Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lalba Nana Bethekar, claiming to be a member of the Korku Scheduled Tribe, filed an application under Section 3 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Forest Rights Act) for recognition of forest rights. The application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Forest Rights Coordinator, Amravati, through a cryptic order stating only that the petitioner was not eligible as per law, without recording any reasons. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The respondents filed a reply stating that the petitioner had failed to produce birth and death certificates of his forefathers to establish his rights. The Court examined the record and found that the impugned order was unsustainable as it did not contain any reasons for rejection. The Court emphasized that the Forest Rights Act was enacted to recognize and vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded. The Court noted that the Act provides a framework for recording such rights and the nature of evidence required. The Court held that the authorities must pass a reasoned order after considering all relevant evidence and giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Dharni, to decide the petitioner's application afresh within three months, after considering the evidence on record and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Forest Rights Act - Recognition of Forest Rights - Section 3, Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - The petitioner, claiming to be a member of the Korku Scheduled Tribe, applied for recognition of forest rights under Section 3 of the Act. The impugned order rejecting the application was cryptic and did not record any reasons except stating that the petitioner was not eligible as per law. The Court held that the order was unsustainable and set it aside, directing the authorities to decide the application afresh after considering the evidence and giving an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 3-7) B) Forest Rights Act - Evidence - Birth and Death Certificates - Section 2(c), Section 2(o), Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to produce birth and death certificates of his forefathers. The Court noted that the Act does not require such certificates as mandatory evidence and that the authorities must consider all relevant evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for recognition of forest rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 was valid when the impugned order was cryptic and did not record reasons, and whether the authorities properly considered the evidence.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.4.2017 is set aside. The Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Dharni, is directed to decide the petitioner's application afresh within three months, after considering the evidence on record and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Forest Rights Act
- 2006
- Section 3
- Section 2(c)
- Section 2(o)
- Scheduled Tribes
- Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes
- Other Traditional Forest Dweller
- Recognition of Forest Rights
- Reasoned Order
- Natural Justice
