Continuous Forest Residence And Livelihood Dependence Are Mandatory For Recognition As Other Traditional Forest Dwellers

The twenty-one appellants filed a writ appeal against a Single Judge's order dated 10.03.2023, which upheld the District Collector’s rejection of their claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

The appellants claimed that their ancestors had possessed and cultivated approximately 291.60 acres of land in the 'Reserved Forest' (Jarugumalai and Jalluthu Forest Blocks) for over 75 years

They sought a declaration of their rights to the land as "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers"

The authorities rejected the claims, noting that the appellants were not local residents, held Aadhar cards with different addresses, and had previously been evicted as encroachers

1. Whether the appellants satisfy the statutory criteria to be classified as "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" under Section 2(o) of the Act, 2006

2. Whether the appellants established continuous occupation and dependence on the forest land for bona fide livelihood needs for three generations (75 years) prior to 13.12.2005

3. Whether there is any procedural infirmity in the decision-making process of the District Level Committee warranting judicial interference under Article 226

The Court applied Section 2(o) of the Act, 2006, which defines "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" as those residing in and depending on forest land for bona fide livelihood for at least three generations (75 years) prior to 13.12.2005

It further considered Section 3 regarding the recognition of forest rights and Section 2(c) regarding "Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes"

The Court also referenced the Madras Forest Act, 1882, under which the subject lands were notified as Reserved Forest in 1926 and 1989

and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, noting that commercial exploitation of forest land is prohibited

The Court reasoned that to qualify under Section 2(o), a claimant must prove both residence and primary dependence on the forest for livelihood

The Court found that the appellants failed to provide any documentary evidence of 75 years of possession during the District Level Committee enquiry

Factually, the appellants were found to be residing outside the forest area with Aadhar cards at different addresses, and they failed to specify the nature of their agricultural activities or forest produce collected for "bona fide livelihood"

The Court observed that the appellants had previously been fined for trespassing and evicted, and their current attempt to claim forest rights appeared to be an afterthought to regain possession

The Court emphasized that the spirit of the Act is to protect genuine forest dwellers, not to regularize encroachments for commercial or non-livelihood purposes

The Court affirmed that under Article 226, it is concerned with the lawfulness of the decision-making process, which in this case was scrupulously followed by the District Level Committee

Consequently, the Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming the Single Judge's order and the District Collector's rejection of the appellants' claims