CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by non-tribals claiming rights over forest land while stating that those who claim such rights should prove they have been staying on forest land for three generations and are eking out a livelihood by cultivation, apart from having their residences built on the land.
The appeals were filed by 21 persons, including A C Murugesan, P Kandaswamy and Amudha of Salem district, against the dismissal of their writ petition regarding forest land rights by a single judge in 2022.
They had stated that their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of 291.60 acres of land at Suriyur village in Panamarathupatti panchayat union in Salem district and had put up residences on the land, besides doing cultivation of agricultural produce there for more than 75 years.
When the area was declared as a reserved forest, they sought the collector to declare their rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, but their plea was rejected and so they filed the writ petitions. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, and so, they preferred the appeal.
A division bench of justices S M Subramaniam and K Surender dismissed the writ appeals finding the appellants failing to prove their claim of rights with substantial evidence.
The bench noted that Section 2 (o) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act defines ‘other traditional forest dwellers’ as those who have primarily been residing in and depend upon forest land for bonafide livelihood needs at least for three generations prior to December 13, 2005.
“The appellants are not eligible to claim any right under the Act without establishing the fact that they solely depend on the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs,” the bench said in the order.
Stating that the very spirit of the Act is to protect the livelihood of the forest dwellers, it said, therefore, it must be established beyond any pale of doubt that they are residing in forest areas and doing cultivation for their livelihood. In the absence of any proof to establish the essential ingredients and the spirit under the provisions of the Act, the appellants are not entitled for any relief as such sought for in their application.