Gujarat
,
Khedasan
,
Sabarkantha
Published :
Aug 2024
|
Updated :
Villagers in Gujarat allege wrongful rejection of FRA claims through satellite imagery evidence
Reported by
Sukriti Vats
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
30
People affected
2024
Year started
53
Land area affected
Households affected
30
People Affected
2024
Year started
53
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Forest Administration (Other than Protected Areas)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Forest Administration (Other than Protected Areas)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

In January 2024, residents of Khedasan village in the Sabarkantha district of Gujarat began receiving notices from the District Level Committee (DLC), which is one of the bodies constituted to decide on Forest Rights claims. These notices informed the villagers that their claims had been rejected as no possession was found as per the GEER Foundation report. GEER Foundation, an autonomous body for ecological research set up by the state forest department, was tasked with carrying out the satellite imagery of the land claimed under FRA in Gujarat.

The villagers had first filed claims in 2008. Of the 78 FRA claims initially filed, only 4 had been approved. However, the Gujarat High Court found that the exercise was “undemocratic” as only the satellite imageries were used for verification, ignoring all other records, and ordered a re-verification of the rejected claims.

This year about 30 claimants from the village got re-rejected despite having other evidence like elders' testimonies and site inspection at the Gram Sabha level that verified the occupation of their lands. As per Rules 12A and 13 of the FRA Act, satellite imagery cannot be used as primary evidence. Additionally, the 2013 Gujarat High Court judgment said that the satellite imagery was supposed to be used only as supplementary evidence to approve FRA claims and not as an instrument to reject them.

The villagers alleged that they were not called by the DLC or given some time to produce the kind of evidence they wanted if they believed there was a lack of sufficient proof. The DLC meeting to settle the FRA claims of the Sabarkantha district was held in December last year and it involved several villages. However, villagers from the Khedasan were the only ones who faced mass rejection and received instant notices.

This was also followed by a notice from the forest department that ordered the villagers to clear encroachment from the forest land measuring 344,85,270 hectares. It claimed that it was a "reserved forest" under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, making its occupation illegal. It referenced the rejection of their claims through the satellite imagery verification report by the GEER Foundation and gave them an ultimatum that if they did not stop unauthorised activities in the forest within 10 days, legal action would be taken against them.

The forest department officials had harassed the villagers even before their FRA claims were assessed. A trail of communication between them and the DLC revealed through an RTI found that the DLC asked the forest department twice in 2023 to not remove the villagers from their land until their FRA claims are settled. The villagers also alleged that the forest department officials used to beat them up and forcefully carry out plantations on their land.

The social activist Kishor Choudhary, who helped train the villagers of the district in mapping the claimed land through GPS that goes for verification to the GEER Foundation, said that there was a lack of transparency. He said that the GEER Foundation should be sharing their report with the villagers so they could ascertain whether it was correct or not.

The ARCH organisation in Gujarat has also been helping the claimants in the state to create their own GPS/Satellite maps wanted those maps to be given equal consideration as the GEER Foundation report so the process is not centralised.

Meanwhile, the villagers approached the Gujarat High Court against the FRA rejection. They had also petitioned the district authorities, which assured them that they would hear their grievances. Forest officials, on the other hand, have not budged and still claimed that the villagers have no rights over the land.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Forest Department, Tribal Department, GEER Foundation

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Yes

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Sukriti Vats
Show more work
Latest updates
East Jaintia Hills
Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela
Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja
Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan
Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai
Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune
Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat
Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Agricultural land

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us