Authorities must decide forest rights claims according to law after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners are members of Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes residing in Village Rozam, Taluka Dahod, where they have allegedly cultivated forest land (Survey No. 20) for over 50 years.

They claim that a Gram Panchayat resolution dated 16.10.2008 permitted their cultivation under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

On 08.11.2013, the petitioners submitted formal claims ('Dava') supported by revenue receipts, caste certificates, and inspection reports to the respondent authorities.

The petitioners alleged that the authorities failed to decide their appeals or regularize their possession, prompting them to seek a writ of mandamus for the allotment of land and protection from eviction.

1. Whether the respondent authorities were under a legal obligation to decide the forest rights claims and pending appeals of the petitioners within a reasonable timeframe under the Forest Rights Act.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the regularization of their possession and the issuance of ‘Sanads’ for the disputed forest land.

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and the Rules of 2008, which mandate the recognition and vesting of forest rights in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes who have been in occupation of forest land.

Procedural requirements under Rule 12-A, Rule 13, Rule 14, and Rule 15, emphasizing the necessity of reconsidering claims in light of previous judicial directions and State Government resolutions regarding the rectification of dwellers' conditions.

The Court observed that the petitioners had submitted a substantial body of evidence—including revenue records, photos, and team inspection reports—to substantiate their long-term occupation of the forest land.

It noted that despite previous judicial interventions in similar cases (SCA No. 6578 of 2021) requiring District Level Committees to decide pending appeals within specific timelines, the petitioners’ claims remained unresolved.

The Court determined that since the authorities were sitting on the claims without final adjudication, a directive was necessary to ensure the statutory process under the Forest Rights Act was completed. Instead of granting the land directly, the Court focused on the procedural lapse, emphasizing that the State must provide an opportunity for a hearing and document submission before reaching a final decision.

The authorities are mandated to provide the petitioners with an opportunity to produce all relevant documents and ensure a fair hearing for all concerned parties before passing a final order; Rule was made absolute to that extent.