Bhaskar Dagdu Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra through Tribal Development Department and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhaskar Dagdu Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra through Tribal Development Department and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Orders dated 05.10.2018 (Sub Divisional Officer) and dated 02.02.2022 (Additional Collector) set aside; matters remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide afresh; Sub Divisional Officer to consider referral of the petitioners' cases to the Village Level Committee and complete the exercise within six months; all points kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners in all these writ petitions, who claim to be tribals, are to be considered under Section 2(o) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and whether their claims for occupation of forest-area premises require reconsideration by the authorities.

Court's answer

Since the petitioners are tribals, the authorities are required to consider their cases in view of Section 2(c) of the Act.

Ratio / Principle

The petitions are partly allowed; the order dated 05.10.2018 of the Sub Divisional Officer and the order dated 02.02.2022 of the Additional Collector are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide afresh.

Key takeaways

The Sub Divisional Officer shall consider whether the petitioners' cases are to be referred to the Village Level Committee and, if such reference is warranted, direct that the cases be referred to the Village Level Committee; the entire exercise is to be completed within six months.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of ten writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 7943, 7964, 7946, 7957, 7944, 7949, 7956, 7947, 7963 and 7945 of 2023) decided together under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The petitioners sought consideration under Section 2(o) of the Act in respect of occupation of premises within forest area. The Sub Divisional Officer had recorded findings that the petitioners are tribals whose case falls under Section 2(c) and not Section 2(o), but had rejected their claim for want of any record showing occupation of the area prior to 13.12.2005; the order dated 02.02.2022 of the Additional Collector was also under challenge. Held: since the petitioners are tribals, the authorities are required to consider their cases in view of Section 2(c) of the Act. The order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Additional Collector were set aside and the matters were remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide afresh, with a direction to consider whether the cases ought to be referred to the Village Level Committee and, if so, to refer them; the entire exercise to be completed within six months. All points kept open. (Thombre, J.)

2025:BHC-AUG:36927

1037-wp-7943-2023.odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7943 OF 2023

Suresh Rangnath Aher VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Tribal Development Department And Others

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Pote Ketan D.

AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korade

Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pranav Dhakne h/f Mr. A.N.

Sabnis

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 7964 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7946 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7957 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7944 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7949 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7956 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7947 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7963 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7945 OF 2023

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2025

PER COURT :

Heard Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

In all these petitions, a short issue was involved whether

all these petitioners claimed to be considered as per Section 2(o) of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act’).

1037-wp-7943-2023.odt

(2)

Mr. Deshmukh, learned senior counsel pointed out the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has recorded the findings that the petitioners are tribals and therefore, their case falls under Section 2(c) and not under Section 2(o) of the Act. Therefore, he submits that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer to reconsider the same.

After going through the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, it reveals that the proceedings were initiated by these petitioners for permitting them to occupy the premises within the forest area. The tribals who are occupying the forest area, they are permitted to occupy the same and for that the authorities are required to consider their occupation earlier being tribals within the forest area.

The Sub Divisional Officer by observing that the petitioners had not placed on any record by showing that they are occupying the said area prior to 13.12.2005 and to that effect, no record was submitted and therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the same which is confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, as the petitioners are tribals, therefore, the authorities are required to consider their cases in view of Section 2(c) of the Act.

In view thereof, the petitions are partly allowed. The order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Additional Collector are set

1037-wp-7943-2023.odt (3)

aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer to

decide it afresh.

The Sub Divisional Officer is required to consider whether the petitioners cases are to be referred to the Village Level Committee to consider the same and if found that their cases needs to be referred, the Sub Divisional Officer is directed to refer the same to the Village Level Committee. The entire exercise to be done by the

Sub Divisional Officer within a period of six months from today.

All points kept open.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Mujaheed//