village, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District, seeking to quash the order dated 30.11.2021 in Ref No.
DisposedOpenThe High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the revocation of forest rights and grant of mining clearance, holding petitioners failed to establish locus standi and rights were not conferred as per the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
DismissedOpenEx gratia; wild elephant attack death; Government notification dated 06.03.2017; Haltugaon Reserve Forest; Kokrajhar; Other Traditional Forest Dweller (OTFD); Section 6, Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006; Gram Sabha; Sub-Divisional Level Committee;
DisposedOpenRabindra Pradhan vs State of Odisha Representated by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha
Review ApplicationOutcome: DisposedThe Tribunal dismissed a review application filed by the Sarpanch of Jhadapada Gram Panchayat. The original case directed demolition of an illegal Gram Panchayat Office on Plot No.1793 because no Forest Rights Act or Forest Conservation Act permission existed for that specific plot, unlike the permitted Plot No.1795.
Review ApplicationDisposedOpenIntra-court appeals against dismissal of writ petitions challenging an ex-gratia compensation notification for power lines through reserved forest. The Division Bench held the appellants failed to show they were forest dwellers, their LPC claims presumed non-reserved land, and dismissed both appeals at admission stage.
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
SC/ST/BC petitioners sought pattas for 164.20 acres of reserved forest land leased to their forefathers in 1960 for kumri cultivation as rehabilitation for lands submerged by the Dindi Project.
DismissedOpenArunachal Pradesh; Pakke Kessang; Seijosa; 132 KV S/C Rilloh-Seijosa transmission line; POWERGRID; right of way (RoW); reserved forest; unclassified state forest (USF); Special Ex-Gratia Relief Package notification dated 31.08.2023; half rates; 42.5% tower base area; 7.5% RoW diminution;
DismissedOpenMr. Balnath Dharma Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedBombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; decided 13 January 2025; batch W.P. Nos. 2662, 2664, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2668 of 2024 (lead: 2665 of 2024); Coram G.S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. (judgment per Advait M. Sethna, J.); FRA 2006 Ss 2(g), 2(o), 3(1)(a); Forest Rules 2007 Rr 13, 13(3);
DisposedOpenSmt. Surekha Narayan Patil Decd through Lrs vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedBatch of six writ petitions (WP 2662, 2664, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2668 of 2024; lead WP 2665/2024), Bombay High Court, judgment dated 13 January 2025, per Advait M. Sethna, J. (Coram: G.S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.).
DisposedOpen