No Eviction of Forest Dwellers Until Recognition of Individual and Community Forest Rights Claims Are Decided.

The petitioners, members of the Jatav community (Scheduled Caste), claim to be traditional forest dwellers residing in Jurka Area, Tarai Western Forest Division, for over three generations.

They rely on animal husbandry for their livelihood and assert that their settlement is recorded as Jot Abadi in the Khatauni of 1406 Fasli.

The petitioners submitted claims for the recognition of their forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

They approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent their eviction and to allow them to continue growing fodder crops for their cattle until their claims under the Act are adjudicated.

The State confirmed that the claims had been forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee but failed to confirm if an identification exercise had been completed.

Whether the respondents can evict the petitioners or interfere with their cultivation of fodder crops while their claims for recognition of forest rights are pending adjudication under the Act of 2006.

Section 4(5) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which prohibits the eviction of forest dwellers until the recognition and verification process is complete.

The precedent established in Mohammad Baseer vs. State of Uttarakhand & others (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 350 of 2025), which held that forest dwellers should be protected from eviction during the pendency of their applications, provided they do not engage in commercial activities.

The Court observed that the petitioners’ claims regarding their status as traditional forest dwellers and their rights to the land are "vested rights" that require formal recognition through the inquiry process prescribed by the 2006 Act and Rules.

Upon reviewing the state’s instructions, the Court found that the authorities had not provided a clear answer as to whether the identification and vesting exercise mandated by the Act had been conducted.

Since the petitioners' claims have been forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and remain undecided, the Court reasoned that arbitrary eviction would cause irreparable harm to their livelihood.

By aligning the present case with the scheme of the Act and the Mohammad Baseer precedent, the Court determined that the statutory protection against eviction must be upheld until a final decision is reached on the pending claims.

The writ petition was disposed of with directions restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners or creating impediments to their cultivation of fodder crops.

The Court clarified, by reference to the Mohammad Baseer judgment, that this protection is limited to self-cultivation and does not permit any commercial activities.

The respondents are required to resolve the petitioners' claims expeditiously.