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.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:MHC:1049
WA No. 1992 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WA No. 1992 of 2023
No. 9 / 210, Kasi Nagar, Maasinayakkanpatti, Salem 636 103.
__________ Page1 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
No. 3 / 594, Murugan Kaadu Azhagapuram, Periyaputhur, Salem 636 016.
Meenang Kaadu, Maasinayakkanpatti, Salem 636 103.
No. 4 - 175 Near Bus stand Sengaradu, Omalur Taluk Thaththaiyangar Patti Thekkam Patti, Salem 636 005.
No. 7-9, Uppaandi street, Panamaraththuppatti, Salem 636007.
21. Anbukkarasan
__________ Page2 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
No. 5 - 22 D. Maaruthi Nagar, Panamaraththuppatti, Salem 636 008.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
..Respondent(s)
To set aside the Order dated 10.03.2023 in WP.No. 8498 of 2022
For Appellant(s): Mr.Vineet Subramani For Respondent(s): Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Govt. Advocate for R1 to R5
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 10.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.8498
of 2022.
challenging the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the District Collector, Salem, rejecting the application submitted by the appellants to declare their
Page3 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
right to possess the land declared as ‘Reserved Forest’ under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006,(hereafter referred to as ‘Act, 2006’).
Page4 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
which speaks about Forest rights of forest dwellers Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. In the present case, documents have been produced by the appellants before the District Collector to establish that their ancestors were living and cultivating the subject land for more than 75 years. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for a declaration to own the lands under the Act, 2006.
Page5 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
for their livelihood. Therefore, they cannot be construed as “Other Traditional Forest Dwellers” within the meaning under the Act,2006. Jalluthu Forest Block of Salem Taluk has been notified as reservoir of the Madras Forest Act, 1982, and the same came into effect from 15.09.1989 with clear boundaries. Jarugumalai Forest Block was notified as Reserved Forest under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882 and the same came into effect on 15.03.1926. Therefore, the appellants were encroachers in the aforesaid Reserved Forest and therefore, they cannot claim any benefit under Act,2006. The appellants made attempts to encroach upon reserved forest land from the year 1980 onwards. The Forest Department filed cases against the appellants for having trespassed into the reserved forest land of Shervaroys South Range and the encroachers have been fined for illegal occupation of the Reserved Forest land. The request of the appellants seeking patta and the writ petition filed were dismissed by the High Court. Consequently, eviction notice dated 13.06.2018 came to be issued. It is brought to the notice of this Court that all the encroachers from the subject reserved forest land were evicted and currently, the entire extent of land is with the possession of the Forest Department and they are protecting the Reserved Forest land free from any encroachments.
Page6 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
members or community of the Scheduled Tribe who primarily residing and who depend on the forest or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and include the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities. Section 2(o) defines “Other Traditional Forest Dwellers” means any member or community who is for atleast three generations prior to 13.12.2005 primarily residing in and who depend on the forest or forest land bona fide livelihood needs. Explanation to section 2(o) enumerates that the purpose of this clause “generation” means a period comprising of 25 years. Therefore, three generations as contemplated would mean to say that a person claiming right has to establish that he was residing in the subject land and cultivating the forest land for a continuous period of 75 years, prior to 13.12.2005. Section 3 speaks about the Forest rights of Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. In the context of the conditions stipulated under Section 3, an enquiry came to be conducted by the District Collector by admitting the application filed by the appellants claiming rights over the forest land to an extent of 291.60 acres. The District Collector issued summons, received all related documents from the parties and conducted enquiry, after affording personal hearing to the parties. The District Collector made a finding in the order under challenge in the writ proceedings dated 08.02.2021 that the appellants with whom enquiry was held on 02.02.2021, did not provide any document before the members of the District Level Committee for possession and enjoyment for 75 years as per Act, 2006. The reason for rejection on
Page7 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
individual basis had been stated in the order impugned. Consequential relief sought for by the appellants for grant of patta also came to be rejected in the District Level Review Meeting.
Page8 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
Jarugumalai Forest block was notified as Reserved Forest in the year 1926 and the appellants have been evicted from the forest land and residing somewhere else, merely because, the appellants had made attempts to encroach upon forest lands in the year 1980 and doing some cultivation in the larger area, which was declared as Reserved Forest, it cannot be said that they are the “Other Traditional Forest Dwellers” and eking out their livelihood only through the forest produce or the community rights etc. The writ Court further made a finding that the appellants have challenging the eviction order mainly on the ground that the land itself is not forest land and such a right under the Forest rights never been raised in the earlier occasion and therefore, now the appellants cannot develop their case by merely getting an observation from the Apex Court to file an application under Act, 2006.
they are totally depending on the forest produce. Even assuming that the District Collector has not considered the document like voter ID, ration card and Aadhar card, it is an admitted case of the appellants before this Court that they have Aadhar cards in different addresses. The case of the appellants is that the ancestors were residing in the forest land long back and therefore, they satisfied the conditions stipulated under section 2(o) of the Act,2006 and thus, they are entitled to get patta for the extent of 291.60 acres in Reserved Forest land. Even presuming that the ancestors of the appellants were originally residing in the forest area and thereafter, some area have been
Page9 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
acquired and the entire area have been declared as Reserved forest in the year 1926, admittedly, the appellants are now residing somewhere else. Therefore, they are not eligible to claim any right under Act, 2006 without establishing the fact that the appellants solely depend on the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs. The appellants in their writ affidavit have not even averred, what are all the agricultural activities and nature of forest produce they collect in the forest for their bona fide livelihood. The very spirit of the Act is to protect the livelihood of the forest dwellers. Therefore, it must be established beyond any pale of doubt that they are residing in forest area and doing cultivation for their livelihood. In the absence of any proof to establish the essential ingredients and the spirit under the provisions of the Act, the appellants are not entitled for any relief as such sought for in their application.
Page10 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
rules in force but not the decision. In the present case, the procedures were followed scrupulously by affording opportunity to the parties. Both the District Level Committee as well as Writ Court, factually found that the appellants have not established any right. In view of the above findings, this Court finds no further interference is called for. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 10-03-2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vsi
To
__________ Page11 of 12
WA No. 1992 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND K.SURENDER, J.
VSI
WA No. 1992 of 2023
10-03-2026
__________ Page12 of 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants qualify as 'Other Traditional Forest Dwellers' under Section 2(o) of the Act, 2006 despite residing outside the reserved forest.
Whether the District Collector's rejection of their claim over 291.60 acres of reserved forest land required judicial interference.
7 provisions across 4 enactments
A.C.Murugesan
P.Kandaswamy
Madhu
Amudha
Madesu
Pazhaniyammal
S.M.Subramaniam
K.Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
