Right to possess forest land not limited to SC/ST, adivasis: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said the right to possess forest land can't be limited SC/ST and Adivasis as there are other people integral to forest dwelling communities than the notified ones.

"Forest communities do not only consist of people from recognised Adivasi and other backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said land. These other groups, who do not get recognition under the law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest communities and are essential to their functioning," a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The court said that there can also be several instances of people ancestrally being forest dwellers, however, due to lack of documentation, they are not able to prove it.

The bench set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgement of February 4, 2013, which had directed eviction of Hari Prakash Shukla and others from the forest land.

The court here dealt with issue of whether its previous judgement in 'Banwasi Seva Ashram Versus State of Uttar Pradesh' (1986) is only applicable to SC/ST and OBC communities.

When certain Adivasi communities inhabiting the situate land were being evicted from their homes, this court has then held that the said inhabitants had a right for their claims to be heard by the forest officer, and it was the forest officer, who had the power to go into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the inhabitants, the bench explained.

"While delivering the said judgment, the court did not go into the merits of each claim but only provided an appropriate forum for the claims to be heard...The object of such judgement, in our opinion, is to further the cause of substantive justice, and to ensure that every party with a valid claim over the notified land is heard in detail, and no arbitrary power to evict local inhabitants is given to the state," the bench said.

The court pointed out that since the appellants are not from a backward community and nor do they claim to be so, however, if the 1986 judgement is interpreted in a narrow manner only to benefit certain recognised forest communities, it would cause a great deal of harm to multiple other communities.