Agasthyamalai
Eviction Orders
Prelims:
Environment & Ecology
Mains:
GS Paper II-Government
policies and interventions, GS Paper III-Conservation, environmental
protection, biodiversity
Current
relevance:
The Forest
Department has issued eviction notices to thousands of households on the Tamil
Nadu side of the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve (ABR) over alleged
forest-land encroachments. Based on the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)
findings, the Supreme Court has directed a time-bound eviction process, while
the issue has raised concerns regarding the recognition and verification of
rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
Highlights:
1.
Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve & CEC
Findings:
i.
Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve (ABR) covers
about 3,500 sq. km across Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
ii.
It was included in UNESCO’s World Network
of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) under the Man and the Biosphere (MAB)
Programme on 2016.
iii.
It encompasses protected areas including Kalakkad-Mundanthurai
Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, Nellai Wildlife
Sanctuary, Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, Periyar Tiger Reserve and Shendurney
Wildlife Sanctuary.
iv.
In March 2025, the Supreme Court asked
the CEC to survey the Agasthyamalai landscape for non-forestry activities
violating the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972.
2.
Supreme Court Directions:
Based on the CEC's findings, the Supreme Court
directed:
i.
Preparation and implementation of a time-bound
encroachment eviction plan.
ii.
Rehabilitation
wherever applicable and legal action against wilful violators.
iii.
Ecological restoration
of areas following eviction.
iv.
Removal of structures, utilities and
logistical facilities within encroached forest areas.
v.
Additional penalties against 118 serving or
retired government employees identified as encroachers.
vi.
No diversion of forest land or commencement of
new non-forest activities within ABR until encroachments are removed.
vii.
Tamil Nadu must decide the utilisation,
retention, relocation or removal of BBTCL infrastructure and establishments
in the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in consultation with the CEC.
3.
Forest Rights Act, 2006 – Rights and Eviction
Issue:
i.
The FRA, 2006 was enacted to address
the historical injustice suffered by forest dwellers.
ii.
It recognises and vests forest rights in forest-dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who meet its
requirements.
iii.
Individual and community claims are initially verified
and approved through Gram Sabha-based processes, followed by examination
through sub-divisional and district-level mechanisms.
iv.
The Act prohibits eviction of alleged forest
encroachers until the recognition and verification procedure is completed.
v.
The FRA does not require other traditional
forest dwellers to have occupied the particular land claimed for three
generations before 2005.
vi.
It also does not impose a blanket
prohibition on commercial activities or commercial crops on all forest lands;
its definition of bona fide livelihood needs includes the sale of surplus
produce arising from recognised rights.
vii.
It raises the central question of
distinguishing actual encroachments from occupations potentially eligible for
recognition under the FRA.
4.
Conservation–Forest Rights Interface:
i.
The challenge of balancing biodiversity and
protected-area conservation with legally recognised rights and
livelihood claims of forest-dependent communities.
ii.
The Manjolai dispute is particularly
relevant. The 3,388.7-ha land leased to Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation
Ltd. (BBTCL) was incorporated into the critical tiger habitat of the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai
Tiger Reserve in 2007, notified as reserve forest in 2018,
and subjected to an eviction notice in 2023.
iii.
Estate workers subsequently sought recognition
and rehabilitation, including claims under the FRA. However, the Madras High
Court treated them as estate employees rather than forest dwellers, and
related petitions challenging the State's actions were dismissed by the High
Court and Supreme Court in 2024 and 2025.
iv.
Thus, the present controversy centres on the
interface between forest and wildlife conservation, removal of encroachments,
FRA recognition procedures, rehabilitation and the rights of forest-dependent
communities.
Source: THE HINDU- https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-hindu-hyderabad-9ww7/20260811/282359751530740?srsltid=AfmBOoq1H4epKYOH5qBem4vGDOLKoKtvU986gXIsQdlhN2cDxLDpU1Uj