State directed to decide forest right recognition claims under FRA 2006 following principles of natural justice.

The petitioners are members of Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes residing in Village Antari, Sabarkantha. They claim that their families have cultivated land in Survey No. 17 since 1958.

Pursuant to the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the respondent authority allotted them 01-61-88 H-R-A of the said land via an order dated 26/03/2009.

The petitioners allege that despite being legal occupiers, the respondent authorities disturbed their possession and failed to act on representations to measure and regularize the remaining disputed portion of the land (excluding the allotted part).

The Range Forest Officer rejected their request on 12/12/2022, prompting this petition under Article 226.

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to decide the petitioners' representations regarding the measurement and regularization of forest land under the Forest Rights Act.

2. Whether the state's failure to reconsider forest right claims in accordance with statutory rules and previous judicial directions constitutes an actionable inaction.

The court applied the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the corresponding Rules of 2008, specifically Rule 12-A and Rule 13, which govern the process for recognition and verification of forest rights.

It also referenced the principles established in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 100 of 2011, which mandated the reconsideration of claims in compliance with procedural transparency under Rules 14 and 15.

The court exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct administrative action.

The Court noted the petitioners' status as forest dwellers and their reliance on the 1992 Government Resolution aiming to regularize unauthorized cultivation for social welfare.

It observed that while a portion of the land was allotted in 2009, the petitioners' subsequent representations for boundary measurement and regularization of the remainder remained pending or were summarily rejected without adequate procedural compliance.

Following the precedent set by the Division Bench in PIL No. 100 of 2011, the Court emphasized that authorities must reconsider such claims by adhering to the statutory framework of the Forest Rights Act and its Rules, ensuring an opportunity for the claimants to present evidence and be heard.

It directed the State Authorities to decide the petitioners’ claims as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law.

The authorities are specifically mandated to provide the petitioners an opportunity to produce relevant documents and grant a fair hearing to all concerned parties.