Telangana High Court Issues Notice On Chenchu Tribe Member's Plea Challenging Provisions Of Forest Act, Seeking Stay On Eviction

A plea has been moved before the High Court of Telangana challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Telangana Forests Act, 1967.

The petitioner, a member of the Chenchu community recognized as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, seeks to declare specific sections of the Act as unconstitutional, illegal, void, and repugnant to the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (ROFR Act).

The petition was placed before the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao, who ordered notice in the matter.

The petition contests Sections 20(1)(c) (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x), Section 20(1)(d), and Section 20(3) of the Telangana Forests Act, 1967. These provisions relate to restrictions on activities in reserved forests and penalties for violations. The petitioner argues that these sections conflict with the rights granted under the ROFR Act, which recognizes the forest rights of tribal communities.

The Chenchu community has historically inhabited the Amrabad Tiger Reserve area in Nagarkurnool District, Telangana. In accordance with the ROFR Act, the petitioner and other community members initiated the process of claiming individual and community forest rights by forming Forest Rights Committees in their villages. The petitioner filed an individual claim on November 11, 2021, which was recorded in the village claim register.

However, without verifying this claim or following the procedure under the ROFR Act, forest authorities issued an undated eviction notice to the petitioner under the Telangana Forests Act, 1967. The petitioner contends that this notice contravenes Section 4(5) of the ROFR Act, which prohibits the eviction of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes until the recognition and verification procedure is complete.

The petition invokes Article 254 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the central legislation (ROFR Act) should prevail over the state legislation (Telangana Forests Act) in case of repugnancy. The petitioner seeks to set aside the eviction notice and requests the court to direct authorities to consider their representation and individual claim for forest rights.

“Am advised to submit that as per Section 3(1) of the ROFR Act, 2006, inter alia, (a) right to hold and live in forest land for habitation or self-cultivation for livelihood, (b) right to collect, use and dispose minor forest produce, (c) right to use fish, products of water bodies, grazing, are individual forest rights of the "forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes" on all "forest lands" which includes "Reserved forests," the plea states,

WP 20792 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: Baglekar Akash Kumar

Counsel for respondents: E. Poornachander Rao (GP for Forests) Muralidhar Reddy Katram (GP for Revenue)

Click Here To Read/Download Order