The core of this legal battle rests on the historical injustice faced by the Tharu community, a Scheduled Tribe residing in the village of Kajaria, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. This is the story of Santari Ram Rana and Sadai, two representatives of the ancient Tharu Scheduled Tribe, who brought the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the High Court of Allahabad in 2025. Their petition is a meticulously documented protest against what they describe as the arbitrary, illegal, and mechanical denial of their fundamental rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. It is a desperate legal appeal to halt the continuous, systematic erasure of a forest community’s identity and livelihood. Notably, the said petition was filed through Advocate Rajat Srivastava and Advocate Nandini Verma and also involved local activist Rajnish Gambhir. The matter remains sub-judice in the Allahabad High Court.

The Tharu’s have deep, recognised roots in the forest lands:

• Official recognition: The Tharu community was officially recognised and notified as a Scheduled Tribe by the President of India on June 24, 1967.
• Vested rights: Their village, Kajaria, was included in the 1982 Action Plan of the Wildlife Conservation Organization, acknowledging it as a village inhabited by the Tharu community. Furthermore, the land was granted or reaffirmed as a revenue village in 1975 and 1976 through two different Government Orders. The petition argues the community has been living in these forests for more than a century.

The Legal Framework: The Forest Rights Act

The petitioners base their claim on the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). This Act was enacted to recognise and vest forest rights for forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, like the Tharu, who were subjected to “historical injustice”.

The FRA is more than a statute; it is a restorative justice measure. The petition meticulously details how the District Level Committee (DLC) vitiated the very spirit and procedure of the Act. The FRA mandates a strict, three-tier democratic process to verify and vest rights:

1. Village Level (Gram Sabha/FRC): The community, the initial authority, verified and accepted the Tharu claim in 2013.
2. Sub-Divisional Level (SDLC): This tier is tasked with resolving disputes and forwarding verified claims.
3. District Level (DLC): The final legal authority for granting the title.

The Eight-Year Ordeal: Claiming community rights

The petitioners’ journey to secure their Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights—which include collecting firewood (jalauni lakdi), phoos, and cattle grazing—began over a decade ago and was marred by years of official inaction:

• 2013: The Village Level FRC, constituted by the Gram Sabha of Kajaria, accepted the petitioners’ claims under the prescribed Form C.
• 2013-2020: The seven-year stalling: The verified claims were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) on July 31, 2013. For the next seven years, the SDLC allegedly failed to decide the claims due to “repeated objections” and “baseless and frivolous technical and procedural objections” consistently raised by the Forest Department. The petitioners assert that this was a deliberate attempt to deny their rightful claims.
• December 26, 2020: Conditional approval: Finally, the SDLC approved the claims and forwarded them to the District Level Committee (DLC) for the final decision.

The arbitrary rejection

The climax of the ordeal came with the decision of the highest administrative body:

• March 15, 2021: Impugned order: The District Level Committee (DLC), the final authority, rejected the community’s claims in an order the petition deems “illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires”. The rejection order was a stereotyped and mechanical rejection, similar to those passed for approximately 20 other Tharu villages on the same grounds.
• Violation of due process: The rejection was passed unilaterally, without granting the petitioners a mandatory opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the due process established by the FRA and its accompanying Rules.
• Flawed grounds for rejection: The DLC is accused of basing its rejection on “extraneous and irrelevant material”. For instance, it considered that the village had been granted revenue status and was receiving government welfare benefits, ignoring the fact that the FRA explicitly confers forest rights regardless of the revenue status of the village. The rejection also relies on a misinterpreted interim order of the Supreme Court (Thirumal Kapad v. Union of India), which the petitioners argue cannot override their statutory rights under the FRA.

A plea for justice and protection

The petition details the petitioners’ desperate attempts to seek justice post-rejection:

• Lack of redressal: The petitioners submitted multiple representations (e.g., on August 15, 2021, and November 25, 2021) to the DLC, SDLC, and the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC). The SLMC, whose statutory function is to monitor the recognition process, failed to act on the grievances.
• Ongoing harassment: The non-recognition of their vested rights is causing the petitioners to face “continuous harassment and threats from forest officials”. They allege they are subject to adversity and even forged FIRs when attempting to exercise their basic rights, such as collecting firewood.
• Failure of the monitoring body: The petitioners’ repeated appeals to the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC)—the statutory body created to oversee and correct the FRA implementation—were ignored. The SLMC’s failure to perform its duty is highlighted as a further example of the State’s abdication of responsibility.

The petition concludes that the non-conferment of forest rights is a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights (Article 21) and a continuation of the historical injustice that the FRA was specifically designed to remedy.

The relief sought

The petition is, therefore, a fervent appeal to the High Court to restore the sanctity of the FRA and the fundamental rights of the community. They seek:

1. Quash the impugned order: Issue a writ of Certiorari to set aside the arbitrary rejection order of the District Level Committee dated March 15, 2021.
2. Order reconsideration: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the District Level Committee to reconsider and decide the claims afresh in a time-bound and legal manner, in full accordance with the FRA.
3. Ensure oversight: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the State Level Monitoring Committee to perform its statutory monitoring functions.
4. Grant interim relief: Allow the petitioners to immediately exercise their community forest rights (for jalauni lakdi, phoos, and grazing) during the pendency of the writ petition.

This writ petition is a powerful judicial attempt to dismantle bureaucratic tyranny and ensure that the “historical injustice” recognised by Parliament is finally undone for the Tharu people of Kajaria.

Related:

MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups

Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC

Destruction of forest in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana violation of Congress party manifesto: CCG Statement

AIUFWP submits letter LoP Rahul Gandhi, calls for action as forest rights remain in limbo

Adivasi Land Rights Erosion: The effects of the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act

The post The Fight for Ancestral Forest Rights: Tharu tribe challenges seven-year administrative blockade appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since 2013, members of the Tharu Adivasi tribe of Dudhwa region, in Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh (UP) have been awaiting the approval of their community rights claims under the  Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). Procedural delays have kept them deprived of their rights for eight years! Yet they have continued their peaceful struggle.

Governments have come and gone, administrators have changed, but the resolve of the Tharu Adivasis remains unshaken. A representative and one of the leaders of the Tharu community, Sehvaniya, said the community has not lost hope. “The government is not paying any attention to the process. The district level officials are coordinating well but we have told them that they do not have the power to reject the claims. If there are any defects they can just return the claims and inform us about the same. When we spoke to the Welfare Officer, while submitting our objections to the rejection letter, he assured us that they will resolve this issue for us,” says Sehvaniya.

In their objections submitted to the Welfare officer of the district, the community has mentioned specific provisions of the FRA to demonstrate that the district committee has no power to reject their claims. Sehvaniya explains, “We told them that you have not bothered to read or look at FRA and have just plainly rejected our claims. They had pre-decided to just reject them; had we not read through the laws, we would not have known what to do. They are referring to the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 267 but the legislature has formulated FRA and we will go by the law.”

They are hopeful as they have been assured of a meeting with the District Magistrate (DM). “We will ask for a meeting with the DM soon but before that we will need to understand our rights and the law better so that we are better prepared to have a discussion. They often comment that our claims and objections and communications with them are drafted by outsiders but that is not the case, we understand the laws and the legal process and we draft by ourselves with a help in understanding our rights and laws. They tell us some defect is there in our claims so we tell them you need to assist us in understanding the law so that the process becomes easy for us,” says Sehvaniya advising caution.

When asked about what has been the overall attitude of the forest department generally, she says, “The forest department does not cooperate with us, they have stuck to their ways of filing false cases against us. We are allowed to take lakdi (firewood) but they do not let us; we tell them that it is in the law but they say they do not go by it. They also set fire in the forests sometimes which destroys the habitat for the animals. There is not one family where a member has not had a false case against them. We just want our claims to be approved so the forest department’s behavior towards us changes.”

Sehvaniya says that they do receive cooperation from the police but they are also not much aware about forest rights and the laws “so they also get stuck between us and the forest department” She also added that there are some forest officers who come on transfer and if they try to help them in any way, they get adversely affected in one way or the other.

She sounds hopeful and resilient as they are eager as a community to learn and know about their rights and follow proper legal procedure as prescribed in the FRA, to finally get their community rights.

Related:

8 years on, Tharu tribe’s struggle for land rights continues
UP: Merely 20% land rights claims approved by district committees
Forest rangers relent; release Forest Rights Committee Chairman in face of resounding dissent

The post What keeps the Tharu Adivasis going in their quest for Community Forest Rights? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With resounding the cries of ‘Jal-Jungle-Zameen’ (water-forests-land), forest dwelling communities belonging to Tharu Adivasi community residing in 20 villages in Dudhwa region of Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, filed their Objections to denial of community land claims with the district administration.

These objections come in wake of rejection of their community land rights claims which they had filed way back in 2013 and which have remained in limbo more or less, considering the amount of time that has passed.

The forest dwelling community is deeply disappointed with the way the process has been handled until now. In their objections, they have pointed out that the manner in which their claims have been rejected is not in accordance with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). They have stated that the District Level Committee that has rejected their claims does not have the authority to do so, while citing many provisions of FRA.

Community forest rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act are important for securing livelihoods of the forest communities and for strengthening local self-governance of forests and natural resources.

The claims filed by 20 villages in Dudhwa, Lakhimpur Kheri district were rejected at the District Level Committee, and hence they filed their objections to this rejection at the State Oversight Committee under the FRA.

The objections raised are as follows:

1.     The District Level Committee does not have the power to reject the claims made by the villagers.

Section 6(3) of FRA states that the Sub-Divisional Level Committee is to examine the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, and prepare the record of forest rights and forward it through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision.

Further, sub-section 5 of section 6 also reiterate that the District Level Committee is supposed to consider and finally approve the record of forest rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.

Thus, the power of the District Level Committee is to approve the record of the forest rights as prepared by the Sub-Divisional level Committee.

2.     This rejection by the District Committee indicates that either they are not fully conversant with FRA or this was done intentionally to deprive forest dwellers from their forest rights.

3.     The District Committee should have sent their recommendations over the community claims back to the Gram Sabha for reconsideration. The District Level Committee did not only reject the claims but also took many months to respond to the claims.

4.     District social welfare department and Sub-divisional level Committee have conducted a faulty probe into the claims. The letter of the District Level Committee is dated March 15, 2021 while the letter has been received by the village level Forest Rights Committees only on September 20, 2021. Even this letter was received only when the Committees wrote to Sub-divisional and District Level Committee to find out about the status of the claims.

5.     Further, the reasons mentioned for rejection of the claims are not only in contravention to FRA but are also unconstitutional. The case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 267 cited in the letter of the District level Committee is not applicable in this case, since section 4 of FRA surmounts and bestows in clear language, forest rights upon forest dwelling communities.

Section 13 of FRA also states, “Save as otherwise provided in this Act and the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. FRA stands over and above the Indian Forests Act, 1927 and hence, it is wrong to reject forest rights claims basis the 1927 Act.

6.     When SDLC passed the claims with its comments then under which section of FRA have the claims been rejected by the DLC? Under FRA, claims cannot be rejected without any basis. Also, the claims have been pending since 2013 their approval was put on hold as per Forest Department orders. No strong grounds have been provided for rejection of the claims.

7.     Under section 4(7) of FRA, it is clearly stated, “The forest rights shall be conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements, including clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, requirement of paying the ‘net present value’ and ‘compensatory afforestation’ for diversion of forest land, except those specified in this Act.”

Thus, the reference of the Godavarman case in the DLC’ rejection letter is erroneous. It is clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any forest related law, the provisions given in the Forest Rights Act will hold more prominence than anything else. This law supersedes any earlier law related to forest and the decisions given by the courts.

8.     In the case of village Surma, in spite of the order of the Allahabad High Court to displace the village in 2003, the Uttar Pradesh Law and Justice Department went against these orders and in 2011 under the Forest Rights Act they not only gave people proprietary rights on their residence and agricultural lands but also given revenue status, despite being in the core zone of tiger reserves. Due to which the above arguments made by the District Level Committee are automatically nullified.

9.     In the last paragraph of this order given by the District Level Committee, apart from the benefits of the schemes, it has been accepted that the individual claims of village Surma were accepted. It is important to note that when individual rights have been recognised under a law, then how can claims of community rights made under the same law be nullified. This double standard of eligibility and ineligibility in a single law proves that this decision taken by the district level committee regarding community claims is completely in violation of the law.

10.  That the District Level Committee has written in the letter that the people of this village neither live in the forests nor are they dependent on the forests for their livelihood. Whereas there are old records of the village being settled in the Dudhwa forest area for more than 200 years and the records are already presented before the SDLC.

11.   The DLC has passed the rejection order without making any reference to FRA. The meeting of the District Level Committee where the decision to reject the claims was made, was supposed to include three members of the tribal community or other traditional forest dwellers, as per FRA.

12.  That the FRA 2006 and the concerned 2008 Rules are a historic milestone in the lives of all Adivasis and forest dwelling communities that protect both their lives and livelihood. The enactment of this crucial legislation, through an Act of Parliament, was the result of a decade long struggle and articulation of India’s indigenous, Adivasi, other traditional forest dwelling communities and, in fact, marks a much-needed shift in jurisprudence by empowering local communities and their Gram Sabhas not only with governance but also protection of their livelihoods, forests and lands.

By not following proper procedure and rules, and by using delaying tactics, it defeats the purpose of the law that is meant to protect our interests. In fact, the enactment gives statutory life and teeth to Constitutional provisions already made for the Adivasi, Indigenous peoples and Forest Dwelling Communities under Schedules V, VI and XI of the Indian Constitution (Schedule IX deals with the North east).

13.  Such community claims cannot be rejected by an authority that does not have the power to do so. Moreover, the rejection of these claims was done in a hasty manner. It is a known fact that the relationship between forest dwelling communities/Scheduled Tribes with land is crucial and is also a source of livelihood for them. That land also gives them the social and economic security that they have been deprived of for years.

14.  Following the sudden and controversial order of the Supreme Court in February 2019 ordering “evictions” after being misled by the petitioners, both the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) took strong objection after which the Court has stayed operation of its own order.

In fact, a woman leader of the Tharu Community, Nevada Rana, along with another senior Adivasi woman leader Sokalo Gond, backed by the All India Union of Forest Working Peoples (AIUFWP) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), have intervened in the Supreme Court. In this historic intervention, we have laid down an elaborate argument on the historic purpose of the FRA 2006 and how it is a “recognition of rights” law. (Intervention Application Nos 107284/2019 Sokalo Gond and Ors) 

The letter in Hindi may be read here:

Related:

Attacks on Tharu Adivasis: NHRC issues final warning to UP forest department for inaction
Covid-19 and Adivasi Empowerment: CJP’s unique contribution
Forest Rights and Covid-19: Through the eyes of UP and Uttarakhand grassroot activists

The post 8 years on, Tharu tribe’s struggle for land rights continues appeared first on SabrangIndia.