Mere Cultivation Without Residence In Forest Does Not Confer Forest Dweller Status Under FRA: Supreme Court
The Court was dealing with interpretation of provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that persons who cultivate forest land while having only temporary residence in the forest, or while residing outside the forest boundary, cannot qualify as Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes or Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), on the basis of such cultivation alone. It further held, prima facie, that planned cultivation of a commercial crop such as silk cotton inside forest areas is not a right recognised under the FRA.
The Court constituted a Special Committee headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, to scrutinise orders passed on FRA claims and supervise their disposal. Finding the State primarily responsible for the delay, it granted 30 days to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas and five months thereafter to conclude adjudication.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Having regard to the requirement under Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the FRA, 2006 that a claimant must primarily reside in the forest, persons who cultivate while having only temporary residence in the forest area (Category II), as well as persons residing outside the forest boundary (Category III), cannot, on the basis of such cultivation alone, qualify as FDST or OTFD. The persons falling in Category II and Category III shall therefore be excluded from consideration under the FRA, 2006”.
“Furthermore, we also are of the prima facie view that planned or promoted cultivation of a commercial crop inside the forest areas is completely impermissible as no such right is recognised under FRA, 2006. The Act recognises the right of forest dwellers to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce in accordance with Section 3(1)(c), as discussed supra. The cultivation of a commercial crop cannot, therefore, be recognised as a forest right so as to justify occupation or continued presence within the forest area. Consequently, the claim of the State Government that the cultivation of silk cotton itself justifies the presence of the cultivators in the forest area is wholly unacceptable”, the Bench said further.
Prasanna S., AOR appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Sriram Panchu appeared for the respondent while Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar appeared as amicus curiae.
“The entire thrust of the averments contained in paragraphs 13 to 21 of the affidavit would indicate that the silk cotton cultivation was introduced in the forest areas as a planned plantation from the 1930s. However, we are of the view that the concept of planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce. From the very nature of the definition of minor forest produce under Section 2(i) it becomes clear that the same should be naturally occurring plant produce. If commercial crops are permitted and allowed to be cultivated in the forest areas, the very nature of the forest is bound to change’’, the Bench noted.
Through a judgment dated May 29, 2026, the Court had issued directions for time-bound eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration in the Agasthyamalai landscape. Applications were thereafter filed on the applicability of the FRA to persons residing in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region. On August 19, 2026, the Court directed the State to disclose details of silk cotton cultivation, pattas granted, action against 118 Government servants identified as encroachers, and the status of FRA claims.
The State’s affidavit dated September 6, 2026 classified 4,594 occupants of 5,072.64 hectares into three categories, with 3,637.83 hectares under silk cotton cultivation. The State contended that silk cotton was historically treated as minor forest produce and sought time to complete the FRA process. The Amicus Curiae opposed reopening issues concluded in the 1978 settlement proceedings and sought exclusion of non-resident cultivators.
The Bench noted that both definitions require the claimant to primarily reside in and depend on the forest. It held that minor forest produce under Section 2(i) must be naturally occurring, and that the planned plantation of a commercial crop is contrary to that concept. It noted that no notification recognising cultivated silk cotton as minor forest produce had been placed on record. It found the State’s claim that no commercial enterprise was financing the cultivation to be contradicted by its own figures showing 2,767 cultivators residing outside the forest, and referred the aspect to the CEC. It added that the sanctity of the critical tiger habitat must be given primacy.
The Court directed exclusion of Category II and III persons from FRA consideration, required monthly progress reports to the Committee, fixed the Chairperson’s honorarium at four instalments of Rs. 25 lakh each, and directed the Committee to conclude scrutiny within two months of the outer limit. The CEC was directed to opine on the status of silk cotton and respond to NHAI’s application regarding NH-744, keeping Section 3(2) of the FRA in view.
The State Law Department was impleaded, and the monitoring responsibility under paragraph 66(iii) was shifted to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department. The matter is listed on February 1, 2027.
Cause Title: A. John Kennedy & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1204)
Appearances:
Appellant: Prasanna S., AOR
Respondent: Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Sriram Panchu, Advocate Vrinda Bhandar, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar appeared as amicus curiae.