Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari amends Tribal Rights Act; activists not happy with the move

Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, using his powers under the fifth schedule of the Constitution of India, amended the Recognition of Forest Rights Act (2006) which regularises tribal’s encroachment on forest land and allowed an appeal against the decision of district committee at divisional level.

However, tribal rights activists are not happy with the move and they say it will only lead to delays and waste of resources of poor tribal’s.

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) alliance government in 2006 passed the law giving rights to tribal communities over their lands which were not recognised since British Raj days as it was considered to be forest land and their farming was considered to be an encroachment on forest land. The rules under the Act were framed in 2008.

However under the present dispensation, if tribal farmer’s appeal as an individual or as a community rejected by the committee at district level headed by the collector, tribal had no other legal course but to accept the ruling of the district-level committee

However, Koshyari using his powers under Schedule 5 of the Constitution issued a notification amending the act and creating a committee at a divisional level where appeals of tribal can be heard.

The tribal can appeal against the district-level committee’s decision within 90 days from the date of communication of the decision to him or her says the notification.

The notification also says this amendment was made as a large number of appeals of tribal were rejected at the district level.

A former government official working with tribal welfare department said, “Till November, 1.82 lakh farmers got around 4.50 lakh acres of land under the act and at the community level, 7,700 villages got 29 lakh acres land. Around 40,000 appeals of farmers under the law were rejected.”

Tribal rights activist and member of Gadchiroli Zilla Parishad, Lalsu Nagoti, said, “Adding one more layer of the committee is not going to solve problems of tribal. Now they will have to travel to a distant city which is a headquarter of division and spend their time and meager resources on the right which they should get at the village level.

He further said, “Instead the Governor should amend the law-making mandatory for the government machinery to accept an affidavit from village elder recognising tribal farmers’ encroachment on land before November 2005 as proof of his claim over the land.”

At present, the only proof government machinery accepts that is a document that shows the forest department has taken action against the farmer’s encroachment before 2005. The documents like notice by the forest department, receipt of fine paid, or a suit filed by the forest department in the court among others.

The latest decision to add one more appellate authority to settle the individual and community forest rights by Governor of Maharashtra has mixed reactions.

Ashok Dhawale, President of All India Kisan Sabha welcomed the decision with some suggestions with some caveats. Dhawale pointed out that adding one more appellate authority will not solve the pendency of the tribals claims. "We have been demanding that Sub- Divisional Officer with District Collector should proactively participate in the claims verification process. Which is not happening. Though the authorities have stopped outrightly rejecting tribals' claims which were big problem earlier."

Chaitram Pawar, president of Devgiri Kalyan Ashram, Dhule said, “More than individual forest right claims Community Forest Rights (CFR) should be given priority by the government. "If a village gets forest rights it protects the aim of the act and forest is saved. Tribals' livelihood options are protected too.”

Social Activist Ulka Mahajan, who is associated with tribal rights issues, said that she is hesitant to welcome the decision. "Does this mean forest department can file appeal against tribal claims which were settled earlier at district committee level? If so, then we are concerned about tribal rights. The trend is of forest diversion on government levels."

Mahajan reminded a controversial order of the SC which is now stayed. "Eviction of tribals was ordered by SC whose forest rights claims were rejected. Imagine the attitude towards tribals of the government agencies. We are not believing that the addition of one more appellate authority will solve problems or it will work in favor of tribals completely."