Why did the court intervene in the DLC’s decision? What does the law say about eviction and grazing rights?
On April 20, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court reminded the District Level Committee (DLC) under the Forest Rights Act 2006 in Lakhimpur, Uttar Pradesh, that any previous court orders inconsistent with a later law are null and void.
Why is the order important?
The High Court struck down the DLC’s decision in March 2021, rejecting the forest rights claims of the Tharus of Palia Kalan Tehsil, a tribal community, citing a Supreme Court interim order in 2000 that barred “de-reservation of forests/sanctuaries/national parks” until further orders.
The DLC is headed by the District Collector and includes the Divisional Forest Officer, the District Tribal Welfare Officer, and three district panchayat members.
The core legal principle in lawmaking is that all provisions in earlier laws and court orders that are inconsistent with the provisions of a later law are null and void. The Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 itself also states that forest rights are recognised and vested in forest dwellers “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of this Act”. The DLC violated this provision, which is a punishable offence.
Has the DLC been punished?
While the order has thus brought relief across the country, the High Court did not invoke the mechanism the FRA provides to sanction offenders. The Gram Sabha is a statutory authority under the FRA. It has to issue 60 days’ notice to the State-Level Monitoring Committee to proceed against the authority violating the law.
However, the High Court ignored this provision and instead asked the DLC itself to reconsider its offence and make its decision anew in line with existing law and court orders.
The FRA does not provide for such allowances.
How has the FRA been superseded?
FRA disallows the eviction or removal of forest dwellers “from forest land under their occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete”. For example, in January 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court ordered the forest department that “till final adjudication of the claims, the respondents shall refrain from initiating any coercive action, including eviction of the petitioners or interference with their peaceful possession and agricultural activities on the lands under their occupation”.
However, there has been repeated disregard for and violations of the FRA. For instance, in September 2014, the Madras High Court had dismissed the plea of petitioners from Asaripallam, in Theni district, challenging eviction notices they had been issued and to consider their claims under the FRA. This was based on the forest officer’s submission that they were encroachers and weren’t eligible for rights under the FRA. The Madras High Court stated that the claim process under the FRA would only waste the authorities’ time and dismissed the case.
The same High Court has dismissed similar petitions under the FRA by petitioners from Perambalur in 2017, Tuticorin in 2020, Sivagangai in 2021, and Theni in 2022. Authorities also continue to issue eviction orders under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (TNFA) 1882, despite such orders having been overridden by the FRA.
Does the FRA allow grazing?
On March 13 this year, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a review petition of the March 2022 order, noting that “the provisions prohibiting cattle trespass into forests under Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act”, to protect wildlife and the spread of disease, were the valid legal basis for the ban.
The High Court had initially banned grazing in all forest areas of Tamil Nadu; later the same month, it restricted the ban order to tiger reserves, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries. However, it made no reference to the FRA, which recognises grazing rights in all forests, including those overlapping with tiger reserves, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries. FRA is also a central law and thus overrides a State law with regard to both prohibition and permission for grazing.
This is why the Allahabad High Court reaffirming that provisions in the later law override inconsistent provisions in previous ones, as well as in court orders, comes as a breath of fresh air.
