Conversion of Forest Land to Revenue Land Requires Prior Central Government Approval Under Section 2, Forest Conservation Act.

52 petitioners residing in Jamalpur Forest Village, Cachar district, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the conversion of the forest village into a revenue village and the settlement of land in their names

The petitioners claimed possession of the land since approximately 1974

They relied on various inter-departmental communications from 1978, 1982, and 1995, as well as a 1987 High Court order and a 2003 communication from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest regarding the regularization of pre-1980 encroachments

The State contested the petition on the grounds that statutory requirements for de-reservation and land rights recognition were not met

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for the conversion of Jamalpur Forest Village into a revenue village and subsequent land settlement

2. Whether the petitioners qualify for protection or land rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

3. Whether inter-departmental communications and reports create a vested right for the petitioners to claim land allotment

The court primarily applied Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which prohibits the de-reservation of reserved forests or the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval from the Central Government

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Karnataka v. Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Co-operative Society Limited (2025) and Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-1 v. Union of India (2000) to emphasize the strict interpretation of de-reservation laws

Regarding administrative law, the court applied the principle from Mahadeo & Ors v. Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors (2023) and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (1963), holding that inter-departmental communications do not constitute a final government order and do not vest legal rights until communicated as an order of the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution

Finally, it applied Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the Act of 2006 regarding the definitions of "Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes" and "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers"

The court found that under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no forest land can be converted to revenue land without prior Central Government approval, which was absent in this case

It reasoned that de-reservation is not a routine matter and requires "overwhelming public interest," which the petitioners failed to demonstrate

The court rejected the petitioners' reliance on inter-departmental reports and internal communications, noting that such documents are part of a deliberative process and do not grant enforceable rights

Regarding the 2006 Act, the court determined the petitioners did not qualify as "Scheduled Tribes" under Section 2(c), nor did they meet the criteria for "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" under Section 2(o), as they failed to prove residence in the forest for the mandatory three generations (75 years)

It held that in the absence of Central Government approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and failure to meet the generational residence criteria under the 2006 Act, the petitioners have no legal right to the conversion of forest land or land settlement

No relief, including the prayer to prevent eviction, was granted