Section 4. Recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government hereby recognises and vests forest rights in--
(a) the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in States or areas in States where they are declared as Scheduled Tribes in respect of all forest rights mentioned in section 3;
(b) the other traditional forest dwellers in respect of all forest rights mentioned in section 3.
(2) The forest rights recognised under this Act in critical wildlife habitats of National Parks and Sanctuaries may subsequently be modified or resettled, provided that no forest rights holders shall be resettled or have their rights in any manner affected for the purposes of creating inviolate areas for wildlife conservation except in case all the following conditions are satisfied, namely:--
(a) the process of recognition and vesting of rights as specified in section 6 is complete in all the areas under consideration;
(b) it has been established by the concerned agencies of the State Government, in exercise of their powers under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972) that the activities or impact of the presence of holders of rights upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible damage and threaten the existence of said species and their habitat;
(c) the State Government has concluded that other reasonable options, such as, co-existence are not available;
(d) a resettlement or alternatives package has been prepared and communicated that provides a secure livelihood for the affected individuals and communities and fulfils the requirements of such affected individuals and communities given in the relevant laws and the policy of the Central Government;
(e) the free informed consent of the Gram Sabhas in the areas concerned to the proposed resettlement and to the package has been obtained in writing;
(f) no resettlement shall take place until facilities and land allocation at the resettlement location are complete as per the promised package:
Provided that the critical wildlife habitats from which rights holders are thus relocated for purposes of wildlife conservation shall not be subsequently diverted by the State Government or the Central Government or any other entity for other uses.
(3) The recognition and vesting of forest rights under this Act to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to other traditional forest dwellers in relation to any State or Union territory in respect of forest land and their habitat shall be subject to the condition that such Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or other traditional forest dwellers had occupied forest land before the 13th day of December, 2005.
(4) A right conferred by sub-section (1) shall be heritable but not alienable or transferable and shall be registered jointly in the name of both the spouses in case of married persons and in the name of the single head in the case of a household headed by a single person and in the absence of a direct heir, the heritable right shall pass on to the next-of-kin.
(5) Save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete.
(6) Where the forest rights recognised and vested by sub-section (1) are in respect of land mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 such land shall be under the occupation of an individual or family or community on the date of commencement of this Act and shall be restricted to the area under actual occupation and shall in no case exceed an area of four hectares.
(7) The forest rights shall be conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements, including clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), requirement of paying the 'net present value' and 'compensatory afforestation' for diversion of forest land, except those specified in this Act.
(8) The forest rights recognised and vested under this Act shall include the right of land to forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who can establish that they were displaced from their dwelling and cultivation without land compensation due to State development interventions, and where the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was acquired within five years of the said acquisition.
How courts have applied section 4
- The embargo on eviction under Section 4(5) continues until the competent authority records a final determination of the claimant's entitlement.1
- Courts have restrained eviction where a claimant's application is pending before the authorities, permitting only self-cultivation and not commercial activity.2
- Once a forest right lease is granted after the recognition procedure is complete, the holders cannot be removed except by due process of law.3
- Rights vest under Section 4(3) only where occupation predates the specified cut-off date; rejected claims confer no protection.4
- A declaration of a forest area as a Wildlife Sanctuary does not extinguish forest rights under the Act and permits continued mining ancillary activities.5
- The Act does not confer rights over reserved forest land merely because claimants possess documents like voter IDs, ration cards or pattas.6
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here deal mostly with the protection conferred by Section 4(5) of the Act, which bars eviction of claimants whose claims are pending, and with the extent of rights recognised or claimed under Section 4(3). Courts have repeatedly held that the statutory embargo on eviction remains in force until the competent authority finally determines a claimant's entitlement, and that eviction proceedings are unsustainable if recognition proceedings are pending. Interim restraints against eviction have been granted where claimants' applications have been made and forwarded through the Gram Sabha, and authorities are directed to consider them in the manner prescribed by the Rules. Where a forest right lease stands granted after completion of the recognition and verification procedure, holders cannot be removed except by due process of law, and the District Level Committee's decision is final and binding with no provision for appeal, review or revision. A declaration of a forest area as a Wildlife Sanctuary does not extinguish forest rights under the Act.1,2,3,5
Several judgements concern the scope of the rights themselves under Section 4(3) and the limits of the Act's protection. Rights vest only where occupation predates a specified cut-off date, and rejected individual forest-rights claims confer no protection. Occupation of reserved forest land, even with documents like Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, ration cards, pattas or land revenue payments, does not confer any right to occupy such land. Where a claimant fails to substantiate that they are individual right holders or that community forest rights were conferred, the court dismissed the petition, and the State's right over minerals is not ousted by the Act. A declaration that an area is a protected forest or sanctuary does not extinguish forest rights and permits continued mining ancillary activities.4,6,7,5
Some judgements illustrate how courts apply the Act's provisions where other claims are involved. A beneficial legislation must be interpreted purposively, but interpretation cannot transcend express provisions, and subordinate legislation remains subservient to the parent statute. Where the State informed the court that title deeds had already been issued to all petitioners, the cause in a writ petition seeking Gram Sabha constitution did not survive. In a contempt petition, the court held that a copy of an application without date or acknowledgment could not be treated as an actual application, and where the application was made, the six-month period for decision had not expired.8,9,10
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 4
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.
The Court quashed eviction notices issued under the Indian Forest Act while proceedings under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 were pending. It directed authorities to complete the forest rights recognition process within 120 days and restrained dispossession.
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.
DismissedOpenUttarakhand High Court (DB: Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J., author; Subhash Upadhyay, J.), Writ Petition (M/B) No. 322 of 2026, decided 14.05.2026 (neutral citation 2026:UHC:3702-DB): Jatav-community forest dwellers of Jurka No.2, Tarai Western Forest Division, Udhamsingh Nagar, protected from eviction and interference with…
DisposedOpenUttarakhand High Court (Division Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Siddhartha Sah, JJ.; order signed 20.04.2026) disposed of WPMB No.256 of 2026, a writ petition by a person residing in the periphery of Jurka, Tarai Western Forest Division, District Udham Singh Nagar, seeking (i) a mandamus directing the respondent…
DisposedOpenW.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);
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging eviction notices/orders dated 17.04.2026 and 23.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Pratappur) initiating eviction proceedings in respect of Khasra No. 308, Rakba 0.04 hectare, Patwari Halka No.
WithdrawnOpenEjaz v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 2029 of 2026 (Chhattisgarh HC, Bilaspur, decided 29/04/2026, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.): challenge to eviction/removal notices dated 23.01.2026 and 17.04.2026 by Tahsildar Pratappur; pending lease and forest-rights claims (Gram Panchayat/FRC resolutions; S.
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;
DisposedOpenBatch of writ petitions by residents challenging Speaking Orders directing eviction from four reserved forests in Assam. The court upheld the orders, holding survey and procedure complied with Abdul Khalek safeguards, no rights were shown under forest laws or the Taungya system, and environmental obligations outweigh…
DisposedOpenVan Gujjar forest dwellers claimed their applications under the Forest Rights Act were pending before committees. The court held the respondents could not evict petitioners without first considering their applications as statutorily mandated.
DisposedOpen
Lalman Ramlal Dhandekar Vs Divisional Level Committee Thr. Secy. Being Additional Commi. Tribal Dev. Dept., Amravati and Ors.
Outcome: Partly allowedCommunity forest rights — Critical Tiger Habitat Area — village Pastalai — Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of the Rights) Act 2006, S.2(p), S.2(f), S.4(2) — RFCTLARR Act 2013, S.42(3), S.43(2) — rehabilitation/resettlement package — Divisional Level Forest Rights Committee,…
Partly allowedOpenThe 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.
DismissedOpenChhattisgarh HC, WPC 5183/2025, dec. 25.09.2025, Arvind Kumar Verma J. FRA 2006 Ss.4(5), 6(6): DLC/Collector order dated 14.07.2025 cancelling petitioners' 2016-17 forest rights patta (3.131/2.800/02.00 ha, Village Madeli, Gariaband) quashed qua petitioners; post-verification lessees removable only by due process;
DisposedOpenPetitioners sought a mandamus directing the Gram Panchayat to constitute a Gram Sabha under the Forest Rights Act to identify forest dwelling tribals and sought interim protection from eviction.
DisposedOpenHigh Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, 21.07.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:CGHC:34518) dismissed contempt petition CONT No. 1098 of 2025 (Abid Shah v. State forest officials) alleging non-compliance with the direction in W.P.(C) No.
DisposedOpenAndhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 17646 of 2025 (order dated 16.07.2025, B.S.Bhanumathi, J.). Keywords: Forest Rights Act 2006; RoFR title deed; pattadar pass books; Gramsabha not conducted; Taduvai Panchayat / Challagariga Panchayat discrepancy; Scheduled Tribes; eviction without notice;
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Van Gujjar; nomadic forest-dwelling community; Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006; form B and C applications; Gram Sabha resolution; SDLC; District Level Committee; DFO; Rule 4; Rule 7; Rule 8 (c); eviction restrained; self cultivation;
DisposedOpenVan Gujjar nomadic forest dwellers; Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006; Form B and Form C claims; Gram Sabha resolution; Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC); District Level Committee (DLC); Rule 4, Rule 7, Rule 8(c);
DisposedOpenPetitioners claiming ancestral cultivation of 20 acres in Chikkamagaluru challenged endorsements treating the land as forest land despite earlier tribunal restoration orders. The court found no RTC or mutation records establishing their right, relied on Supreme Court forest land precedent, and rejected the petition.
DismissedOpenWrit petition seeking mandamus against interference with cultivation of forest land pending settlement of Forest Rights Act claims. Court held decisions must be communicated to claimants and directed respondents to pass appropriate orders after hearing petitioners.
DisposedOpen