A John Kennedy vs State Of Tamil Nadu
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 1204
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6395-6397 OF 2025
A. JOHN KENNEDY
AND OTHERS ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO(S). ___________ OF 2018
(DIARY NO.25067 OF 2018)
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995
O R D E R
Mehta, J.
1. Heard in part.
2. This Court, vide detailed order/judgment dated
th
29 May, 2026, issued various directions for a
structured and time-bound process of eviction,
rehabilitation and ecological restoration in the forest
Signature Not Verified
areas. Amongst other directions, this Court
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2026.11.06
16:40:26 IST
Reason:
mandated the preparation of a division-wise eviction
1
plan, removal of encroachments, action against
identified Government servants, and imposed a
prohibition on approval or commencement of new
non-forestry activities or diversion proposals within
the Agasthyamalai landscape until compliance with
the directions contained in paragraph 66 of the said
judgment. The Court had also directed continuing
monitoring by the CEC.
3. Thereafter, certain applications came to be filed
raising, inter alia , issues concerning the applicability
and implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and
Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
1
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 in respect of persons
residing in and/or cultivating land in the Megamalai
region, as also the manner in which the process of
eviction and rehabilitation was required to proceed.
th
4. This Court, order dated 19 August, 2026,
vide
directed the State of Tamil Nadu to place its response
on record. The relevant directions read as follows:-
“ 25. At this stage, we do not propose to express any
opinion on the merits of the competing claims or on
the correctness of the respective positions reflected
in the affidavit of the State and the report of the
CEC. However, certain issues emerging from the
1
For short, “FRA, 2006’.
2
material before us require a specific and detailed
response from the State.
26. In particular, the issue relating to silk cotton
cultivation within the Reserved Forest area, the
circumstances in which such cultivation is being
carried on and the role, if any, of persons from
outside the area; the grant of pattas by the District
Collector in respect of lands falling within the area
in question; and the action taken against the 118
Government servants identified as encroachers,
require serious emergent consideration.
27. We are also of the view that, before proceeding
further, it is necessary for the State to respond
specifically to the observations contained in CEC
Report, particularly those observations which have
18 been categorised by the CEC as “Not Complete”
or “Partially Complete”.
xxxxxxx
31. Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, seeks two
weeks’ time to file a response to the CEC Report.
Time as prayed for is granted. The State of Tamil
Nadu shall file its reply within a period of two
weeks.
32. The reply shall, in particular, disclose the
following:
i. The nature, extent and present status of silk
cotton cultivation within the Reserved Forest
area, including the extent of land under such
cultivation, the persons/entities undertaking or
facilitating such cultivation, and the material
available with the State regarding the
involvement of persons from outside the area;
ii. Complete particulars of the pattas granted by
the District Collector in respect of lands falling
3
within the area in question, including the date of
grant, the authority under which the pattas were
granted, the survey numbers and extent of land
covered thereby, and the legal
status/classification of such land on the date of
grant;
iii. The person-wise status of all 118
Government servants identified as encroachers,
including whether notice has been issued and
served upon each of them and, in cases where
notice has not been served, the specific reasons
for non-service, along with the status of
disciplinary proceedings and action for removal
of their encroachments; and
iv. The status of the claims under the Forest
Rights Act, 2006, including the number of
claims already determined and the forest rights
recognised and pattas granted thereunder, as
also the number and present stage of the claims
which remain pending.”
5. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the
State of Tamil Nadu through the Department of
Revenue and the Department of Social Justice have
filed its response/reply. We have carefully perused
the same and also considered the material placed on
record by the CEC and the submissions advanced by
the learned Amicus and by the learned senior counsel
appearing for various departments of State of Tamil
Nadu.
SUBMISSIONS
4
A. On behalf of Department of Revenue, State of
Tamil Nadu
6. Shri Jaideep Gupta learned senior counsel
appearing for the Department of Revenue, State of
Tamil Nadu, submitted that the issue relating to
cultivation of silk cotton in the Megamalai region
requires to be appreciated in its historical context.
According to him, when the cultivation was being
undertaken, the concerned areas were not Reserved
Forests in their present notified form. Silk cotton was
being cultivated there for a considerable period under
tacit sanction of the State authorities and was also
treated as a minor forest produce. It was emphasized
that such cultivation had, at the relevant point of
time, been encouraged or permitted by the
authorities when the lands were not forming a part of
the Reserved Forest. Learned senior counsel
submitted that, pursuant to the directions of this
Court, the State is no longer permitting or
encouraging such cultivation.
7. With regard to the patta lands, Shri Gupta
submitted that the State has placed before this Court
the historical position concerning the Ryotwari
settlements and the Updating of Registry (UDR)
5
exercise. He submitted that the existence of historical
revenue entries and Ryotwari settlements has to be
distinguished from subsequent occupation of
Reserved Forest land. It was further submitted that
pattas in respect of the Reserved Forest lands in
question have not been issued by the Collector and
that the State does not propose to issue any such
pattas merely on the basis of the present occupation.
8. Insofar as the 118 Government servants
identified in the CEC reports are concerned, Shri
Gupta submitted that action for removal has been
initiated. It was submitted that 20 such government
servants have voluntarily agreed to remove their
encroachments. For the remaining government
servants, the relevant particulars and documents
have been forwarded to the competent authorities for
taking action in accordance with the applicable
service rules and law. The State would proceed with
the removal of such encroachments as well.
9. Shri Gupta next addressed the issue arising
under the FRA, 2006. He submitted that the
statutory framework came into existence only in
2006 and, therefore, the position prevailing when the
Reserved Forest notifications and the earlier
6
proceedings were undertaken could not be examined
with reference to a statute which was not then in
existence. He further submitted that the judgment of
the Madras High Court relied upon in these
proceedings was rendered in personam and was
binding upon the parties before that Court, and could
not be treated as a judgment in rem determining the
status of every person residing in the entire
Megamalai region.
10. In this regard, learned senior counsel pointed
out that the Madras High Court proceedings
concerned only limited villages, whereas the present
exercise extends over a much larger area comprising
98 habitations/villages in the entire region. It was
thus submitted that the findings rendered by the
Madras High Court in proceedings concerning
particular petitioners and particular villages cannot,
without undertaking the statutory exercise
contemplated under the FRA, 2006 be mechanically
applied to all persons presently residing or cultivating
in the broader area.
11. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
process contemplated under the FRA, 2006 is a
three-tiered mechanism, commencing at the level of
7
the Gram Sabha/Forest Rights Committee, followed
by consideration at the Sub-Divisional Level
Committee and thereafter by the District Level
Committee. The evidentiary requirements are
prescribed under the Rules, including Rule 13, and
the claims have to be tested in accordance with the
statutory framework and the material prescribed
therein.
12. It was submitted that the State of Tamil Nadu
had not been in a position to undertake the exercise
earlier because implementation of the FRA, 2006 in
Tamil Nadu had remained substantially stalled
pursuant to an interim order passed by the Madras
High Court which was ultimately vacated by this
Court in 2016. Shri Gupta thus contended that the
delay in the completion of the FRA process cannot be
entirely attributed to administrative inaction.
13. Shri Gupta contended that the entire exercise of
identification and demarcation of the Reserved Forest
had its historical basis in the survey undertaken in
1978 and that the State is having the records
concerning the lands which were excluded from and
those which were subsequently brought within the
Reserved Forest. The question of historical
8
cultivation, old revenue entries and subsequent
forest notifications therefore requires examination
with reference to the original records and cannot be
decided merely on the basis of present physical
occupation.
14. Shri Gupta further contended that the State is
conscious of the necessity of removing the
encroachers from the forest areas strictly in
accordance with law. At the same time, where any
person claims protection under the FRA, 2006, the
statutory process for determination of such claim
ought to be permitted to reach its logical conclusion
before the consequences of eviction are visited upon
such person(s).
15. Lastly, Shri Gupta suggested that an
appropriate committee headed by a retired Judge of
this Court may be constituted to supervise the
eviction and rehabilitation exercise so that, while
encroachments are removed, persons having genuine
statutory or rehabilitation claims are not subjected to
arbitrary displacement.
B. On behalf of Department of Social Justice,
State of Tamil Nadu
9
16. Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the Department of Social Justice, State
of Tamil Nadu, submitted that the question before the
Court is not merely one of physical eviction of persons
identified in the lists of encroachers, but also of
determining whether some of those persons may have
statutory forest rights which have never been
adjudicated.
17. Shri Panchu submitted that the FRA, 2006 is a
special statutory enactment intended to recognise
2
and vest rights in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes
3
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers whose rights
had historically not been recorded. The statutory
protection provided under the Act cannot be
bypassed by treating all persons presently residing or
cultivating the forest areas as encroachers without
first determining their claims under the Act.
18. Shri Panchu further submitted that, in case of
OTFDs, the statutory requirement of three
th
generations, corresponding to 75 years, prior to 13
December, 2005 has to be established in accordance
with the Act and the Rules. He emphasised that the
Act itself provides a mechanism for determination of
2
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘FDST’.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘OTFD’.
10
such claims and that the evidence contemplated by
Rule 13 is not confined to conventional title
documents. The statutory process includes
consideration of historical records, survey and
settlement records, maps, forest records,
Government orders, genealogies and other prescribed
material.
19. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
claims are required to pass muster of the three-tiered
mechanism under the FRA, 2006 commencing with
the Gram Sabha, followed by the Sub-Divisional Level
Committee and the District Level Committee. He
submitted that the District Level Committee’s
determination is the statutory culmination of the
claims process. Mr. Panchu further submitted that
the fact that the present Reserved Forest notification
or the earlier proceedings pre-date the FRA cannot,
by itself, extinguish rights which Parliament
subsequently directed to be recognised and vested
through the statutory framework. According to him,
the 1978 proceedings may have crystallised or
recorded the position of the forest land at that point
of time, but they cannot substitute the statutory
determination contemplated by the FRA, 2006 in
11
respect of persons who claim to fall within its
protective ambit.
20. Learned senior counsel urged that the earlier
proceedings before the Madras High Court ought not
to be treated as having finally adjudicated the
statutory FRA claims of persons who were not parties
to those proceedings. It was contended that the High
Court’s judgment had a limited factual and party-
specific context and could not be treated as
foreclosing the statutory process in respect of the
larger population spread across the Megamalai
region.
21. Shri Panchu submitted that the State is
presently undertaking the statutory exercise under
the FRA, 2006. It was submitted that around 40
Gram Sabhas have been constituted and that
approximately 1,600 claims/applications have been
received. The statutory period prescribed for
submission of claims is three months, of which
approximately one month has elapsed. The claims
already received are being processed through the
statutory mechanism.
22. Shri Panchu urged that the State may be
granted a reasonable period of two more months to
12
complete a meaningful statutory exercise. He
submitted that the claims adjudication process
should not be rendered futile by directing eviction
before the rights of persons who may potentially fall
within the FRA, 2006 are determined.
23. Shri Panchu submitted that the State does not
seek protection for persons who are ultimately found
beyond the protective umbrella of FRA, 2006. His
submission was that the statutorily prescribed
process should first identify those entitled to
protection and those liable to be evicted, after which
the eviction exercise may proceed against the latter
category in accordance with law.
24. Learned senior counsel urged that the process
of verification would require participation of the
Revenue, Forest and Social Justice Departments,
and that the State would be in a position to place the
complete factual picture before this Court only after
the statutory process is given due time to reach
culmination. The exercise would determine, ,
inter alia
nature of the occupation, the period of occupation,
the livelihood of the claimant/s and the extent to
which the claimant/s is actually dependent upon the
forest or forest land.
13
25. Shri Panchu lastly submitted that where a claim
is found to satisfy the requirements of the FRA, 2006
the result of such determination would be duly
recorded and placed before the appropriate
authorities, including the CEC, so that the persons
whose claims are found to be legally sustainable are
appropriately distinguished from persons having no
statutory entitlement.
C. On behalf of Amicus Curiae
26. Per contra, Shri K. Parmeshwar learned Amicus
Curiae submitted that the entire exercise of
entertaining and examining claims under the FRA,
2006 cannot be permitted to become a means of
reopening issues which already stand concluded in
respect of the Megamalai forest area.
27. Learned Amicus submitted that the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court, judgment
vide
th
dated 17 March, 2022 passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.
6994, 6998 and 10566 of 2021 and connected
matters, had already considered the claim of persons
asserting rights as OTFD in the Megamalai area. He
submitted that the High Court had considered the
1978 forest settlement proceedings, including the
field survey and re-survey undertaken therein, and
14
had taken note of the fact that claims had been
invited and dealt with by the Forest Settlement
Officer.
28. Learned Amicus drew particular attention to the
finding recorded in the above judgment that 168
claims were received during the settlement
proceedings and were dealt with in accordance with
law, with one claim having been allowed. He
submitted that the settlement proceedings thus
constituted a formal concluded exercise for
identification and determination of claims in respect
of the forest area.
29. Learned Amicus pointed out that the High Court
had noted that the persons who subsequently
approached it had not made any claim or objection
during the settlement proceedings of 1978–79
asserting that they were residing in the forest area or
cultivating the land prior to the settlement. The High
Court treated this circumstance as a relevant factor
while considering their subsequent claims in the
category of OTFD.
30. Learned Amicus further submitted that the
aforesaid findings of the High Court cannot be
overlooked or brushed aside in the garb of a fresh
15
exercise under the FRA, 2006. According to the
learned Amicus, the persons who were claiming
historical occupation had an opportunity to place
their claims before the Forest Settlement Officer
during the 1978 settlement proceedings. The
subsequent assertion of occupation for three
generations, in the absence of any corresponding
claim in the contemporaneous settlement
proceedings, therefore requires to be viewed in the
light of the findings already recorded by the High
Court.
31. Learned Amicus urged that mere residence or
cultivation in an area which had been notified as
Reserved Forest way back in 1978, does not, by itself,
establish a right under the FRA, 2006. In the case of
an OTFD, the requirement of having primarily resided
in and depended upon the forest or forest land for
bona fide livelihood needs for at least three
th
generations, i.e . 75 years prior to 13 December,
2005, must be established.
32. Learned Amicus contended that persons who
are residing outside the forest area and are merely
cultivating land within the forest cannot, on that
basis alone, claim the protection available to forest-
16
dwelling communities. He submitted that the
distinction between persons residing within the forest
and persons residing outside it, but using forest land
for cultivation, is material while examining eligibility
under the FRA, 2006.
33. Learned Amicus urged that, even if the Court
were to permit consideration of claims under the
FRA, 2006, such consideration must be confined to
persons who strictly satisfy the statutory
requirements. Mere cultivation of land within the
Reserved Forest cannot, by itself, constitute
sufficient proof of eligibility.
34. It was further urged that a definite cut-off date
be prescribed for receipt of claims under the FRA,
2006, and that only claims submitted before such
date be considered by the competent authorities. No
fresh claims, ought to be entertained after expiry of
the prescribed cut-off date.
35. Learned Amicus next submitted that the present
nature and extent of silk cotton cultivation in the
Megamalai area further demonstrates the need for
careful scrutiny of the claims as such cultivation is
sponsored by persons indulging in commercial
activities as per the CEC’s findings. He drew attention
17
of the Court to the chart placed by the State of Tamil
Nadu in its reply affidavit, wherein the persons
occupying/cultivating land in the Megamalai Forest
Range have been broadly classified into three
categories. Category I consists of persons
permanently residing in the forest area and
cultivating. Category II consists of persons cultivating
with temporary residence and Category III consists of
persons residing outside the forest boundary and
cultivating.
36.
Learned Amicus contended that the figures
placed by the State themselves demonstrate that a
substantial portion of the silk cotton cultivation is
attributable to persons who either have only
temporary residence in the forest area (Category II) or
reside altogether outside the forest boundary
(Category III). Such persons, according to the learned
Amicus , cannot be treated as traditional forest
dwellers merely because they cultivate silk cotton
within the forest area. Thus, learned urged
Amicus
that persons falling under Category II and Category
III ought not to be permitted to submit claims under
the FRA merely on the basis of their cultivation of
forest land.
18
37. Lastly, learned Amicus submitted that, having
regard to the large number of highly belated claims
now sought to be raised under the FRA, 2006, the
process of their examination requires effective
supervision by the CEC. It was submitted that the
CEC may be directed to remain associated with the
process of determination of FRA claims so as to
ensure that the statutory requirements are uniformly
applied and that persons who do not satisfy the
statutory definition of traditional forest dwellers are
not permitted to obtain recognition merely on the
basis of present occupation or cultivation.
38. It was contended that such supervision is
necessary to ensure that the benefit of the FRA, 2006
is confined to genuine eligible FDST and OTFD, and
that the statutory process is not misused for
regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the
Reserved Forest areas.
DISCUSSION
39. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the
various departments of the State of Tamil Nadu, as
well as the submissions advanced by the learned
19
Amicus . We have also perused the affidavits and the
material placed on record.
40. Firstly, we shall deal with the issue concerning
the identification of FDST and OTFD entitled to the
benefit of the FRA, 2006.
41. In substance, the submission of Shri Gupta and
Shri Panchu was that the earlier directions for
removal of encroachments ought to be suitably
modified so as to accommodate persons who may
qualify as FDST or OTFD under the FRA, 2006.
Learned senior counsel submitted that, having
regard to Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the Act, the claims
of such persons must first be determined in
accordance with the statutory mechanism prescribed
under the FRA, 2006, before any consequential
action for their removal is undertaken. It was further
submitted that the FRA, 2006 seeks to recognise the
rights of persons who have been residing in forests
for generations but whose rights had not been
formally recorded, and that the process for
consideration of such claims has already
commenced, with 40 Gram Sabhas having been
constituted, and the exercise would require
approximately four months to complete.
20
42. Shri Parmeshwar, learned Amicus , on the other
hand, opposed the necessity of undertaking a fresh
exercise, contending that the identification of persons
residing within the forest areas had already been
undertaken in the earlier settlement exercise of 1978
and that the material arising therefrom ought to be
taken into consideration.
43. Having regard to the rival submissions, it would
be appropriate, at the outset, to notice the legislative
scheme, object and purpose of the FRA, 2006,
particularly the statutory framework governing the
recognition and determination of the forest rights
claimed by FDST and OTFD.
44. The scope and object of the FRA, 2006 as well
as the nature of rights recognised in favour of FDST
and OTFD, have been considered by this Court in
Orissa Mining Corpn. Ltd. v. Ministry of
4
Environment & Forests wherein this Court
observed as follows: -
“49. The Forest Rights Act was enacted by
Parliament to recognise and vest the forest rights
and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling STs
and other TFDs who have been residing in such
forests for generations but whose rights could not
be recorded and to provide for a framework for
4
(2013) 6 SCC 476.
21
recording the forest rights so vested and the nature
of evidence required for such recognition and
vesting in respect of forest land. The Act also states
that the recognised rights of the forest dwelling STs
and other TFDs include the responsibilities and
authority for sustainable use, conservation of
biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance
and thereby strengthening the conservation regime
of the forests while ensuring livelihood and food
security of the forest dwelling STs and other TFDs.
The Act also noticed that the forest rights on
ancestral lands and their habitat were not
adequately recognised in the consolidation of State
forests during the colonial period as well as in
independent India resulting in historical injustice
to them, who are integral to the very survival and
sustainability of the forest ecosystem.
50. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Act states that forest dwelling tribal people and
forests are inseparable and that the simplicity of
tribals and their general ignorance of modern
regulatory framework precluded them from
asserting their genuine claims to resources in areas
where they belong and depended upon and that
only recently that forest management regimes have
initiated action to recognise the occupation and
other right of the forest dwellers. Of late, we have
realised that forests have the best chance to survive
if communities participate in their conservation
and regeneration measures. The legislature also
has addressed the long-standing and genuine felt
need of granting a secure and inalienable right to
those communities whose right to life depends on
right to forests and thereby strengthening the
entire conservation regime by giving a permanent
stake to the STs dwelling in the forests for
22
generations in symbiotic relationship with the
entire ecosystem.
51. We have to bear in mind the above objects and
reasons, while interpreting the various provisions
of the Forest Rights Act, which is a social welfare or
remedial statute. The Act protects a wide range of
rights of forest dwellers and STs including the
customary rights to use forest land as a community
forest resource and not restricted merely to
property rights or to areas of habitation.
xxxxxxxx
54. Chapter III of the Act deals with recognition,
restoration and vesting of forest rights and related
matters. Section 4 of that Chapter deals with
recognition of, and vesting of, forest rights in forest
dwelling STs and other TFDs. Section 5 lists out
duties in whom the forest rights vest and also the
holders of forest rights empowers them to carry out
duties. Those duties include preservation of habitat
from any form of destructive practices affecting
their cultural and natural heritage.
55. The definition clauses read with the
abovementioned provisions give emphasis to
customary rights, rights to collect, use and dispose
of minor forest produce, community rights like
grazing cattle, community tenure of habitat and
habitation for primitive tribal groups, traditional
rights customarily enjoyed, etc. Legislative
intention is, therefore, clear that the Act intends to
protect custom, usage, forms, practices and
ceremonies which are appropriate to the traditional
practices of forest dwellers.
56. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the authorities
and procedure for vesting of forest rights. That
Chapter has only one section i.e. Section 6, which
has to be read along with the Scheduled Tribes and
23
OTFD (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007
and the Amendment Rules, 2012.”
45. The aforesaid observations provide the context
in which the statutory provisions of the FRA, 2006
are required to be considered. The Preamble to the
Act itself sets out the legislative object and the nature
of the rights sought to be recognised. It read as
under: -
“An Act to recognize and vest the forest rights and
occupation in forest land in forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers who have been residing in such forests for
generations but whose rights could not be
recorded; to provide for a framework for recording
the forest rights so vested and the nature of
evidence required for such recognition and vesting
in respect of forest land.
WHEREAS the recognised rights of the forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers include the responsibilities and
authority for sustainable use, conservation of
biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance
and thereby strengthening the conservation regime
of the forests while ensuring livelihood and food
security of the forest dwellings Scheduled Tribes
and other traditional forest dwellers;
AND WHEREAS the forest rights on ancestral lands
and their habitat were not adequately recognised in
the consolidation of State forests during the
colonial period as well as in independent India
resulting in historical injustice to the forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional
24
forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival
and sustainability of the forest ecosystem; AND
WHEREAS it has become necessary to address the
longstanding insecurity of tenurial and access
rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers including those who were
forced to relocate their dwelling due to State
development interventions.”
46. Apparently, on going through the Preamble, it
becomes clear that the Act was enacted for the
purpose of recognising the rights of the FDST and
OTFD, who had been residing in the forests for
generations but whose rights could not be recorded.
The idea behind the enactment is to protect those
people who were traditionally surviving through the
minor forest produce as defined under Section 2(i)
and had habitats as defined under Section 2(h) of the
Act which read as below:-
“(i) ‘minor forest produce’ includes all non-timber
forest produce of plant origin including bamboo,
brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey,
wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants
and herbs, roots, tubers and the like;
(h) ‘habitat’ includes the area comprising the
customary habitat and such other habitats in
reserved forests and protected forests of primitive
tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities
and other forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes;”
25
47. As per Section 2(c), FDST are the members or
the community of Scheduled Tribes who primarily
reside in and would depend on forest or forest lands
for bonafide needs and includes the Scheduled Tribes
pastoralist communities. In addition, the Act also
recognises the rights of OTFD, defined under Section
2(o) as:
“other traditional forest dweller means any member
or community who has for at least three
generations prior to the 13th day of December,
2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the
forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs”
48. The explanation to Section 2(o) provides that a
“generation” means a period of twenty-five years and
for a person to be recognised as an OTFD, residence
th
of at least three generations in the area prior to 13
December, 2005 is essential. Both definitions require
that the claimant primarily resides in the forest and
depends on it.
49. The Act recognises various forest rights under
Section 3(1), including the right to hold forest land
for habitation or self-cultivation for livelihood under
clause (a), and the right of ownership, access to
collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce
26
“which has been traditionally collected within or
outside village boundaries” under clause (c).
50. The mechanism for deciding the claims of the
FDST and OTFD, which is the bone of contention
before us, is set out in Section 6 of the FRA, 2006
which reads as below:-
“6. (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 OTFD 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
27
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 Sub-
Divisional 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 department 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
28
Panchayati Raj Institutions, of whom two shall be
the Scheduled Tribe members and at least one shall
be a women, 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.”
51. This Court in Orissa Mining Corporation
(supra) explained the said mechanism in the following
terms:-
“ 59. Under Section 6 of the Act, 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 and that may be
given to the forest dwelling STs and other TFDs
within the local limits of the jurisdiction. For the
said purpose it receives claims, and after
consolidating and verifying them it has to prepare
a plan delineating the area of each recommended
claim in such manner as may be prescribed for
exercise of such rights. 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. Any aggrieved person may move
a petition before the Sub-Divisional Level
Committee against the resolution of the Gram
Sabha. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 confers a right
on the aggrieved person to prefer a petition to the
District-Level Committee against the decision of the
Sub-Divisional Level Committee. Sub-section (7) of
Section 6 enables the State Government to
constitute a State-Level Monitoring Committee to
29
monitor the process of recognition and vesting of
forest rights and to submit to the nodal agency.
Such returns and reports shall be called for by that
agency.
60. Functions of the Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional
Level Committee, District-Level Committee, State-
Level Monitoring Committee and procedure to be
followed and the process of verification of claims,
etc. have been elaborately dealt with in the 2007
Rules read with the 2012 Amendment Rules.
Elaborate procedures have therefore been laid
down by the Forest Rights Act read with the 2007
and 2012 Amendment Rules with regard to the
manner in which the nature and extent of
individual or customary forest rights or both have
to be decided. Reference has already been made to
the details of forest rights which have been
conferred on the forest dwelling STs as well as TFDs
in the earlier part of the judgment.”
52. As per the affidavit filed by the State
Government, the exercise of deciding such claims has
already commenced albeit belatedly. The reason given
for the delay is that, for a considerable period of time,
the implementation of the FRA, 2006 was kept in
abeyance by an interim order passed by the Madras
High Court, which was vacated by this Court in 2016
only. Apparently thus, the process under Section 6
was never initiated for years even after the lifting of
the stay and seems to have been triggered only after
30
this Court took suo moto cognizance of the prevailing
situation.
53. It seems that, pursuant to the direction given by
this Court to remove the encroachments from the
Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and the other
reserved forests in the Agasthyamali Biosphere, the
State Government has woken up because, prior to the
orders by this Court in this matter, there was total
inaction on the part of the State Government to
initiate the action under Section 6 of the FRA, 2006.
54. Now, pursuant to the mandate issued by this
Court, the State Government seems to have woken
up, albeit belatedly and realised that the process has
to be undertaken, claims have to be initiated and
adjudicated and, that those persons who are not
found to be covered under the beneficial provisions of
the FRA, 2006 have to be evicted from the forest
areas.
55. In view of the statutory scheme referred supra ,
the claims of persons asserting rights as FDST or
OTFD are to be determined with strict adherence to
the mechanism under Section 6 of the FRA, 2006
read with the Rules framed thereunder, and not
merely on the basis of present occupation. The
31
benefit of the Act is confined to those who satisfy the
requirements of Sections 2(c) and 2(o). Persons who
do not satisfy these requirements are liable to be
removed from the forest areas in accordance with
law.
56. We must remain conscious of the fact that with
Megamalai reserve forest being declared as a Tiger
Sanctuary/reserve, the sanctity of the critical tiger
habitat has to be given primacy over any claim which
intends to encroach upon the forest area.
57. Having clarified the statutory position and the
nature of the exercise required to be undertaken by
the State Government, we may now turn to the
particular justification advanced by the State for the
continued presence and cultivation in the forest
areas, namely, its reliance upon silk cotton as a
minor forest produce. The issue assumes significance
in examining the nature of the occupation and the
claims sought to be considered under the FRA, 2006.
58. We have carefully perused the affidavit filed by
Department of Revenue, State of Tamil Nadu and as
we could apprehend, the main focus of the affidavit
regarding the forest produce seems to be the silk
cotton cultivation. The State has relied on the
32
classification of silk cotton ( Ceiba pentandra ) as a
minor forest product on the Agritech portal of the
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and on the
Working Plan for the forests of the Madura Division,
1936-37 to 1945-46. It is stated that silk cotton floss,
being a non-timber produce of plant origin, falls
within the meaning of “minor forest produce” under
Section 2(i) of the FRA, 2006, which reads as under:-
“(i) ‘minor forest produce’ includes all non-timber
forest produce of plant origin including bamboo,
brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey,
wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants
and herbs, roots, tubers and the like;”
th
59. A perusal of the additional affidavit dated 6
September, 2026 filed by the Department of Revenue,
State of Tamil Nadu, would further indicate that the
State Government itself has, at different points of
time, promoted or facilitated the cultivation of silk
cotton. However, no specific notification or other
material has been placed before us demonstrating
that silk cotton, as a cultivated crop, has been
recognised as “minor forest produce” under the FRA,
2006 or under any other forest law. The State’s
reliance upon the historical cultivation of silk cotton,
therefore, cannot, by itself, establish that such
33
cultivation constitutes a forest right recognised
under the FRA, 2006.
60. In this regard, we may refer to Section 3(1)(c) of
the FRA, 2006, which recognises the right of
ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of
minor forest produce which has been traditionally
collected within or outside village boundaries. The
material placed before us, however, does not
demonstrate that silk cotton is traditionally collected
as minor forest produce. What emerges from the
affidavits is the promotion and sponsored cultivation
of silk cotton as a commercial crop, rather than
traditional collection of the various parts of the tree
as minor forest produce. The distinction assumes
significance while examining whether the cultivation
in question can be claimed as a right under Section
3(1)(c) of the FRA, 2006.
61. The entire thrust of the averments contained in
paragraphs 13 to 21 of the affidavit would indicate
that the silk cotton cultivation was introduced in the
forest areas as a planned plantation from the 1930s.
However, we are of the view that the concept of
planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally
contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring
34
minor forest produce. From the very nature of the
definition of minor forest produce under Section 2(i)
it becomes clear that the same should be naturally
occurring plant produce. If commercial crops are
permitted and allowed to be cultivated in the forest
areas, the very nature of the forest is bound to
change.
62. Needless to say, that the emphasis laid by the
State Government in its affidavit that silk cotton is a
traditional minor forest produce does not appeal to
the Court as the same does not answer to the test
under Section 2(i) of FRA, 2006. The fact that large
swathes of forest are being destroyed under the garb
of cultivation of silk cotton is also borne out from
paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the affidavit of the State
Government which read as under:-
23. That the details of silk cotton cultivation, as
worked out by the Tahsildar, Andipatti from the
encroachment details report of the Forest
Department for the Megamalai Forest Range, with
reference to the three categories of occupation
adopted in the enumeration furnished to the CEC,
are as under.
Category Description Total
occupation
- Number
Total
occupation
Area (ha)
Silk
Cotton –
Number
Silk Cotton
– Area (ha)
Category
I
Persons
permanently
1,595 1,679.73.3 1,010 1,262.87.5
35
residing in the
forest area and
cultivating
Category
II
Persons
cultivating with
temporary
residence
232 525.20.4 231 524.33.4
Category
III
Persons
residing outside
the forest
boundary and
cultivating
2,767 2,867.70.6 1,402 1,850.62.3
Total 4,594 5,072.64.3 2,643 3,637.83.2
24 . That the silk cotton trees standing over the
aforesaid area of 3,637.83.2 hectares are situated
in Megamalai Village, Survey No. 280 (part), and lie
both within the 24,655.75.5 hectares finally
notified as Reserved Forest under Section 16 of the
Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 vide G.O. Ms. No. 118,
Environment and Forests Department, dated
09.09.2009, and within the 3,219.63.0 hectares
which stand excluded under that very notification.
25. That, on the material presently available with
the Revenue Department, the silk cotton holdings
within the Reserved Forest are worked by the
resident families of the settlements listed in
Annexure A-17 to the earlier affidavit dated
18.08.2026 and by residents of the adioining
revenue villages: Revenue Department has no
material indicating that any large commercial
enterprises financing or directing this cultivation.”
63. Three categories of persons have been charted
out in the affidavit who are presently occupying
5,072.64.3 hectares of forest land, of which
36
3,637.83.2 hectares is under silk cotton cultivation.
As per this table, 232 persons are cultivating the
forest area with temporary residence, whereas 2,767
persons who occupy 2,867.70 hectares land are
residing outside the forest boundary and are
managing silk cotton cultivation. A total of 1,595
persons are stated to be permanently residing in the
forest area and indulging in such cultivation.
64. Having regard to the requirement under
Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the FRA, 2006 that a
claimant must primarily reside in the forest, persons
who cultivate while having only temporary residence
in the forest area (Category II), as well as persons
residing outside the forest boundary (Category III),
cannot, on the basis of such cultivation alone, qualify
as FDST or OTFD. The persons falling in Category II
and Category III shall therefore be excluded from
consideration under the FRA, 2006.
65. Furthermore, we also are of the prima facie view
that planned or promoted cultivation of a commercial
crop inside the forest areas is completely
impermissible as no such right is recognised under
FRA, 2006. The Act recognises the right of forest
dwellers to collect, use and dispose of minor forest
37
produce in accordance with Section 3(1)(c), as
discussed supra . The cultivation of a commercial
crop cannot, therefore, be recognised as a forest right
so as to justify occupation or continued presence
within the forest area. Consequently, the claim of the
State Government that the cultivation of silk cotton
itself justifies the presence of the cultivators in the
forest area is wholly unacceptable.
66. The averments made in para 25 of the affidavit
referred to supra, wherein it is stated that the
Department of Revenue has no material indicating
that any large commercial enterprise is financing or
directing the cultivation, are contradicted by the table
set out in paragraph 23 of the affidavit, which
mentions that as many as 2,767 persons are residing
outside the forest boundary and are cultivating the
silk cotton. Apparently, a person residing outside the
forest would not be in a position to cultivate the
commercial crops inside the forest without financing
or facilitation by others. This aspect requires deeper
examination by the CEC so that consequential action
can be directed against such violators.
67. The CEC shall also give its opinion regarding the
status of silk cotton as a minor forest produce, as
38
projected in the affidavit of the State Government
without being prejudiced by the observations supra .
68. During the course of submissions, Shri Gupta
pointed out that the three-tiered mechanism for
deciding the claims under FRA, 2006 has been made
operational and that the exercise is likely to be
completed within 4 months. It was also submitted
that the State Government is ready to accept the
supervision of this exercise under the aegis of a
retired Judge of this Court.
69.
Learned Amicus , on the other hand, urged that
CEC should be made a part of the supervisory
exercise so that fake claims can be identified and
rejected. We find both the suggestions to be
acceptable.
DIRECTIONS
70. In order to ensure transparency, fairness and
proper supervision of the process of determination of
claims under the FRA, 2006, we pass the following
directions.
i. The persons falling in Category II and
Category III, as classified in paragraph 23
th
of the additional affidavit dated 6
September, 2026 filed by Department of
39
Revenue, State of Tamil Nadu, shall be
excluded from consideration as FDST or
OTFD for the purposes of the FRA, 2006.
ii. It is clear that the State Government is
primarily responsible for the delay in the
process of receiving, identifying and
adjudicating the claims under the FRA,
2006. Before this Court took cognizance of
the encroachments in the forest area, even
the Gram Sabhas had not been
constituted. The process of setting up of
the Gram Sabhas appears to have been
initiated in the last few months only. As
per the submission made by Shri Gupta
and Shri Panchu, around 40 Gram Sabhas
have become functional and have started
the process of inviting claims. Since the
FRA, 2006 is a beneficial legislation
recognising the rights of FDST and OTFD,
by way of indulgence, this Court grants a
last opportunity of 30 days from today to
the State Government to complete the
formation of the remaining Gram Sabhas.
Upon constitution of the Gram Sabhas,
40
the process of inviting the remaining
claims, if any, and their adjudication
through the three-tier mechanism will be
commenced and shall be concluded
strictly within a period of five months from
the date of constitution of the Gram
Sabhas.
iii. As requested by Shri Jaideep Gupta,
learned senior counsel appearing for the
State of Tamil Nadu, a Special Committee
is hereby constituted, headed by Hon’ble
Mr. Justice B. R. Gavai, former Chief
Justice of India to be assisted by an officer
of the CEC, and the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest
Force, State of Tamil Nadu. The Hon’ble
Chairperson shall be at liberty to identify
a suitable officer of the CEC to assist the
committee in the discharge of its
functions. The Committee shall scrutinise
the orders passed by the competent
authorities under the FRA, 2006, in
respect of the claims received and shall
submit its report to this Court in a sealed
41
cover. The Committee shall also supervise
the expeditious disposal of the claims by
issuing necessary directions to the
authorities concerned. For this purpose,
the State Government shall forward
monthly progress reports to the
Committee.
iv. The Committee shall commence its
functioning forthwith. The State of Tamil
Nadu shall provide all necessary logistical
and administrative assistance to the
Committee for carrying out its functions
with due deference to the status of the
Hon’ble Chairperson. For this purpose, an
officer to the rank of Joint Secretary
(Administration) shall be designated as the
Nodal Officer to coordinate with the
Committee and facilitate the provision of
all necessary assistance required in the
functioning of the Committee.
v. The Chairperson of the Committee shall be
paid honorarium in four instalments of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Lakhs only)
each, to be borne by the State of Tamil
42
Nadu. All additional expenses incurred for
the functioning of the Committee shall also
be borne by the State Government.
vi. The Committee shall endeavour to
examine and conclude the exercise of
scrutiny of the claims within a period of
two months from the outer limit prescribed
by the Court in Direction (ii).
vii. The CEC shall furnish its opinion
regarding the projection made in the
State’s affidavit treating silk cotton as a
minor forest produce.
st
71. List the matter again on 1 February, 2027 for
receiving the interim status report.
72. The case shall be listed as a part heard matter.
I.A. filed by NHAI seeking
impleadment/intervention (I.A. Diary No.
291848/2026) and clarification/modification of
th
order dated 29 May 2026 (I.A. Diary No.
291851/2026)
73. The instant applications have been filed by the
NHAI seeking its impleadment in the present
proceedings and seeking clarification/modification of
43
the direction contained in paragraph 66(vi) of the
th
order dated 29 May, 2026. The said direction, inter
alia , places a prohibition on approval or
commencement of any new non-forestry activity or
diversion proposal within the Agasthyamalai
landscape, until the encroachments are removed and
the illegal infrastructure is dealt with in accordance
with law.
74. Shri K.M. Nataraj learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for NHAI submitted that the NHAI
has a proposal relating to NH-744, including the
proposed Puliara–Edamon tunnel section, which
requires permission for diversion of a limited extent
of Reserved Forest land. It was submitted that the
proposal is a fresh statutory proposal and does not
concern regularisation of any existing illegal activity
or post-facto approval. The grievance of the NHAI is
that, in view of paragraph 66(vi), its proposal has not
been permitted to be processed and considered by the
competent authorities.
75. Learned ASG submitted that the NHAI is not
seeking any automatic approval or permission to
commence construction within the forest area. The
limited prayer is that the concerned statutory
44
authorities be permitted to receive, process and
examine the proposal in accordance with the
applicable forest, wildlife and environmental laws,
subject to all requisite statutory clearances and the
ultimate decision of the competent authorities.
76. Considering the submissions advanced by the
learned ASG, we direct the CEC to consider the
application filed by the NHAI and submit its
reply/response thereto. The response shall be filed
before the next date of hearing.
77. While considering the application, the CEC
shall also keep in view the provisions contained in
Section 3(2) of FRA, 2006 which read as under: -
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 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, namely:-
(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;
45
(k) skill up-gradation or vocational training
centers;
(l) roads; and
(m) community centers:
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 subsection 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.”
I.A. filed by the State Law Department seeking
impleadment (I.A. No. 253204/2026) and
th
modification of order dated 29 May, 2026 (I.A.
No. 253205/2026) .
78. The State Law Department has filed the present
applications seeking, firstly, its impleadment as a
party respondent and, secondly, modification of
th
paragraph 66(iii) of the order dated 29 May, 2026.
The said direction requires the State Law Department
to continuously monitor encroachment-related
proceedings pending before the District Courts and
other judicial fora, take steps for their expeditious
disposal and place a tabular status report before this
Court.
46
79. Ms. Vrinda Bhandari learned counsel appearing
for the State Law Department submitted that the Law
Department was not a party to the proceedings when
the aforesaid direction was passed and that the
actual administration of forest lands, including
maintenance of records relating to encroachments,
eviction proceedings and individual claims, is
undertaken by the Environment, Climate Change
and Forests Department through the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and its subordinate officers.
The Law Department’s role is primarily confined to
rendering legal advice and providing legal assistance
in proceedings instituted by or against the State.
80. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the
responsibility contemplated under paragraph 66(iii)
ought to be entrusted to the Environment, Climate
Change and Forests Department through the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the
concerned subordinate authorities, who are in
possession of the relevant records and are competent
to furnish the factual status of the encroachment
proceedings.
81. Having considered the submissions, the
application for impleadment is allowed. The State
47
Law Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, is
impleaded as a party respondent in these
proceedings.
82. The application seeking modification of
th
paragraph 66(iii) of the order dated 29 May, 2026 is
also allowed, and the said direction shall stand
modified to the extent prayed for in the application.
The responsibility contemplated under paragraph
66(iii) shall accordingly stand assigned to the
Environment, Climate Change and Forests
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, through the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the
concerned subordinate authorities, in terms of the
prayer made in the application.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 06, 2026.
48