Bombay High Court Sets Aside Cryptic Rejection of Forest Rights Claim, Remands for Fresh Consideration Under Forest Rights Act, 2006. District Level Committee Cannot Reject Claim Without Reasons After Lower Committees Approved It, Requiring It to Record Reasons and Not Demand Inapplicable Certificates Under Section 6.

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a claim under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, a legislation aimed at recognizing and vesting forest rights in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who had long resided in forest areas but lacked recorded rights. The petitioner, a member of the Korku Scheduled Tribe, sought recognition of his forest rights. The petitioner applied under Section 3 of the Act before the Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha initiated the process, the Forest Rights Committee verified his claim, and the Gram Sabha passed a resolution recognizing his rights. The matter was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, which approved the claim and referred it to the District Level Committee. However, the District Level Committee, without recording any reasons, rejected the claim by a cryptic order stating the petitioner was 'not eligible as per the provisions of law'. The decision was communicated on 25th July 2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The primary issue was whether the rejection was valid when the lower committees had unanimously approved the claim, and whether the District Level Committee could reject the claim without assigning reasons and contrary to the scheme of the Act and Rules. A subsidiary issue concerned the evidentiary burden and whether the petitioner was required to produce certificates like birth and death certificates of forefathers. The petitioner contended that the order was cryptic, arbitrary, and illegal because the authorities did not follow the statutory procedure. The respondents argued that the petitioner had failed to produce birth certificates and death certificates of his forefathers to establish his entitlement, as mentioned in their affidavit. The State further contended that the petitioner was not eligible. The court examined the scheme of the Act and the Rules. It noted that the Act was remedial in nature and aimed at addressing long-standing insecurity of tenure for forest dwellers. The definitions under Sections 2(c) and 2(o) were noted. The court emphasized the roles of the Gram Sabha, the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, and the District Level Committee under Section 6. It highlighted that the Gram Sabha was the primary authority to initiate determination of rights, and if a resolution was passed, it was forwarded. The Act provided for appeals only if someone aggrieved challenged the resolution; otherwise, the lower committees' decisions were to be considered. The court observed that there was no evidence that anyone had challenged the Gram Sabha's resolution or the Sub-Divisional Level Committee's approval. Thus, the District Level Committee was not acting in an appellate capacity but had to consider and finally approve claims. However, the Committee rejected the claim without any reasons and without recording that the earlier resolutions were improper. The court held that the Committee had acted as an adjudicatory authority, not in furtherance of the Act's objectives. It found the demand for birth and death certificates of forefathers to be absurd and unsupported by the law; the Act and Rules placed no such burden on tribal claimants, and instead imposed a duty on the authorities to gather evidence. The court deemed the District Level Committee's action high-handed and one that frustrated the object of the Act. It also noted that the officials attempted to justify their illegal action through a misleading affidavit. The High Court set aside the District Level Committee's decision dated 20th April 2011 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the Act and Rules. It directed the Committee to take a decision by 30th June 2017 and to pay costs of Rs.10,000 to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed with costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The High Court set aside the District Level Committee's decision dated 20th April 2011; remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Rules, 2008; directed the Committee to decide by 30th June 2017; and imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the District Level Committee.

Law Points