वन अधिकार कानून की अवहेलना व वन भूमि से वेदखली के आदेश

वन अधिकार कानून की अवहेलना व वन भूमि से वेदखली के आदेश

दिनांक:23-5-2016

हिमाचल के किसानों जो वन अधिकार कानून के अंतर्गत वन निवासियों की श्रेणी में आते हैं के द्वारा किए गए वन भूमि पर दाखल के मसले में हिमाचल उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने पिछले फैसले को दोहराते हुए 27 फरबरी 2016 को आदेश किए कि 10 बीघा से नीचे के कब्जा धारकों की बेदखली की कार्यवाही भी की जाए और आठ सप्ताह के अंदर उन पर एफ़आईआर दर्ज की जाए। इसी न्यायलय ने 6 अप्रैल2015 को भी पर्यावरण की आड़ में दस बीघा से ऊपर के कब्जाधारकों के संदर्भ में लिया था। जिस फैसले में में वनाधिकार कानून-2006 व उस पर माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों की खुली अवहेलना हुई है, साथ में जीने के संवैधानिक अधिकार की भी अनदेखी की गई है।

यह फ़ैसला इस लिए भी अजीवोगरीब है क्योंकि इस में कोर्ट के इस आदेश के विरुद्ध किसी तरह के विरोध पर तानाशाही तरीके का प्रतिबंध लगा दिया। आदेश में कहा गया की जो भी संगठन,अधिकारी या व्यक्ति जिस में राजनीतिक दल भी शामिल हैं, इस फैसले के लागू करने में अवरोध खड़ा करेगे,उन के विरुद्ध न्यायालय की अवमानना की कार्यवाही की जाए गई। धमकी देते हुए यह भी कहा गया कि राजनीतिक दलों को अपने सदस्यों को न्यायिक प्रक्रिया में अवरोध डालने से रोकना होगा,अगर वे इन आदेशों का सन्मान नहीं करेंगे,ऐसे में यह न्यायालय उन की मान्यता रद करने के लिए पर चुनाव आयोग को निर्देश करने से नहीं हिच्चकेगा।

यह फ़ैसला पर्यावरण संरक्षण की आड़ में लिया गया है जिस का बेतुका हवाला 6 अप्रेल 2015के आदेशों में इसी न्यायालय ने दिया था। परंतु जब हिमाचल में बन रही जलविद्युत परियोजनाओं,ट्रान्समिशन लाइन,सीमेंट प्लांट, बड़े निर्माण संरचनाओं,सड़कें,फॉर लैन सड़कों तथा बड़े उद्योगों से हो रहे जंगल के विनाश व पर्यावरणीय नुकसान की बात करें तो ये उस पर क्यों खामोश हैं ?इन सभी परियोजनाओं ने सरकारी,वन व शामलात भूमि पर नाजायज कब्जा किए,गैरकानूनी तरीके से अनुछेद -5 के क्षेत्रों में सरकारी व आदिवासियों की भूमि हथियाई –उस पर कोर्ट द्वारा क्या आदेश दिये गए?

हिमाचल की 91% जनता गाँव में रह रही है जो ज़्यादातर परंपरागत वन निवासी की श्रेणी में आती है। वन अधिकार कानून 2006 के अंतर्गत इन्हें वन भूमि के उपभोग के व्यक्तिगत और सामुदायिक अधिकार प्राप्त हैं।

ऐसे में ज़्यादातर हिमाचली किसान,चाहे वह आदिवासी हो या गैर आदिवासी,उसे वन अधिकार कानून का संरक्षण प्राप्त है और बिना वन अधिकारों की मान्यता व सत्यापन के उच्च न्यायालय के वेदखली के उक्त आदेश न्यायसंगत व संविधान संगत नहीं लगते।

हिमाचल में भौगोलिक कारणों से कृषि योग्य समतल भूमि बहुत कम है। आवादी का दबाव भी बढ़ा है। कृषि व वागबानी को छोड़ कर प्रदेश में सरकारी नौकरी के अलावा रोजगार का दूसरा कोई बड़ा साधन नहीं है। ऐसे में अनुमान लगाया जा सकता है कि पूरे प्रदेश में खेती व रिहायश के लिए वन भूमि पर दाखल के तीन लाख से भी ऊपर के मामले होंगे। कमोवेश हर किसान परिवार थोड़ा बहुत वन भूमि पर कब्जा होगा ही। क्योंकि यह हिमाचल में परंपरा से होता है कि खेत के साथ लगती वन भूमि पर खेती व आवास बनाया जाता है, जिस का किसानों को बाजिब –उल –अर्ज अधिकार देता है। सच यह भी है कि शहरी तथा औद्योगिक क्षेत्रों में उद्यगों, दुकानों, घरों व व्यापारिक प्रतिष्ठानों के लिए बड़े पैमाने पर नाजायज कब्जे किए गए हैं जिन पर न्यायालय खामोश है। न्यायालय किसानों को ही निशाना बना रहा है और उन में भी छोटे किसानों के ही सेव के वागीचे कटे गए, बिजली तथा पानी रोक कर अमानवीय कार्यवाही की गई।

हिमाचली किसान के पास बहुत कम कृषि भूमि उपलब्ध होने के कारण सन 1968 में प्रदेश सरकार ने दलित, मुजारों व भूमि हीनों को अतिरिक्त कृषि भूमि (कम से कम सबों को 5बीघा) देने के लिए नई तोड़ का नियम बनाया। 7वें व 8वें दशक में लाखों बीघा वन भूमि कृषि के लिए इस के तहत किसानों को आबंटित की गई। वन संरक्षण अधिनियम 1980 के आने के बाद यह कार्य रुक गया। हजारों नईतोड़ के आवेदनों पर आज भी पट्टे जारी नहीं हो सके हैं, जबकि किसान उन जोतों पर पिछले तीन-चार दशकों से खेती कर रहे हैं। साल 2002 जुलाई में सरकार ने फ़ैसला किया कि सभी नाजायज कब्जे बहाल कर दिया जाएंगे। इस के लिए एक आवेदन फार्म दिया गया, जिसकी सरकार ने किसानों से 50 रुपया कीमत भी बसूली। लगभग एक लाख पचास हजार उक्त आवेदन फार्म, नक्शा तथा एफ़िडेविट सहित तहसीलों में जमा किए गए। जिस पर बाद में कोई कार्यवाही नहीं हुई और ऐसे में आज वे सभी आवेदन भी नाजायज कब्जा की परिधि में आ जाते हैं। ऐसे में प्रदेश के किसानों द्वारा वन भूमि पर हस्तक्षेप परिवार पोषण के लिए खेती व रिहायशी घर के निर्माण लिए किया गया है। ज्यादातर हस्तक्षेप 2005 से पहले का ही है। वनाधिकार कानून 2006 की धारा 4(5) प्रतिबंधित करती है कि आदिवासी तथा अन्य परंपरागत वननिवासियों को वन भूमि पर कब्जे से तब तक नहीं हटाया जा सकता, जब तक इस कानून के तहत उन के परंपरागत वन अधिकारों की मान्यता व सत्यापन की प्रक्रिया पूरी नहीं हो जाती । वनाधिकार कानून 2006 की धारा -2 व 3(1) आदिवासियों और अन्य परंपरागत वन निवासियों को अधिकार देती है कि चाहे वे वन के अंदर या बाहर रहते हों परंतु अपनी आजीविका की मूल जरूरतों के लिए वन व वन भूमि पर निर्भर हों, ऐसे में वे वन भूमि पर स्वयं की खेती तथा आवास करने का अधिकार रखते हैं। परंतु यह दख़ल/कब्जा 13 दिसम्बर 2005 से पहले का होना चाहिए।

WP (CIVIL) NO. 180 OF 2011, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Versus Ministry of Environment& Forest & Others के मामले में उच्चतम न्यायालय ने 18-3-2013 के फैसले में आदेश दिया कि आदिवासी तथा अन्य परंपरागत वन निवासी को वन भूमि पर कब्जे से तब तक नहीं हटाया जा सकता, जब तक इस कानून के तहत वन अधिकारों की मान्यता व सत्यापन की प्रक्रिया पूरी नहीं हो जाती। वनाधिकार कानून 2006विशेष केंद्रीय अधिनियम है। ऐसे में उक्त कानून वन अधिनियमों व राज्य के क़ानूनों जैसे H.P. Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 व Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, Section 163 के प्रावधानों के तहत होने वाली कब्जा हटाने की प्रक्रिया पर रोक लगाता है। ऐसे में उक्त कोर्ट आदेश को वैधानिक नहीं माना जा सकता और न ही वाध्यकारी।

उच्च न्यायालय में इस मसले पर तीन केस Cr.MP(M) No.1299, CW PIL No.17 of 2014 औरCWD No. 3141 of 2015 चल रहे हैं। अभी उच्च न्यायालय ने इस तीनों मुकदमों की एक साथ सुनवाई शुरू की है और अगली पेश 30 मार्च को राखी गई है।

गुमान सिंह

संयोजक हिमालया नीति अभियान

गाँव खुंदन डाक बंजार जिला कुल्लू हिमाचल प्रदेश

ईमेल :gumanhna@gmail.com, फोन:9418277220

Provisions of FRA and legal clarification of Possession over forest land in Himachal Pradesh by the Tribal’s and OTFD’s

HimachalHigh court in its order on dated 27 -2-2016 has further ordered that eviction proceedings against encroachers of forest land havening less than 10 bhga encroached area by also removed and FRI shall be filled against them within six week. The same order was passed by court last year on April 6, 2015. This order is violating the constitutional protection provided under the Forest Rights Act 2006 where injunction provision is laid down. Judgment of SUPREME COURT WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 180 OF 2011 dated April 18, 2013 in a case Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Versus Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others also ratify the injunction against Eviction or remove of occupation by forest dwellers and confirm the provision of FRA Section 4(5) “Save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is completed.”

This order is also of dictatorial and imposes restriction to oppose and even comments against the same. Every individual, organisation and even Political parties has been barred and has posed legal action if oppose the order. Political parties has been threatened even to order election commission to seize their recognition.

Farmers of the state of Himachal against who this order is mainly focused is a traditional forest dwellers and enjoy the protection of FRS. So we are explaining the legal provision thereon on the issue as below.

Main Provisions of Forest Rights Act 2006

There are three categories of rights provided to Forest dwellers under this act.

1 Individual rights - Section -3(1)

(a) right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self- cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers;

2 Community Rights

Section -3(1)

(b) community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those

used in erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regime;

(c) right of ownership access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce

which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries;

(d) other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products

of water bodies, grazing (both settled or transhumant) and traditional seasonal resource

access of nomadic or pastoralist communities; etc. (k) right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity; 3 Right to Conserve or Manage Section -3(1)

(i) right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use; Forest diversion for Development Projects

Section -3(2)- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the. Central Government shall provide for diversion of forest land for the following facilities managed by the government which involve felling of trees not exceeding seventy-five trees per hectare, namely:— (a) schools; (b) dispensary or hospital; (c) anganwadis; (d) fair price shops: (e) electric and telecommunication lines; (f) tanks and other minor water bodies; (g) drinking water supply and water pipelines; (h) water or rain water harvesting structures; (i) minor irrigation canals; (j) non-conventional source of energy; (k) skill up gradation or vocational training centers; (l) roads; and (m)community-centers. Provided such diversion of forest land shall be allowed only if,— (i) the forest land to be diverted for the purposes mentioned in this subsection is less than one hectare in each case; and (ii) the clearance of such developmental projects shall be subject to the condition that the same is recommended by the Gram Sabha.

Definition of forest Dwellers

FRA -Section 2(c) "forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes" means the members or community of the Scheduled Tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forests or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities;

FRA-Section2(o) "other traditional forest dweller" means any member or community who has

for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided

in and who depend on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, "generation" means a period

comprising of twenty five years; MOTA clarification of Dated June 8, 2008 3- fof/k ,oa U;k; ea=ky; ds lkFk ijke’kZ esa bl fo"k; dh ijh{kk dh x;h vkSj ;g Li’Vhdj.k fd;k x;k fd ^ewyr%* ’kCn ds iz;ksx dk fufgrkFkZ oSls vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa vkSj vU; ijaijkxr ou fuokfl;ksa dks ’kkfey djuk gS tks oSls bykdksa esa ¼ouksa esa ;k ou Hkwfe;ksa ij½ jgrs gksa ;k vkthfodk ds fy, [kqn [ksrh djus ds fy, ftuds Hkw[kaM gksa vkSj blfy, os ewyr% vLFkk;h dke pykÅ <kapksa esa jgrs gq, ;k Hkw[kaMksa ij dke djrs gq, vf/kdrj le; fcrkrs gksa] pkgsa muds fuokl x`g ou ds ckgj gksa ;k ou Hkwfe ijA blfy, ,slh tutkfr;k¡ vkSj vU; ijaijkxr ou fuoklh] tks t:jh ugha fd ouksa ds vanj jgrs gksa fdUrq viuh vkthfodk dh okLrfod t:jrksa ds fy, ou ij vkfJr gSaA vuqlwfpr tutkfr;k¡ vkSj vU; ijaijkxr ou fuoklh ¼ou vf/kdkjksa dh ekU;rk½ vf/kfu;e 2006 dh /kkjk 2 ¼x½ vkSj 2 ¼.k½ esa nh x;h ^ou fuoklh vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ka* vkSj ^vU; ijaijkxr ou fuoklh* dh ifjHkk"kk ds nk;js esa vk;saxsA

Farming communities or farmers in Himachal Pradesh inhabit in tribal or non-scheduled regions of the state but these communities come under the definition of Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) as defined in the Act. These communities are residing here for more than three generations and are their interdependence on forest land for their livelihood needs is well established. More than 93% population reside in rural area and practice farming, out of which more than 80% of them are marginal farmers, having less than one Acre of landholding.

Reasons of Occupation over forest Land

Himachal Pradesh; being a mountain state is having less than 10% of its geographical area under cultivation and individual ownership of farmers, because of its geo-physical realities. Whereas more than 65% geographical area comes under the definition of forest land controlled and managed by forest department. Huge amount of the traditional farm land in the valleys has been acquired for Bhakhra, Pong and many other Dams and hydroelectric projects, cement plants and Industries, urbanization, roads and other developmental projects with the passage of time.

Himachal is a hilly state; hence productivity of farm land is low as compared to plains because of sloppy terrain, arid nature and other physical characteristics.

Reasons for small land holding in the state are:

1. Constrained in terms of less availability of suitable and flat landscape for cultivation because of geographical reasons and majority of the geographical area being under forest land.

2. Fragmentation of holding has taken place with passage of time and growth of population. Now many of the families in the state have no farm land left with them.

3. Complete Land reform has taken place in the state and large land holdings have been abolished since long.

Looking in to the above facts state government after independence, time and again has encouraged farmers to increase their farm land. Farmers made terraced agricultural fields on hilly slope with much hardship.

· There is a traditional practice in the state to cultivate forest and government land, contiguous to the farm land, for which right has been mentioned in Bajib- Ul-Arj of revenue records, which usually get regularized during revenue settlement. This provision is still applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

· Further, Nautod rules-1968 provides an opportunity of distribution of land to small and marginalized farmers in the state (up to 20 Bighas) which has been stalled after the enactment of Forest Conservation Act 1980. Thousands of cases of Nautod are still pending, particularly in tribal region of Kinnaur, displaced areas of Bhakhra, Pong Dam and other parts of the state. Farmers are in actual possession on such land and are practicing farming since last three to four decades which needs to be settled now under the provision of FRA.

· People displaced from Bhakhra Dam, Pong Dam and many other projects have not been still properly resettled even after 60 years of losing their CFR, agriculture and forest land. State government promised them to provide land in Himachal and verbally asked them to settle over contiguous and nearby forestland. For the same, state framed special rules in 1971 for allotment of land under Nautod provisions for Bhakhra Dam oustees. Very few oustees got patta under these rules whereas thousands of displaced families are cultivating and residing over forest land since last five decades awaiting pattas. This hope has now turned into a curse: Now these oustees have been issued notices of eviction.

· HP Government took decision in the year 2002 to regularize all encroachments and framed rules named as HP Regularisation of Encroachments (in certain cases) on Government Land and Disposal of Encroached Public Property Rules, 2002. Affidavits were invited for declaring encroachment for the purpose of regularisation under mentioned rules. More than 1.65 lakh farmers applied for the regularization of encroachments under these rules and submitted affidavits of declaration of encroachment to Tehsil office. These under oath application of possession could not get processed due to legal hindrances. But applicant farmers are in actual possession and cultivating mentioned forest and government land since 2002-2003. Now all these applicant farmers have been termed as ‘encroachers’.

Category and predictable Number of Possessions

I. On the bases of above facts, it seems roughly that more than 3.5 lakhs encroachment on forest and government land by farmer/forest dwellers prior to 13-12-2005 are prevailing in Himachal Pradesh (such as 1.65 lakh affidavits of encroachments declared under 2002 government orders, Pending Nautod cases, Bhakhada and Pong Dam oustees’possession and other). This possession by the farmers is for their livelihood and basic human need of housing and self reliance. 99% of these farmers comes under the definition of Forest dwellers and are traditional residents even before three generations.

II. Second type of encroachment over forest land is being done by Institutions, Government departments, Dams and Hydro- Projects and other public and private sector commercial projects and industries.

III. Land has been encroached on road side and in urban areas by individuals for shops and other commercial activities; whereas some of them may have encroached for residences.

Injunction against the removal or eviction

Eviction Proceedings against Forest dwellers of above mentioned category-1 cannot be carried on. See the Injunction provisions:

Eviction or remove of occupation

FRA-2006, Section 4(5) “Save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is completed.”

Judgment of SUPREME COURT WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 180 OF 2011 dated April 18, 2013 in a case Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Versus Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others

Para-49

v) Protection against Eviction, Diversion of Forest Lands and Forced Relocation:

(a) Section 4(5) of the Act is very specific and provides that no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers shall be evicted or removed from the forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. This clause is of an absolute nature and excludes all possibilities of eviction of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers without settlement of their forest rights as this Section opens with the words “Save as otherwise provided”. The rationale behind this protective clause against eviction is to ensure that in no case a forest dweller should be evicted without recognition of his rights as the same entitles him to a due compensation in case of eventuality of displacement in cases, where even after recognition of rights, a forest area is to be declared as inviolate for wildlife conservation or diverted for any other purpose. In any case, Section 4(1) has the effect of recognizing and vesting forest rights in eligible forest dwellers. Therefore, no eviction should take place till the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights under the Act is complete.

Date of occupation

FRA-2006, Section 4(3) The recognition and vesting of forest rights under this Act to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to other traditional forest dwellers in relation to any State or Union territory in respect of forest land and their habitat shall be subject to the condition that such Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or other traditional forest dwellers had occupied forest land before the 13th day of December, 2005.

Infact the status report filed by the state government in HP High Court in the case of Cr.MP (M) No.1299 of 2008 is merely targeting Category I i.e. farming communities (farmers) and not mentioning the other two categories i.e. II & III as described above. Category II and III has encroached large areas of forest and government land as compare to the category-I. This bias has put the farmers in a strange position from being cultivators to now, encroachers.

Looking in to the above mentioned facts, court or state government cannot evict encroachments till the verification and recognition of rights under the Forest Rights Act-2006. Ministry of tribal Affairs has also submitted its affidavit to the HP high Court on 20-11-2015 in the matter of CWP No.3141 of 2015 on the same issue under Para No. 49, 50 and51 mentioning clear cut injunction against the removal or eviction of forest dwellers until the entire process of recognition and verification of forest rights is complete.

Himalay Niti Abhiyan

Village Khundan, PO Banjar, Kullu, HP.

Email:gumanhna@gmail.com,Ph.9418277220