Section 6. Authorities to vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and procedure thereof
(1) The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the local limits of its jurisdiction under this Act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of each recommended claim in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of such rights and the Gram Sabha shall, then, pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee constituted under sub-section (3) and the Sub-Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition:
Provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha:
Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.
(3) The State Government shall constitute a Sub-Divisional Level Committee to examine the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha and prepare the record of forest rights and forward it through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision.
(4) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee may prefer a petition to the District Level Committee within sixty days from the date of decision of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition:
Provided that no petition shall be preferred directly before the District Level Committee against the resolution of the Gram Sabha unless the same has been preferred before and considered by the SubDivisional Level Committee:
Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.
(5) The State Government shall constitute a District Level Committee to consider and finally approve the record of forest rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.
(6) The decision of the District Level Committee on the record of forest rights shall be final and binding.
(7) The State Government shall constitute a State Level Monitoring Committee to monitor the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights and to submit to the nodal agency such returns and reports as may be called for by that agency.
(8) The Sub-Divisional Level Committee, the District Level Committee and the State Level Monitoring Committee shall consist of officers of the departments of Revenue, Forest and Tribal Affairs of the State Government and three members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions at the appropriate level, appointed by the respective Panchayati Raj Institutions, of whom two shall be the Scheduled Tribe members and at least one shall be a woman, as may be prescribed.
(9) The composition and functions of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, the District Level Committee and the State Level Monitoring Committee and the procedure to be followed by them in the discharge of their functions shall be such as may be prescribed.
How courts have applied section 6
- The District Level Committee's decision on forest rights is final and binding under Section 6(6).1
- A Sub-Divisional Officer cannot revisit or cancel a DLC grant; the remedy is before the State Level Monitoring Committee.1
- Cancellation of a forest rights grant without hearing the grantee violates natural justice and is bad in law.2,3,4,5
- Claims rejected without hearing, and appeals under Section 6(4) pending, may merit interim protection from eviction.6,7
- A pending forest rights claim does not automatically bar eviction or criminal prosecution.8,9,10
- A gram sabha must examine tribal religious rights before forest clearance is granted.11
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern the procedure under Section 6 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and the finality of decisions by the District Level Committee (DLC). Courts have held that the DLC's decision on the record of forest rights is final and binding under sub-section (6), and that a lower authority, such as the Sub-Divisional Officer who chairs the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, cannot test the veracity or legality of rights granted by the DLC; the remedy lies with the State Level Monitoring Committee under Rule 9 of the 2007 Rules. In contrast, where the DLC itself cancelled a grant without giving the grantee an opportunity of hearing, courts quashed the cancellation as opposed to principles of natural justice, especially when the grant was already under challenge in a pending PIL with no interim order.1,2,3,4,5
Several judgements dealt with the rejection or non-processing of claims by the gram sabha or other authorities. Where claims were rejected in a printed proforma without a hearing, and appeals under Section 6(4) were not decided, courts granted interim protection against coercive action. In other matters, courts directed authorities to consider fresh applications or pending claims expeditiously, without expressing opinion on merits. One court permitted claimants to apply afresh as mandated under Section 6. The Allahabad High Court, in a writ petition seeking recognition of community rights, held it would not enter issues covered by an operative interim order of the Supreme Court, including the claimed right to enter forests to pick fruits.6,7,12,13,14,15,16
Other decisions involved challenges to eviction or criminal proceedings where the petitioner claimed to be a traditional forest dweller. A pending forest rights claim did not automatically bar eviction or prosecution; courts dismissed petitions where the petitioner failed to produce contemporaneous evidence of being a Scheduled Tribe or forest dweller, or where recovery of possession was directed. In criminal proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, courts dismissed quashing petitions, noting pending civil litigation and the need to raise the forest rights claim before the competent authority. However, in civil suits over patta rights, concurrent findings that a government patta had lapsed and was not renewed were upheld.10,8,9
Some judgements emphasized the gram sabha's role and the procedure for granting rights. The Supreme Court held that the gram sabha must examine claims regarding religious rights of a tribal community over a hill before the Ministry of Environment and Forests decides on a forest clearance, affirming the importance of the gram sabha's determination. In other cases, where a gram sabha resolution recommended a grant but the claim was never processed, courts directed the sub-divisional authority to consider the matter. Courts also noted that a claim for forest rights is to be submitted under Section 6, and a failure to process it could be remedied by directing the authority to act.11,14,12,13
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 6
The 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.
DisposedOpenForest rights - Finality of District Level Committee decision under Section 6(6), ST & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - SDO as Chairperson of Sub-Division Level Committee has no jurisdiction to cancel or re-examine forest rights granted by the District Level Committee -…
DisposedOpenVishnu Yadav v. S.R. Thakur, S.K. Nar Nabare & C.L. Rathore — Second Appeal No. 58 of 2019, Chhattisgarh HC, 01.07.2026, dismissed for want of substantial question of law. Keywords: forest land dispute; khasra 249 Village Mohda Tehsil Kota Bilaspur; lapsed five-year patta Ex.P-1 (01/06/1976–1980-81); Revenue Case No.
DismissedOpenForest land patta/lease possession claim, District Magistrate Chandauli; petitioners (OBC permanent forest dwellers) rely on Section 6, ST & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 against attempted eviction by Forest Officers without any proceeding;
Allahabad High Court (Neeraj Tiwari and Vivek Kumar Singh, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition by Bhartiy Prasad and another seeking a direction to respondent no.1, the Sub Divisional Committee through the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Obra, District Sonbhadra, to decide their claim for recognition of ancestral community…
The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking regularisation of land possession under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Without deciding on merits, the Court directed the competent authority to examine the grievance expeditiously after providing opportunity to all stakeholders.
Show 6 more
Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.; order dated 26.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:89496): Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 19.10.2019 in Case Crime No. 0154 of 2019 (Sections 5 and 26, Indian Forest Act, 1927;
Karnataka HC quashes District Level Committee order dated 09.08.2021 cancelling 2015 forest rights grant (6 acres, Sy.Nos.155 & 157, Mallandur Village, Sagara Taluk) under FRA 2006;
DisposedOpenWrit petition under Article 226 challenging cancellation of a forest rights grant under the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. High Court of Karnataka, single bench (Jyoti Mulimani, J.), order dated 13.02.2025 in WP No. 16889 of 2021 (GM-FOR).
DisposedOpenKarnataka High Court, Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:6578; WRIT PETITION NO. 16634 OF 2021 (GM-RES); decided 13.02.2025 by Justice Jyoti Mulimani. Petitioner Ganapathi.M sought certiorari against District Level Committee order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure-AB) cancelling forest rights granted 20.10.2015 over 8 Acres 20 Guntas…
DisposedOpenForest rights - grant under the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - cancellation by District Level Committee without hearing - certiorari.
DisposedOpenForest land eviction challenge — DFO Marwahi order dated 11.09.2025 under S. 80(a) Indian Forest Act, 1927 against holder of Khasra No. 60/1 (0.0130 ha) — Gram Sabha resolution/Panchnama dated 21.04.2016 recommending patta — FRA 2006 claim remitted to sub-divisional level committee under S.
DisposedOpen
Ramesh and 29 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi and 5 Others
Outcome: DisposedForest Rights Act 2006 — community rights of tribals, District Lakhimpur Kheri — maintainability of composite/community claim — Supreme Court interim order 14.02.2000 in I.A. No.548 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 (Thirumal Kapad Vs.
DisposedOpenInterim order — Forest rights — Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, Ss. 6(1), 6(4) — Petitioners' forest rights claims rejected by order dated 09.09.2022 passed in a printed proforma — Appeals under S.
Interim order — Forest rights — Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, Ss. 6(1), 6(4) — Petitioners' forest rights claims rejected by order dated 09.09.2022 passed in a printed proforma — Appeals under S.
Ramesh and 29 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi and 5 Others
Outcome: DisposedForest Rights Act 2006 — community rights of tribals, District Lakhimpur Kheri — maintainability of composite/community claim — Supreme Court interim order 14.02.2000 in I.A. No.548 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 (Thirumal Kapad Vs.
DisposedOpenIn a writ petition claiming forest rights over government land, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, noting petitions submitted for forest rights before the Collector, permitted the petitioners to submit a fresh application before the authority as provided under Section 6 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional…
DisposedOpenOrissa High Court (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.) dismissed W.P.(C) No.14868 of 2022 and connected writ petitions challenging (i) the Sub-Collector, Malkangiri's order dated 06.06.2019 rejecting a claim for settlement of forest land under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest…
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Forest Rights Act 2006 claim dismissed; Rule 12-A joint verification procedure followed; Section 2(o) three-generation eligibility test unmet by non-ST petitioner; Gramya Jungle land in Government khata — possession cannot confer title; Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act 1972 Sections 9 and 12;
DisposedOpenPetitioners claiming ancestral possession of Gramya Jungle forest land sought quashing of rejection of their forest rights claim and eviction notices. The Court held they failed to prove eligibility as traditional forest dwellers, no prejudice arose from alleged procedural lapses, and statutory appeal remedies were…
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.
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;
DisposedOpen