A Claim on Paper, a Field on the Ground
A gram sabha in a Scheduled Area village of southern Rajasthan forwards 23 individual claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. One claim is for 4.2 ha that a family says it has cultivated since 2001 - before the 13 December 2005 cut-off - but the divisional working plan shows the same plot as "forest", and there is a 1998 teak plantation record with a survival certificate of 62%. A neighbouring claimant disputes 0.8 ha of the same plot. The gram sabha has also filed a community forest resource claim over 350 ha of adjoining forest from which residents collect bamboo, mahua and tendu. The Sub-Divisional Level Committee meets in 15 days and the Range Officer asks you to "settle it before it becomes a problem".
1. What exactly is your role here? Can you reject the claim? Describe the decision chain.
Read the worked answer
You cannot reject or settle the claim, and you should say so in writing, because the request itself misstates the law.
The chain under the Forest Rights Act is: gram sabha initiates and decides on the claim and its evidence; the Sub-Divisional Level Committee examines and decides; the District Level Committee is the final authority; the State Level Monitoring Committee oversees. The forest officer's role is to assist the gram sabha with records, map the claimed plot, report field facts honestly and ensure that no eviction occurs while a claim is pending. An officer who is a witness to the facts cannot also be the judge of them.
One substantive point to flag to the SDLC: individual forest rights are capped at 4 ha per family, so the claim of 4.2 ha can at most be recognised to the extent of 4 ha. Also note that recognition of rights is heritable but not transferable. Present this as an observation, not as a decision.
2. Which evidence do you collect, and how do you weigh the 1998 plantation record against the family's cultivation claim?
Read the worked answer
Collect: the village map and khasra records; land revenue and crop-compensation receipts; the gram sabha resolution and depositions; panchayat and voter records; historical satellite imagery of the plot; the working plan extract and the plantation journal with its survival certificate; measurements taken jointly with both claimants and signed on the spot.
Weighing is the key. A 1998 plantation record is evidence that the land was treated as forest and was planted - it is not proof that the family was not cultivating in 2005. The test in the Act is cultivation on 13 December 2005, so the strongest evidence is material close to that date: crop records, revenue entries, the state of the plantation in 2005, and the depositions of neighbours. A survival certificate of 62% at the time of planting does not tell you the survival in 2005, and plantations often fail.
On the disputed 0.8 ha, do not apportion it yourself; record both boundaries, both claims and the joint measurement, and send the conflict to the SDLC.
3. If a claim is rejected, what recourse exists, and how does the community forest resource claim differ in nature?
Read the worked answer
Rejection must be a reasoned, written order of the SDLC, communicated to the claimant - not a verbal message from a guard. The claimant may seek review by the District Level Committee, and thereafter approach the State Level Monitoring Committee and, ultimately, the courts through judicial review; the Ministry of Tribal Affairs guidelines on the Act set out this route. Note also that the Act bars eviction until the process is exhausted, so no eviction should follow a rejection before it is communicated and the appeal period ends.
The community forest resource claim is different in kind, not merely in size. It is a community right, vested in the gram sabha, over the forest the village traditionally uses and protects - bamboo, mahua, tendu, fodder - with no 4 ha ceiling and no 2005 cut-off, since it protects ongoing customary use. The gram sabha prepares a management plan; the Forest Department keeps its silvicultural role but must work with that plan. Treating the two claims as the same thing is a common administrative error.