The hope dangling over this election year for the Adivasi and tribal populations in the State is Podu land regularisation since Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao recently announced in the state legislative assembly on the issue.
Given that the promise of land regularisation has been emphasised during the previous election campaign too, this time, the process is being rushed through in an attempt to convince the people that it was not just an empty promise.
Forest field officers are under tremendous pressure to approve the claims for regularisation irrespective of their validity vis-à-vis the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (ROFR Act) which is the sole legal basis for any regularisation of forest land in any part of the country.
According to the data from the Forest department, over four lakh fresh claims to the forest lands in the name of ‘podu’ or shifting cultivation since November 2021. The extent of forest land on which the claims are to be settled exceeds 13 lakh acres, which is close to a fifth of the total forest land in the state.
The claimed extent is much higher than the existing extent of encroachments cited by Forest department sources, at about 7.3 lakh acres.
Prior to this, between 2008 and 2010, after the promulgation of the ROFR Act, the Forest department and the Tribal Welfare department, which is the nodal agency for the implementation of the Act, had settled 3,08,614 acres of forest land in favour of 96,676 claimants.
Setting aside the debate of whether or not the fresh claims would be settled in toto, the fact that the claims since the ROFR Act are for more than 20 lakh acres indicates the sheer volume of forest land already denuded and pushed into cultivation.
Clearing of forest land
Ground reports suggest that more forest is being frantically cleared even now, so the claims, much higher than the existing encroachments, stand for scrutiny. This is certainly no medal for the State, which has often been in the news for its green initiatives and never fails to boast of it.
Be that as it may, the State government appears keen on ensuring that all the claimants receive land pattas before elections to reap at the ballot. The question of why the fresh claimants have not applied in the first round of ROFR Act implementation is conveniently overlooked.
According to the Act, forest land under cultivation up to December 13, 2005, by tribals and other traditional forest dwelling communities alone may be regularised, and all occupations after the date have to be treated for what they are—illegal encroachments.
The Supreme Court of India, adjudicating on a petition by a wildlife NGO in 2019, had ordered for eviction of claimants from the forest lands across the country whose claims were rejected under the ROFR Act. It also directed the Forest Survey of India to conduct a satellite survey and place on record encroachment positions before and after evictions.
Within a fortnight after the order, responding to an appeal by the central government, the apex court issued a stay on its order and directed the States to submit whether due process had been followed in rejecting the claims. This has allowed for a scope for a flood of new claims.
Loopholes in ROFR Act
Going by its November 2021 order, the State government appears to bank on the gaping holes in the ROFR Act, which fails to mention a single, foolproof evidence for determining the right as on the cutoff date, that is, December 13, 2005.
Nine types of evidence are listed for ascertainment of forest rights, most of which are vague, with no points of reference. Only two stand out— satellite imagery and written confirmation by village elders.
“As the nodal agency, Tirbal Welfare had decided to accord primacy to the word of elders over satellite imagery,” shared an officials under the condition of anonymity. Supreme Court’s requisition in 2019 for satellite data has had no impact on the decision.
Survey proceedure
As per the procedure laid out by the government, Panchayat teams constituting village sarpanch, panchayat secretary, village revenue assistant and any forest officer, together with forest rights committees constituting 10-15 members from the habitations, are authorised to conduct field surveys to verify the claims.
They will forward the verified claims to the Sub Division Level Committees (SDLC), from where the claims will go to the District Level Committees under the respective district Collectors for final decision. As seen from the process, the role of the foresters is limited and always overwhelmed by others.
Erstwhile forester and Retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Karnataka, B.K. Singh, who in his time, trained several foresters of Telangana, calls the move by the State government “bizarre” and alleges that junior officers are being forced to endorse bogus claims.
“Clearing of tree growth and occupation of forest lands are continuing unabated with the support of political leaders. Supreme Court granting time for re-verification has opened the floodgates of destruction”B.K. SinghRetired Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Karnataka
‘Perpetually misused’
“The ROFR Act has been perpetually misused by politicians for electoral gains, especially in central Indian States like Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Telangana, Odhisa, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. Clearing of tree growth and occupation of forest lands are continuing unabated with the support of political leaders. Supreme Court granting time for re-verification has opened the floodgates of destruction. Since then, more and more claims are filed for the recognition of rights,” Mr. Singh says. He strongly asserts that the only scientific evidence for settling forest rights is the comparison of satellite imageries at different points in time.
“No district committee uses this evidence as it throws all bogus claims in the dustbin,” he says, adding that leaders must ensure that natural forests are preserved in the background of climate emergencies. People are discouraged from clearing more forests.
Another officer, also a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, on condition of anonymity, says that strict vigilance against forest encroachments in the future, as assured by the Chief Minister, would never happen because it never happened in the past.
“The first diversion of forest land for cultivation happened during Colonial times. About 50,000 acres were diverted in Telangana. Again, between 1968 and 1971, pattas were given for 2.41 lakh acres by dereserving forest lands. Encroachments happened even after the promulgation of the Forest Conservation Act in 1980, and the ROFR Act was brought in to regularise this. There is no end to this. Every time pattas were given, the forests were felled more vigorously driven by the collective hope for future regularisation,” he said.
Livelihood at stake
Leaders from the CPI-ML New Democracy, which has a strong presence among the tribals of Telangana and fights pitched battles with the State government for the Podu rights, are well informed of the facts.
“We conducted the first-ever massive demonstration for Podu rights in May 2015, when the government was about to embark on the Haritha Haram programme. During our meeting with the chief minister, we sought the distribution of pattas before the programme was initiated. It was not done, and the foresters harassed the tribals in the name of plantations. They resorted to physical violence and dug eight-foot-deep trenches around the podu lands. People retaliated with violence, attacking the forest officers. The Chief Minister had promised pattas for encroachments existing till the formation of the state, on the condition that no more forests are cleared,” said V. Sandhya, a leader from the party, and president of Progressive Organisation of Women, even while admitting that vast tracts of lands had been cleared before and later too.
It is a matter of livelihood for the tribal cultivators, who have to face armies of foresters and police swooping down on their crops every now and then, she says.
Perhaps, it is time for innovative thinking which could link livelihoods with conservation of forests rather than their eradication. Needless to say, it requires long term vision beyond ballot politics.
