Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Forest Rights Claim Under Forest Rights Act — Petitioner Failed to Establish Primitive Tribal Group Status and Continuous Occupation Since 2005.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dhananjay Tulshidas Prabhu, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the rejection of his claim for recognition of forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Forest Rights Act). The petitioner claimed to be a member of the 'Kunabi' tribe, which is a Primitive Tribal Group, and sought recognition of his rights over forest land in Uguem, Sanguem, Goa. The Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee had rejected his claim on the ground that he failed to establish continuous occupation of the forest land since 2005, as required under Section 4 of the Act. Additionally, the Gram Sabha of Village Uguem had not recommended his claim. The petitioner argued that the committees had erred in rejecting his claim and that he was entitled to forest rights as a member of a Primitive Tribal Group. The respondents, including the State of Goa and the Directorate of Tribal Welfare, opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence of his occupation and that the Gram Sabha's non-recommendation was fatal to his claim. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the rejection was justified as the petitioner did not meet the statutory requirements under the Forest Rights Act. The court noted that the Gram Sabha is the competent authority to initiate the process for recognition of forest rights under Section 6 of the Act, and since the Gram Sabha had not recommended the petitioner's claim, the committees' decision could not be faulted. The court also observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 6(5) of the Act before the State Level Monitoring Committee, but had chosen to file a writ petition. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy if he so desired.

Headnote

A) Forest Rights Act - Recognition of Forest Rights - Primitive Tribal Group - The petitioner claimed forest rights as a member of the 'Kunabi' tribe, a Primitive Tribal Group, but failed to provide evidence of continuous occupation since 2005 as required under Section 4 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The Gram Sabha had not recommended his claim, and the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee rejected it. The court held that the rejection was justified as the petitioner did not meet the statutory requirements. (Paras 1-10)

B) Forest Rights Act - Procedure - Gram Sabha Recommendation - Under Section 6 of the Forest Rights Act, the Gram Sabha is the competent authority to initiate the process for recognition of forest rights. The petitioner's claim was not recommended by the Gram Sabha, and the court found no illegality in the rejection by the committees. (Paras 5-8)

C) Forest Rights Act - Appellate Authority - Remedy - The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 6(5) of the Act before the State Level Monitoring Committee, but chose to file a writ petition. The court declined to entertain the petition on merits, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. (Para 9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a member of a Primitive Tribal Group, is entitled to recognition of forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and whether the rejection of his claim by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee was justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim was justified as he did not meet the statutory requirements under the Forest Rights Act. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 6(5) of the Act before the State Level Monitoring Committee.

Law Points

  • Forest Rights Act
  • 2006
  • Section 4
  • Section 6
  • Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act
  • Primitive Tribal Group
  • Continuous Occupation
  • Gram Sabha Recommendation
  • District Level Committee
  • Appellate Authority
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 141

Writ Petition No.219 of 2022

2023-07-13

M. S. Sonak, J.

2023:BHC-GOA:1177

Ms Gautami Kamat for the Petitioner, Mr S. Priolkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1,2,3,4,5 & 7

Dhananjay Tulshidas Prabhu

State of Goa, Directorate of Tribal Welfare, Deputy Collector Revenue (South Goa), District Level Committee under Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, Sub-Divisional Level Committee under Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, Gram Sabha of Village Uguem, Chief Conservator Forest

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of claim for recognition of forest rights under the Forest Rights Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of orders rejecting his claim and direction to recognize his forest rights.

Filing Reason

Petitioner's claim for forest rights was rejected by Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee on ground of insufficient evidence of continuous occupation since 2005 and lack of Gram Sabha recommendation.

Previous Decisions

Sub-Divisional Level Committee and District Level Committee rejected the petitioner's claim.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to recognition of forest rights under the Forest Rights Act as a member of a Primitive Tribal Group. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim by the committees was justified given the lack of Gram Sabha recommendation and insufficient evidence of continuous occupation.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he is a member of the 'Kunabi' tribe, a Primitive Tribal Group, and is entitled to forest rights; the committees erred in rejecting his claim. Respondents contended that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of continuous occupation since 2005 and the Gram Sabha did not recommend his claim, making the rejection justified.

Ratio Decidendi

Under the Forest Rights Act, recognition of forest rights requires continuous occupation since 2005 and a recommendation from the Gram Sabha. The petitioner failed to satisfy these conditions, and the committees' rejection was not illegal. The court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction as an alternative remedy of appeal exists.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard Ms Gautami Kamat, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr S. Priolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1,2,3,4,5 & 7. Ms Kamat states that even re-consideration of the matter by the District Level Committee would not serve any purpose. The petitioner claims to be a member of the 'Kunabi' tribe, which is a Primitive Tribal Group. The Gram Sabha of Village Uguem had not recommended the petitioner's claim. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 6(5) of the Act before the State Level Monitoring Committee.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a claim for recognition of forest rights under the Forest Rights Act. The Sub-Divisional Level Committee rejected the claim. The petitioner then approached the District Level Committee, which also rejected the claim. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Section 4, Section 6, Section 6(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Public Trust Dispute — Upholds Rejection of Change Report for Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements. The court held that the appellant failed to establish compliance with Section 22 of the Bombay Pu...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Industrial Dispute As Labour Court Retains Jurisdiction Under Section 33(3) Despite Disposal of Main Reference. Application for Discharge of Protected Workman Must Be Decided on Merits Even After Award of Reference;...