The Gujarat High Court has affirmed that tribal families asserting claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Regulation of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, cannot be subjected to coercive eviction while their revision applications remain pending. The judgment underscores the necessity of due process and prohibits state authorities from bypassing statutory remedies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, members of Scheduled Tribes, have resided on forest land in Banaskantha district for over 75 years and across three generations, engaging in subsistence agriculture. In 1992, the State Government issued a policy resolution recognizing families residing in forest areas prior to 1980 as eligible for regularization of land use. Pursuant to this policy, the petitioners were allotted forest land for agricultural purposes by the Deputy Forest Officer and have been paying fees for such use since then.
Key Facts
- The petitioners have continuously cultivated the land since before 1980
- The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Regulation of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ("the Act") came into force on December 31, 2006
- In compliance with the Act, the petitioners filed applications before the Deputy Collector for recognition of their forest rights
- The Deputy Collector rejected their applications without providing any opportunity of hearing
- The petitioners filed a revision application before the Collector, which remains pending
- On 18.09.2025, the Range Forest Officer issued a show-cause notice directing the petitioners to vacate the land, alleging unlawful possession
- On 29.11.2025, a second show-cause notice was issued with identical grounds
- After the second notice, the Forest Officer orally informed the petitioners that demolition proceedings had been initiated
- The Range Forest Officer issued a notice demanding removal of "illegal construction" within seven days
Procedural History
- Pre-2006: Petitioners in continuous agricultural possession of forest land
- 31.12.2006: The Act came into force
- 2023: Petitioners filed applications under Section 6(1) of the Act before the Deputy Collector
- 2024: Deputy Collector rejected applications without hearing
- 2024: Revision application filed before the Collector - pending as of 16.04.2026
- 18.09.2025: First show-cause notice issued by Range Forest Officer
- 29.11.2025: Second show-cause notice issued
- December 2025: Oral communication of demolition initiation
- 16.04.2026: Writ petition filed before Gujarat High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that they are traditional forest dwellers with established rights under the Act; that rejection of their application without hearing violates natural justice; that coercive action during pendency of revision is illegal and violates the spirit of the Act.
Respondents: Did not contest the factual claims of long-term possession but argued that the petitioners had not yet been granted formal rights under the Act and were therefore in unauthorized possession.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the show-cause notices dated 18.09.2025 and 29.11.2025
- Stay on all demolition or coercive actions pending disposal of the revision application
- Direction to the authorities to decide the revision application expeditiously
The Legal Issue
Can state authorities initiate coercive eviction proceedings against tribal claimants under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, while their revision application before the Collector remains pending and without a final determination of their rights?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. S.P. Majmudar argued that the Act mandates a two-stage process: first, filing of claims before the Gram Sabha and Sub-Divisional Level Committee, followed by appeal to the Collector. The rejection of the application without hearing violated Section 6(3) and the principles of natural justice. He cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar to emphasize that no eviction can precede final determination of rights under the Act. He further contended that oral communication of demolition, without written notice, rendered the proceedings arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
For the Respondent
Mr. Nikunj Kanara, Assistant Government Pleader, did not dispute the petitioners’ long-standing possession or the procedural irregularities. He acknowledged the pendency of the revision application and conceded that coercive action during its pendency was inappropriate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Act was enacted to recognize and vest forest rights in traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in forest areas for generations. The legislative intent, as per the Preamble and Section 3(1), is to protect such communities from arbitrary eviction. The Court emphasized that the revision application before the Collector is a statutory remedy under Section 7 of the Act, and its pendency must be respected.
"The right to livelihood and habitation of forest-dwelling communities cannot be extinguished by executive fiat while statutory remedies remain pending. The issuance of show-cause notices and initiation of demolition proceedings without a final order on the revision application is contrary to the scheme of the Act."
The Court noted that the respondents had not produced any order from the Collector rejecting the revision application, nor had they demonstrated that the petitioners’ possession was unlawful under the Act. The oral communication of demolition, without any formal notice, was held to be procedurally defective and violative of Article 14.
The Court further held that the State’s policy of 1992, which recognized pre-1980 occupants, formed a legitimate expectation that could not be disregarded without due process.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The revision application pending before the Collector shall be decided within fifteen weeks from the date of this order
- No coercive action, including demolition, eviction, or destruction of property, shall be taken against the petitioners until the revision application is decided
- The show-cause notices dated 18.09.2025 and 29.11.2025 are stayed in effect
- Direct service of this order is permitted
What This Means For Similar Cases
Coercive Action Is Prohibited During Statutory Appeals
- Practitioners must immediately challenge any eviction notice issued while a revision under the Forest Rights Act is pending
- Oral threats of demolition without written notice are legally invalid and can be challenged under Article 226
- Authorities cannot treat pending applications as nullities - the statutory process must be exhausted
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable in Forest Rights Cases
- Rejection of claims without hearing violates Section 6(3) and Article 14
- Any order rejecting forest rights must be reasoned, dated, and communicated in writing
- Failure to provide hearing renders the rejection void ab initio
Policy Recognition Can Form Legitimate Expectation
- Pre-Act state policies recognizing tribal occupancy (e.g., 1992 resolution) may be invoked to support claims under the Act
- Courts may treat such policies as binding administrative assurances unless lawfully withdrawn
- Practitioners should collect and submit historical records of state recognition as evidence
