Encroacher Cannot Claim Forest Rights by Calling Himself a Traditional Dweller: Madras High Court

"The Very Spirit of the Act Is to Protect Livelihood of Forest Dwellers — Claimant Must Establish That They Solely Depend on Forest Produce for Bona Fide Livelihood Needs", Madras High Court on March 10, 2026 dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of applications filed under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 for declaration of rights over 291.60 acres of Reserved Forest land in Salem District. A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender held that persons who are admittedly not residing in the forest, have Aadhaar cards at different addresses, and whose ancestors had merely attempted encroachment from 1980 cannot claim the status of "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" under the Act.

The appellants claimed that their ancestors had been in possession and cultivation of land bearing S.No. 1905 admeasuring 291.60 acres in Suriyur Village, Salem Taluk, for more than 75 years, and sought a declaration of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The District Level Committee rejected the claim, finding that no documents were produced to prove possession and enjoyment for 75 years as required under the Act. The Writ Court upheld the rejection. The appellants challenged this before the Division Bench.

Three Generations Means 75 Years of Continuous Residence and Dependence

The Court examined the definition of "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" under Section 2(o) of the Act, which requires that the claimant must have been primarily residing in and depending on the forest land for bona fide livelihood needs for at least three generations prior to December 13, 2005. The Explanation to Section 2(o) defines "generation" as a period of 25 years, meaning the claimant must establish continuous residence and dependence for 75 years before that date.

The Court found that the appellants admittedly did not reside in the subject land, were living outside the Reserved Forest, and held Aadhaar cards at different addresses. They had not established what agricultural activities they undertook in the forest or what forest produce they collected for their livelihood. The Court held that in the absence of proof of these essential ingredients, no declaration could be granted.

"It must be established beyond any pale of doubt that they are residing in forest area and doing cultivation for their livelihood. The appellants have not even averred in their writ affidavit what are all the agricultural activities and nature of forest produce they collect in the forest for their bona fide livelihood."

Encroachment from 1980 Cannot Create Forest Rights

The Court noted that the Jarugumalai Forest Block had been notified as Reserved Forest under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882 with effect from March 15, 1926. The appellants' ancestors had made attempts to encroach upon this Reserved Forest only from 1980 — more than half a century after notification. The Forest Department had filed trespass cases against them, they had been fined, eviction notices had been issued, and the entire extent of land had been restored to the Forest Department.

The Court held that attempting to encroach upon a Reserved Forest and carrying on commercial cultivation there does not amount to depending on forest produce for bona fide livelihood needs.

"When the forest land has been used by exploiting the said land for commercial purposes, it cannot be said that the appellants are totally depending on the forest produce. Merely because the appellants had made attempts to encroach upon forest lands in the year 1980 and doing some cultivation in the larger area, it cannot be said that they are 'Other Traditional Forest Dwellers'."

Scope of Judicial Review Under Article 226

On the question of the High Court's role in such matters, the Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is concerned with the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The District Level Committee had followed the prescribed procedure scrupulously, issued summons, received documents, and afforded personal hearing to all parties before passing the rejection order. No procedural infirmity was found.

"The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 is to ensure the processes through which decision has been taken by the competent authority is in consonance with the provisions of the statutes and rules in force — but not the decision itself."

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal, confirming that the appellants had not established even a semblance of a legal right to seek a declaration under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The ruling makes clear that the Act is designed to protect genuine forest-dependent communities whose ancestors have been residing in and depending on forest land across generations — and not to regularise encroachments by those who moved onto Reserved Forest land decades after it was notified, for commercial cultivation, and who now reside at addresses entirely outside the forest.

Date of Decision: March 10, 2026