The HP govt must demonstrate the political will to implement the Forest Rights Act effectively to safeguard livelihoods and justice for those facing eviction.
The longstanding issue of forest land occupation for agriculture and habitation in Himachal Pradesh remains unresolved. In its order on July 17, 2024, the Shimla High Court stated that encroachments on forest land cannot be regularised by the state government without approval from the Central government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Following this, a series of eviction orders were issued.
In Himachal Pradesh, where two-thirds of the geographical area is classified as forest land and 90 per cent of the population resides in rural areas surrounded by forests, the dependence of communities on forest resources for survival and livelihoods is undeniable. With agricultural land comprising only about 10 per cent of the total area and the average landholding size being less than one hectare, access to land remains a critical issue.
Under the Land Regularisation Policy of 2002, approximately 1.67 lakh families applied to legalise their occupation of forest land. Additionally, land settlement records indicate a significant number of unauthorised occupations. For example, during the 1989 land settlement in Spiti, over 1,200 cases of najayaz kabza (unauthorised occupation) were recorded, representing nearly 50 per cent of the total households.
To address the situation, the state government decided to intervene in the Godavaraman case pending before the Supreme Court of India — a move that is only partially welcome. While some aspects of this intervention align with the interests of the affected communities, concerns remain regarding the true intent and effectiveness of the government’s approach in protecting the people who are facing eviction.
The government’s decision to approach the Supreme Court to exclude the allottable pool and certain other land categories from the definition of forests is a crucial step. If the state secures relief, it could facilitate the allocation of land to landless families and those displaced by natural disasters.
When implemented effectively, this move could help address land scarcity and support the vulnerable communities in need of rehabilitation. However, the proposal to de-reserve certain land categories should not rely solely on revenue records. It must also include an assessment of the actual physical and ecological status of the land.
It will be necessary to present a well-founded argument, demonstrating that this will not cause any harm to the existing forest areas and that it will prevent new conflicts and ecological impacts. This requires a cautious approach as the Supreme Court, in its order from February last year, ruled that the definition of “forest” would continue to have a broad and all-encompassing meaning, including 1.97 lakh square km of undeclared forest land.
The government’s other decision to get the permission of the Supreme Court to conduct a forest settlement under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA), appears unnecessary. The Central government has already enacted the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, the very purpose of which was to address the anomalies of the settlement processes under the IFA. It explicitly acknowledges the failure, terming it as a “historical injustice” to forest-dependent communities.
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel to settle the rights under the IFA. Instead of seeking the suspension of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, to conduct the forest settlement process under the IFA, 1927, the focus should be on the proper implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which was specifically designed to recognise and safeguard the rights of forest dwellers. Forests in India are governed by the Indian Forest Act and the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA). Seeking forest settlement solely under the IFA will not fully serve the purpose.
In Himachal Pradesh, many national parks and wildlife sanctuaries were declared without properly settling the rights of the forest-dependent communities. The case of settling 53 habitation rights in the Kalatop Wildlife Sanctuary, Dalhousie (Chamba), under the FRA highlights this issue.
To address such historical oversight, the state government must advocate for the recognition of the rights provided under the Forest Rights Act, which applies to all types of forest land. The government must demonstrate the political will to implement the FRA effectively to safeguard livelihoods and justice for those facing eviction.
It should first intervene in the high court, where it is already a party, and request time for the FRA implementation to protect the eligible right-holders from eviction. Delaying action under the pretext of the Supreme Court intervention, while neglecting the available legal recourse, merely shifts responsibility and leaves the vulnerable communities without protection or justice.
The rights of people and forest conservation must go hand in hand. A well-balanced approach — one that safeguards livelihoods while ensuring communities take responsibility for conserving the natural resources they depend on — can be achieved through the legal framework provided by the Forest Rights Act.
This will help uphold both the rights of the forest dwellers and the integrity of the forests. The government must act now to not only protect the rights of those who rely on forests for their survival but also uphold justice and sustainability in forest governance.
This article first published on The Tribune, 12th Feb 2025
