Introduction
The long standing issue of forest land occupations for (agriculture and habitation needs) in Himachal Pradesh remains unresolved despite the existence of a protective constitutional law that was passed in the year 2006 – the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006.
Forest Land occupations of the date prior to 13th December 2005 for habitation, agricultural and allied activities for bonafide livelihood needs are well recognised under Section 3(1) of this law and sufficient information exists regarding the provisions under it. The process for verification of rights of eligible claimants is well laid out in the law. More information on the same is available on the website of Tribal Development Department HP (https://himachalservices.nic.in/tribal/en-IN/forest-rights-act.html) which is the nodal agency for implementation of the law. The law itself is applicable to all tribal (ST) and non-tribals (OTFD) forest (land) dependent communities.
The implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, especially in non-tribal regions has been marked by delays, procedural lapses, and judicial interventions. The eviction orders passed by courts and the lack of awareness among political representatives, administration and affected communities have led to significant challenges.
This note presents a chronology of events, highlighting key decisions and legal proceedings impacting the rights of forest dwellers. There is an urgent need to correct the course of actions in order to protect constitutional rights of legitimate claimants.
Key timeline of events
| S.No. | Date | Issue | Document Source |
| 1 | 14-03-2012 | Council of Ministers decided to implement FRA in non-tribal regions | CS affidavit in SC |
| 2 | 10-12-2013 | Panchayati Raj department tasked with constituting Forest Rights Committees (FRCs) at the village level | CS affidavit in SC |
| 3 | 29-01-2016 | 15,692 FRCs constituted at the village level till 29-01-2016 in Himachal Pradesh | CS affidavit in SC |
| 4 | 06-12-2017 | State authorized to formulate land regularization policy for holdings less than 5 bighas | High Court Order |
| 5 | 09-07-2018 | The petitioner, Dev Raj, sought to quash the judgment dated March 27, 2018, passed by the Collector (Forest)-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Kinnaur, which labelled him as an encroacher and ordered his eviction under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The petitioner argued that his rights under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, were not considered, and he was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. High court ask the appropriate authority shall decide the proceedings, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from today, after hearing all concerned. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to approach the State, bringing to its notice the applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forrest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) act, 2006, to enable the State to take appropriate decision thereupon, in accordance with law. After this no eviction process initiated against the petitioner. | High Court Order |
| 6 | 2020 | Official FRA training manual published by the Himachal Pradesh Tribal Department | HP Tribal Department |
| 7 | 17-07-2024 | Court rules that encroachment on forest land cannot be regularized without Central Government approval | High Court Order |
| 8 | 30-07-2024 | High Court passes eviction order against Kansi Ram and others (CWP No. 1974 of 2017) | High Court Order |
| 9 | 30-08-2024 | The review petition filed by Kansi Ram against the High Court’s 30-07-2024 order cited FRA provisions and sought time until the forest rights claim recognition process was complete. However, the court observed that no evidence was provided to prove the petitioner belonged to the Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) category and, therefore, could not claim protection under Section 4(5) of FRA. Consequently, the High Court imposed a fine of Rs.10,000 for lack of information. | High Court Order |
| 10 | 28-11-2024 | The Supreme Court of India addressed multiple civil appeals arising from eviction proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The appellants, including Babu Ram, were found to be in unauthorized occupation of forest land and faced eviction orders. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed their writ petitions, leading to these appeals. 1. The Supreme Court found that the eviction orders and subsequent appellate orders lacked proper reasoning and failed to meet the standards of a speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. 2. The Court emphasized the need for a fair procedure, including proper demarcation of land with notice to the affected parties, a detailed show cause notice, and a reasoned order. 3. The original eviction orders, appellate orders, and High Court dismissals were set aside. 4. The State was directed to conduct a fresh demarcation exercise with written notice to the appellants and follow a fair procedure in any subsequent eviction proceedings. 5. The status quo ante was restored for the appellants, subject to further orders in the new eviction proceedings. | SC Court Order |
| 11 | 28-11-2024 | But denies stay in case of another petitioner Guman Singh from Paonta Sahib because he didn’t raised the procedural flaws in eviction order. The order highlights the lack of legal acumen among officers handling encroachment proceedings and emphasizes the need for fair procedures, including proper demarcation, notice, and evidence consideration. It mandates training for officials conducting land removal cases under relevant laws. Additionally, the state must conduct demarcation exercises with due notice, starting with Babu Ram’s case, and panchayat officials must report encroachments. Furthermore, electricity and water boards must ensure no services are provided to illegal structures and disconnect existing connections after a month’s notice. | SC Court Order |
| 12 | 08-01-2025 | 1. Officers, DCs, etc are found to be lacking legal acumen in conducting proceedings and passing appropriate orders. Even if a citizen is encroaching on public land, he/she has the right to a fair process which includes a proper demarcation in the presence of the parties, show cause notice, sufficient opportunity to lead evidence and application of mind to all materials. Thus all Divisional Forest Officers, Assistant Conservators of Forests, Divisional Commissioners or other Officers conferred with power under PP Act and/or HPLR Act to conduct proceedings for removal of encroachment and unauthorized occupation of Government land are required to be trained and oriented for complete, proper and final adjudication of such matters in just, legal and fair manner. 2. State through proper dept to undertake an appropriate exercise for demarcation of forest land upon written notice to Babu Ram. Exercise to be conducted within 2 months from the date of order. This will follow for other appellants too. It will be personal responsibility of panchayat office bearers to report cases of encroachment within their jurisdiction in writing to the concerned DFO/Assistant collector with a copy to the concerned deputy commissioner. 3. State Electricity and water boards instructed to ensure no power/water connection is provided to illegal structure raised over govt land. If connections already exist they shall initiate appropriate action to disconnect such connections after giving a month’s notice. | High Court Order |
Key Arguments
- Conflicting bureaucratic position on definition and classification of forests
- The Forest Department and the Revenue Department in Himachal Pradesh have long-standing disagreements over the definition and classification of forests
- This inconsistency results in confusion over land ownership, governance and forest rights, affecting local communities
- The ambiguity creates hurdles in the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), delaying the recognition of rights for forest-dependent communities.
2. Delayed Implementation of FRA in Non-Tribal Regions
- The Himachal Pradesh government delayed FRA implementation in non-tribal areas due to policy indecision and lack of political will despite parties including it in their electoral manifestos.
- The initial constitution of FRCs at the Panchayat level violated FRA guidelines, leading to hasty reconstitution at the village level without adequate training or awareness programs.
3. Lack of Awareness Among Affected Communities
- Communities in non-tribal regions are unaware of the process of filing claims under FRA.
- The first official training manual was only published in 2020, long after eviction cases had been initiated.
4. Evictions Based on Pre-FRA Policies
- Many eviction cases are based on applications filed under the 2002 regularization policy of the state government
- Most of these encroachment cases are filed before 2015
- Since communities were unaware of FRA at that time, they failed to invoke its provisions, which protect against eviction.
5. Contradictory Judicial Orders
- The High Court’s December 2017 ruling allowed the state to formulate a land regularization policy.
- However, in July 2024, the same court overrode the previous order without giving petitioners a fair opportunity to present their case or legal arguments.
- When a review petition was filed raising FRA provisions, the petitioner was penalized with a fine of Rs.10,000.
6. FRA as the Framework for Addressing Evictions
- The state government must take responsibility for the delay in implementation of FRA in non-tribal regions.
- To overcome the objection that the big encroaches will also get benefitted from the Act, the The state government can define “Bonafide Livelihood” for Other Traditional Forest Dwellers and cap land claims at 10 bighas under FRA, as per Himachal Pradesh revenue laws.
Conclusion and Recommendations
- The state should intervene in the High Court and request time for the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to protect eligible right holders from eviction.
- The eviction crisis must be resolved through a fair and transparent implementation of the FRA.
- Courts should take into account the delayed implementation of the FRA while adjudicating eviction cases.
- The Himachal Pradesh government should establish a robust training and awareness framework to empower affected communities to exercise their rights.
The table above provides details of FRA claims filed and titled issued in different states including Himachal Pradesh (S.No. 7).
