Bureau Prayagraj. The Allahabad High Court recently said that authorities cannot ignore the existing legal rights of forest dwellers by blindly relying on court orders issued before the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Justice Shekhar B. A bench of Justices Saraf and Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary thus quashed the order passed in 2021 by the District Level Committee of Lakhimpur.

In this order, the committee had refused to finalize the claims of 107 members of the ‘Tharu’ community on their forest rights – particularly the right to collect and utilize minor forest produce for their livelihood. In short, in its order, the Committee constituted under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, had relied on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to reject the claims of the petitioners.

The petitioners argued that the Forest Rights Act, 2006 was specifically created for the benefit of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. They argued that their rights under Section 3 of the Act include ownership, access to and use of minor forest produce traditionally gathered within or outside the village limits.

In this regard, he referred to the 2013 circular of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, in which it was clarified that the 2006 Act, which is a subsequent law, supersedes all court judgments or orders of previous date. The bench found justification in their stand and said that the purpose of the 2006 Act is to recognize and cede to these forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes their possession of the forest and forest lands, as well as to ensure their livelihood and food security.

The court emphasized that Section 4 of the Act begins with a ‘non-obstante’ clause. This means that the Central Government recognizes and assigns these rights, irrespective of anything to the contrary stated in any other law in force for the time being. In this regard, the court made it clear that with the implementation of this Act, the legislature did not create any new rights for the people living in these forests; Rather, it recognized the pre-existing rights and occupation of these people, who for various reasons were traditionally restricted to this area of ​​their living in the forest.

In this background, the court found deficiency in the impugned order. The bench said that the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act were not taken into account in this order. In this, only the interim order of the Supreme Court was considered, which was passed in 2000 i.e. before the implementation of the Act. In view of this, the impugned order was cancelled. Also, the officials were instructed to give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons.