State authorities must expeditiously adjudicate forest rights claims in accordance with statutory procedures and due process.

The petitioner, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, claimed continuous occupation and cultivation of forest land (Survey No. 101, Village Dhabhva, Dahod) since his father’s tenure prior to 1962

Following the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the petitioner submitted a claim for the recognition of his forest rights and the issuance of a sanad (title deed)

Although a list was prepared by the local Gram Sabha, the respondent authorities failed to pass a final order or recognize the petitioner's rights despite his repeated representations and the payment of land revenue to the Forest Department

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the authorities to decide his claim and protect his possession

1. Whether the respondent authorities were under a statutory obligation to finalize the petitioner’s claim for forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

2. Whether a direction for the expeditious disposal of the pending claim is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the Forest Rights Rules, 2007, which establish the procedure for the verification and vesting of forest rights in eligible dwellers

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the performance of a statutory duty by the State

Principles regarding the reconsideration of forest claims as directed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 100 of 2011

The Court observed that the petitioner had provided evidence of long-term occupation dating back to 1962 and had engaged with the statutory process by submitting claims to the Gram Sabha and Forest Rights Committees

It noted that despite the legislative intent to recognize such rights and a previous Supreme Court mandate to reconsider similar claims, the respondent authorities had merely exchanged internal correspondence without reaching a final determination

The Court found that the authorities’ failure to take a decision left the petitioner's livelihood and rights in limbo

Therefore, the Court determined that the respondents must be directed to conclude the verification process within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring procedural fairness

It issued a mandamus directing the respondent State Authorities to decide the petitioner's claim as expeditiously as possible and strictly in accordance with the law

The Court specifically ordered that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to produce all relevant documents and that a fair hearing must be granted to all concerned parties before a final decision is made

Rule was made absolute to that extent