The Supreme Court has directed that persons cultivating forest land while residing temporarily inside the forest, as well as cultivators residing outside its boundary, be excluded from consideration as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers in the ongoing Megamalai forest-rights exercise.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also constituted a special committee headed by former Chief Justice of India Justice B. R. Gavai to supervise the disposal of claims and scrutinise decisions under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
The bench stressed that present occupation or cultivation alone cannot establish eligibility under the Act. It also questioned Tamil Nadu’s reliance on commercial silk cotton cultivation to justify continued occupation of forest areas, while seeking an independent opinion from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on the crop’s claimed status as minor forest produce.
The order arose in continuing proceedings concerning encroachments in the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and other reserved forests in the Agasthyamalai landscape.
By an earlier order dated May 29, 2026, the Supreme Court had directed a structured and time-bound process of eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration. The directions included preparation of a division-wise eviction plan, removal of encroachments, action against identified government servants and continuing monitoring by the CEC.
Subsequent applications raised questions about the implementation of the Forest Rights Act and whether claims of persons residing in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region required determination before eviction.
On August 19, 2026, the Court sought specific information from Tamil Nadu regarding silk cotton cultivation, pattas, action against 118 government servants identified as encroachers and the status of forest-rights claims.
Tamil Nadu submitted that historical cultivation, revenue entries and forest settlement records required examination under the statutory framework.
The State argued that earlier Madras High Court proceedings concerning particular petitioners and villages could not automatically determine the rights of everyone across the wider region, comprising 98 habitations or villages.
It emphasised the three-tier process under Section 6 of the Act, beginning with the Gram Sabha and proceeding through the Sub-Divisional Level Committee to the District Level Committee.
Counsel appearing for the State’s Social Justice Department submitted that around 40 Gram Sabhas had been constituted and approximately 1,600 claims received. The State maintained that persons potentially entitled to statutory protection should not be displaced before their claims were adjudicated.
The amicus curiae, however, cautioned that the process should not reopen concluded issues or become a means of regularising unauthorised occupation. He relied on earlier forest settlement proceedings and the Madras High Court’s findings, and sought close CEC supervision.
Examining the Act’s purpose, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, which recognised the legislation’s role in addressing historically unrecorded rights of forest communities.
The Bench explained that the statutory definitions require primary residence in forests and dependence on forests or forest land.
For other traditional forest dwellers, the Act additionally requires the prescribed connection for at least three generations before December 13, 2005, with each generation meaning 25 years.
The Court held that claims must be determined strictly through Section 6 and the applicable Rules. Present occupation alone cannot establish entitlement, and persons who fail to satisfy the statutory requirements are liable to removal in accordance with law.
The Bench also emphasised the need to protect the critical tiger habitat in the Megamalai reserve.
The State’s affidavit classified occupants into three categories: permanent forest residents engaged in cultivation; cultivators with temporary residence; and cultivators residing outside the forest boundary.
The figures discussed in the order identified 1,595 persons in Category I, 232 in Category II and 2,767 in Category III.
The Court reasoned that cultivation accompanied by temporary residence, or cultivation while living outside the forest, could not by itself satisfy the statutory requirements.
Its operative directions expressly excluded Category II and Category III from consideration as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers for the purposes of the exercise.
Permanent residence did not automatically establish entitlement either. Such claims would still require scrutiny under the Act and adjudication through the prescribed mechanism.
Tamil Nadu relied on historical working plans and material from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University’s Agritech portal to support its position that silk cotton constituted minor forest produce.
The Court found that no specific notification or other material had been placed before it demonstrating recognition of silk cotton, as a cultivated crop, as minor forest produce under the Act or another forest law.
It distinguished the traditional collection of minor forest produce, recognised under Section 3(1)(c), from planned or sponsored cultivation of a commercial crop.
Historical cultivation alone, the Bench held, could not establish a recognised forest right.
The Court expressed a prima facie view that planned or promoted commercial cultivation inside forests was impermissible and rejected the argument that silk cotton cultivation itself justified continued occupation.
Nevertheless, it directed the CEC to give its opinion on silk cotton’s claimed status as minor forest produce, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations. It also called for deeper examination of possible financing or facilitation of cultivation by persons outside the forest.
The special committee will be headed by former CJI Justice B. R. Gavai, assisted by a CEC officer and Tamil Nadu’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force.
The committee will scrutinise orders passed by the competent authorities on forest-rights claims and submit its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.
It will also supervise expeditious disposal of claims and issue necessary directions to the authorities. Tamil Nadu must furnish monthly progress reports to the committee.
The State must provide logistical and administrative assistance and designate a Joint Secretary (Administration)-rank officer as nodal officer.
The order provides for payment of the Chairperson’s honorarium in four instalments of ₹25 lakh each. Tamil Nadu must also bear the committee’s additional expenses.
The Court criticised Tamil Nadu’s delay in implementing the claims process.
Although the State relied on an earlier judicial stay, the Bench noted that the statutory process had remained uninitiated for years even after the stay was lifted in 2016.
It granted a final opportunity of 30 days from the order to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas.
Following their constitution, the process of inviting remaining claims and adjudicating them through the three-tier mechanism must conclude within five months.
The special committee must endeavour to complete its scrutiny within two months after the outer limit prescribed for that exercise.
The Court separately considered NHAI’s applications concerning NH-744, including the proposed Puliara–Edamon tunnel section.
NHAI sought permission for the statutory authorities to process its forest-diversion proposal despite the earlier restriction on new non-forestry activities and diversion proposals in the landscape.
The Bench directed the CEC to examine the applications and respond before the next hearing. The order did not grant project approval or permission to begin construction.
Allowing applications filed by the State Law Department, the Court transferred responsibility for monitoring encroachment-related litigation and furnishing status reports to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and concerned subordinate authorities.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Uncommunicated Adverse ACR Entries Can Be Considered For Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court
