A significant affirmation of customary land rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, emerged from the Chhattisgarh High Court, which stayed an eviction notice against an ex-serviceman with over 50 years of uninterrupted possession of forest land. The Court directed the competent authority to adjudicate pending applications within a strict timeline, reinforcing procedural fairness and substantive rights of traditional dwellers.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ashok Upadhyay, is the son of the late Nanku Upadhyay, a former serviceman who had been in continuous possession of approximately 0.010 hectares of land situated in Village Ranpurkhurd, Revenue Forest (RF) No. 2581, Ambikapur, Surguja District, Chhattisgarh. The land lies within a forest compartment and has been occupied by the family since at least the 1970s, when the petitioner’s father constructed a dwelling house on it. After his father’s death, the petitioner has resided on the land with his 90-year-old mother, Kamla Devi, who also claims rights over the property.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s family has occupied the land continuously for approximately 50 years as of 2026
- The dwelling house on the land was constructed around 1976
- The land is classified as forest land under RF No. 2581
- The petitioner is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe but claims rights as an Other Traditional Forest Dweller under the Forest Rights Act, 2006
- On 15.05.2017, the petitioner filed an application for grant of patta during a Shivir organized by the Forest Department; receipt (Annexure P-4) was issued
- On 10.01.2023, the petitioner’s mother, Kamla Devi, filed a separate application before the Collector, Surguja, under Jan Chaupal, receiving Token No. 2020323000012 and Security No. 872
- Neither application has been decided as of the date of the petition
- On 12.03.2026, the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No. 2) issued an eviction notice (Annexure P-1) directing the petitioner and his mother to vacate the land
Procedural History
- 15.05.2017: Petitioner files application for patta during Forest Department Shivir
- 10.01.2023: Petitioner’s mother files application before Collector, Surguja, under Jan Chaupal
- 12.03.2026: Divisional Forest Officer issues eviction notice
- 01.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argues that his family’s 50-year possession qualifies him as an Other Traditional Forest Dweller under Section 2(o) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. He asserts that the pending applications before the Collector and DFO must be adjudicated before any eviction, and that the eviction notice violates due process and the spirit of the Act.
Respondents: Did not contest the factual claims of possession but argued that any fresh application would be processed in accordance with law.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the eviction notice dated 12.03.2026
- Direction to the DFO and Collector to decide pending applications within a stipulated time
- Stay on coercive action pending final adjudication
- Permission to file a fresh application before the Collector
The Legal Issue
Whether the prolonged, uninterrupted possession of forest land for over 50 years by a non-Scheduled Tribe member qualifies for recognition under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and whether an eviction notice issued prior to adjudication of a pending claim violates procedural fairness and statutory obligations.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on the object and intent of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, particularly Section 2(o), which defines "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" as persons who have resided in forest land for three generations (75 years) prior to 13.12.2005. He argued that while the petitioner’s family has not met the 75-year threshold, the Act’s spirit of recognizing long-standing customary rights, coupled with the absence of any adverse possession claim by the State, entitles the petitioner to a fair hearing. He cited State of Chhattisgarh v. Ram Singh (2021) to emphasize that forest rights claims cannot be dismissed on technical grounds when possession is longstanding and unchallenged.
For the Respondent
The State did not dispute the factual timeline of possession. The Government Advocate conceded that if a fresh application is filed, it would be processed under the Act. However, no formal opposition was made to the petitioner’s request for interim protection or adjudication timeline.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s claim of continuous possession since the 1970s, noting that the family had not been dispossessed or challenged for five decades. It observed that the applications filed in 2017 and 2023 remain pending without any explanation from the authorities, raising concerns about administrative inaction.
"The petitioner and his mother have been in possession of the land for nearly half a century. The State has not produced any record of prior alienation or lawful dispossession. To issue an eviction notice without adjudicating the pending claims is to bypass the very statutory mechanism designed to protect traditional dwellers."
The Court emphasized that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, is a remedial statute meant to correct historical injustices. While the petitioner may not yet have established eligibility under Section 2(o), the Act mandates that claims be heard and decided on merit. The Court held that the issuance of an eviction notice while applications are pending constitutes a violation of natural justice and the procedural safeguards under Section 6 of the Act.
The Court further noted that the Collector, as the designated authority under Section 6(1), bears the statutory duty to receive, verify, and decide claims. Delay in adjudication cannot be used as a pretext for coercive action.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with directions: the petitioner must file a fresh application for Forest Rights Certificate before the Collector, Surguja, within one month from the date of the order. Upon filing, the Collector must decide the application - including the two pending ones - within 60 days. No coercive action, including eviction, shall be taken against the petitioner during this period. If the petitioner fails to file within one month, the interim protection shall lapse. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Possession Over 50 Years Triggers Procedural Duty
- Practitioners must now argue that even if the 75-year threshold under Section 2(o) is not met, prolonged, unchallenged possession (50+ years) triggers the State’s duty to adjudicate under Section 6
- Eviction notices issued before final decision on pending claims are prima facie illegal
Administrative Inaction Cannot Justify Coercion
- Forest Departments cannot delay decisions indefinitely and then resort to eviction
- Courts will intervene where statutory authorities fail to act on pending applications, even if eligibility is not yet proven
Fresh Applications Must Be Treated as Continuation
-
Pending applications filed under informal mechanisms (e.g., Shivirs, Jan Chaupals) must be treated as valid claims
-
Petitioners may file fresh applications without losing the benefit of prior submissions
-
Always document all applications, receipts, and acknowledgments
-
File writ petitions promptly if applications remain pending beyond six months
-
Seek interim protection against eviction before any coercive action is taken
