Pending forest rights application directed to be decided within 60 days, without expressing any view on merits.

The petitioner, aged 68 years, claimed a Van Adhikar Patta under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in respect of 0.80 hectare of land situated in Compartment No. P-3414, Village Pipraul, Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj.

Although earlier directions had allegedly been issued for consideration of his claim, the competent authority had not decided it.

The petitioner stated that he had submitted a fresh application dated 7 July 2026 before the Secretary of the Village Level Forest Rights Committee, which remained pending.

He therefore sought a direction for consideration and disposal of the application. The State did not oppose the limited relief sought.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application dated 7 July 2026 for grant of a Van Adhikar Patta under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

Whether the High Court should adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s claim for grant of the forest rights title while exercising writ jurisdiction in the present proceedings.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing recognition of forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

Where the petitioner confines the relief to a direction for consideration of a pending application, the Court may issue a time-bound mandamus without expressing any opinion on the substantive merits of the claim.

The Court found that the petitioner’s application for grant of a Van Adhikar Patta was pending before the competent authority and that the State had no objection to its consideration within a reasonable period.

Since the petitioner expressly limited his prayer to disposal of the pending application, the Court considered it appropriate to issue a procedural direction rather than examine whether he was substantively entitled to the claimed forest rights.

The authority was consequently required to consider the application dated 7 July 2026 in accordance with law, while the Court expressly reserved all questions on the merits.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

No order was made as to costs.