Supreme Court Excludes 2,999 Megamalai Cultivators Living Temporarily in or Outside Forest From FRA Recognition

01Facts

By judgment dated 29 May 2026, the Supreme Court directed a structured, time-bound process for eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration in forest areas, including the Agasthyamalai landscape, and prohibited approval or commencement of new non-forestry activities pending compliance with specified directions

¶ 2

The State was later directed to report on silk-cotton cultivation, pattas, 118 identified government-servant encroachers and claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (“FRA”)

¶ 3–4

The State reported that approximately 40 Gram Sabhas had been constituted and about 1,600 FRA claims received; the CEC and the State advanced competing submissions on the effect of the 1978 forest-settlement proceedings and the eligibility of cultivators to claim FRA protection

¶ 21, 26–38

The State also classified occupants as permanent residents who cultivate (Category I), cultivators with temporary residence (Category II), and persons residing outside the forest boundary who cultivate (Category III)

¶ 35–36, 62–63

The Court also considered NHAI’s request to process a forest-diversion proposal for NH-744 and the State Law Department’s application concerning responsibility for monitoring encroachment proceedings

¶ 73–82

02Issues

i.1. Whether persons claiming rights as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (“FDST”) or other traditional forest dwellers (“OTFD”) must have their claims determined under the FRA before consequential eviction, and how the State’s claims process should be supervised.

¶ 40–43, 68–70

ii.2. Whether silk-cotton cultivation in the Reserved Forest could, by itself, qualify as a forest right or justify continued occupation under the FRA, and whether Categories II and III could be considered as FDST or OTFD on that basis.

¶ 57–67

iii.3. Whether NHAI’s forest-diversion proposal could be processed for consideration notwithstanding the prohibition in the 29 May 2026 order.

¶ 73–77

iv.4. Whether responsibility for the monitoring and reporting directed by paragraph 66(iii) of the 29 May 2026 order should be reassigned from the State Law Department to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department.

¶ 78–82

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the FRA: FDST and OTFD eligibility requires the statutory connection to forest or forest land, including, for OTFD, primary residence in and dependence on forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs for at least three generations before 13 December 2005.

¶ 47–48

Section 3(1)(a) recognises rights to hold forest land for habitation or self-cultivation for livelihood, while Section 3(1)(c) recognises rights concerning minor forest produce traditionally collected; Section 6 requires claims to be initiated and determined through the Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee mechanism.

¶ 49–51

The Court relied on *Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests*, which explained the FRA’s remedial purpose and the statutory process for determining forest rights.

¶ 44, 51

The Court also considered Section 3(2) of the FRA, which provides for specified government-managed facilities, including roads, subject to the statutory conditions, including Gram Sabha recommendation and the prescribed land-area limit.

¶ 77

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

04Reasoning

The Court held that FRA claims must be assessed under the statutory three-tier process and cannot be established merely by present occupation; those who do not meet the statutory definitions remain liable to removal in accordance with law.

¶ 55

It treated the State’s classification as relevant to the residence requirement and directed that Categories II and III be excluded from consideration as FDST or OTFD.

¶ 63–65, 70(i)

On silk cotton, the material showed planned or promoted commercial cultivation, not traditional collection of minor forest produce; therefore, cultivation alone did not establish a right under Section 3(1)(c) or justify continued occupation. The Court nevertheless directed the CEC to provide its opinion on the State’s classification of silk cotton as minor forest produce.

¶ 59–67, 70(vii)

Given the State’s delay in commencing the FRA process, the Court allowed a final period to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas and required completion of claims adjudication within the prescribed period, with scrutiny and supervision by a special committee and the CEC.

¶ 52–55, 68–70

It left NHAI’s proposal for the CEC’s response, directing it to consider Section 3(2), and accepted the State Law Department’s request to reassign the specified monitoring responsibility.

¶ 76–82

05Holding

The Court directed that Categories II and III be excluded from consideration as FDST or OTFD; the State must constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days and complete the ensuing claims process within five months of their constitution.

¶ 70(i)–(ii)

It constituted a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, assisted by a CEC officer and the State’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, to supervise and scrutinise FRA determinations, and directed the CEC to report on silk cotton’s status as minor forest produce.

¶ 70(iii)–(vii)

The CEC was directed to respond to NHAI’s application before the next hearing.

¶ 76

The State Law Department was impleaded, and the monitoring responsibility under paragraph 66(iii) of the 29 May 2026 order was reassigned to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department.

¶ 81–82

The matter was listed as part-heard for 1 February 2027.

¶ 71–72

LawLens.Supreme Court

Original Court PDF