Incorporating Stakeholder Perceptions in Participatory Forest

eldf/camb Harda-framework/final-03-05
matter if rehabilitation measures were necessary and if CF thinks that such measures are
necessary then he would make suitable recommendations to the State Govt. 96 It is
important to mention here that the M.P. Forest Village Rules, 1977 specifically provide
that no officer below the rank of Conservator of Forests (CF) is entitled to cancel patta on
violation of any terms specified on it 97 . The stand of the Apex Court on the issue as above
said has created confusion over the power of CF to cancel any patta or lease in any forest
village.
4.4 Encroachment over Reserve Forest:
Courts have especially in the recent past taken a very strong stand to deal with the
problem of encroachment over reserve forest. Again in the Godavarman Case the Court
banned all kinds of felling in any forest within the country except for as provided in the
working plan and also made clear that no non-forest activity could be carried out in any
forest without the prior approval of the Central Government. Different government
departments both at the central and the state levels have in fact interpreted the term nonforest
use and non-forest activity differently. It has been reported that this has also
resulted in unjustified eviction of dwellers from designated forest areas. The question of
regularising encroachments in forest lands in favour of tribals and conversion of forest
villages to revenue villages in the nineties have been unresolved due to the ongoing case.
In another significant ongoing case the Supreme Court has stayed the denotification of
any reserve forest, national park and game sanctuary without its permission 98 . The result
has been that the forest dwellers were restrained from making any claim on the land and
forest, which have been the source of their livelihood for years. Several groups
approached the Court seeking amendments of it’s earlier orders and in the year 2001 the
Court held that all post 1980 encroachment should be removed in a time bound matter
and the Ministry of Environment and Forest along with the Central Empowered
Committee – constituted by the Supreme Court itself should together resolve the issue of
pre 1980 encroachment. The matter is still pending before the court. Even the M.P. High
Court in its recent judgment directed the State Govt. for the removal of encroachment
within three (03) months period from the Reserved Forest (RF) area 99 . The High court
issued several other directions, which included constitution of a permanent task force to
see that forest involved in the present case are not encroached upon and in this regard the
High Court went to the extent of constituting a high powered committee comprising the
Secretary, forests, Govt. of M.P; Chief Conservator of Forest (CCF) and the concerned
Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) to oversee that all steps directed by the High Court are
complied with. This tough stand of the courts has led to ‘an anti forest department’
feeling within the community living in and around the forests.
96 Sarvan Singh v. DFO, Sagar & others1991 JLJ 306 (SC)
97 See Rule 8 of M.P. Forest Village Rules, 1977.
98 CEL WWF-India Versus Union of India {W. P. (C) 337 of 1998
99 The petition was filed by Panch of a village for removing encroachment from Reserved
Forest (RF) area and to remove persons from the cattle grazing area. Patiram Chandel v. State of M.P.
2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 424
40