Megamalai: Supreme Court bars 2,999 cultivators from forest rights claims, ex-CJI Gavai to monitor

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta exclude cultivators living outside the forest or only temporarily in it, and set deadlines under a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai.

The Supreme Court on 6 November 2026 excluded 2,999 people who cultivate land in the Megamalai forests from claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. They either live outside the forest boundary or have only a temporary residence inside it.

The order also set up a Special Committee headed by Justice B. R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, to supervise the remaining claims. The State must form the rest of its Gram Sabhas within 30 days. Claims must be decided within five months of that.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order, which Justice Mehta wrote. It comes in the continuing proceedings that followed the Court’s detailed order of 29 May 2026 on eviction and restoration of forest areas in the Agasthyamalai landscape.

From eviction order to claims fight

The 29 May 2026 order set a structured, time-bound process of eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration. It called for a division-wise eviction plan, removal of encroachments and action against identified Government servants. It also barred new non-forestry activity or diversion proposals in the Agasthyamalai landscape until paragraph 66 was complied with.

The CEC was to keep monitoring. Applications then came in, raising the Forest Rights Act in respect of people living in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region, and the way eviction and rehabilitation should proceed.

On 19 August 2026 the Court expressed no view on the merits but asked Tamil Nadu for specifics. It wanted the facts on silk cotton cultivation in the Reserved Forest, the pattas granted by the District Collector, the action against 118 Government servants identified as encroachers, and the status of Forest Rights Act claims.

The Departments of Revenue and Social Justice filed replies. The bench read them with the CEC material and heard the State’s senior counsel and the Amicus.

Two State departments, two emphases

Senior Counsel Jaideep Gupta, for the Revenue Department, said silk cotton had been grown for a long time with tacit State sanction and treated as minor forest produce. The areas were not Reserved Forest in their present form then. He said the State no longer permits or encourages it.

On pattas, he said the Collector had not issued any in the Reserved Forest lands in question, and the State does not propose to issue any on the basis of present occupation. Of the 118 Government servants, 20 had agreed to remove their encroachments. Papers on the rest had gone to the competent authorities.

Mr. Gupta said the Act came only in 2006 and the Madras High Court judgment relied on in these proceedings was in personam. That case covered limited villages, while the present exercise spans 98 habitations. He added that implementation had stalled under an interim order of the Madras High Court that this Court vacated in 2016.

He suggested that a committee headed by a retired Judge of this Court supervise eviction and rehabilitation, so that people with genuine claims are not displaced arbitrarily.

Senior Counsel Sriram Panchu, for the Department of Social Justice, said the question was not only eviction. Some of those listed might hold forest rights that were never adjudicated. The Act cannot be bypassed by treating everyone living or cultivating there as an encroacher.

He noted that an Other Traditional Forest Dweller must show three generations, or 75 years, before 13 December 2005. Rule 13 evidence is not confined to title documents. Around 40 Gram Sabhas had been constituted and about 1,600 claims received, with roughly one month of a three-month claims window used. He asked for two more months.

The Amicus: do not reopen 1978

Amicus Curiae K. Parmeshwar argued that the claims exercise must not reopen what was already settled for Megamalai. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in a judgment of 17 March 2022, had examined the 1978 forest settlement. It recorded that 168 claims were received then and one was allowed.

The petitioners before the High Court, he said, had made no claim during the 1978-79 settlement that they lived in or cultivated the forest before it. Mere residence or cultivation in an area notified as Reserved Forest in 1978 does not prove a right under the Act.

He urged a firm cut-off date for claims. On the State’s own chart, he said, much of the silk cotton was grown by people with temporary residence or living outside the forest. He wanted the CEC associated with the claims process to catch fake claims.

Rights that depend on residence

The bench first set out the statute. It reproduced the Preamble and passages from Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013) 6 SCC 476, which treats the Act as a social welfare statute for communities whose rights were never recorded.

Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes are members of tribes who primarily reside in and depend on forest or forest land for bona fide needs (Section 2(c)). An Other Traditional Forest Dweller must have primarily resided in the forest and depended on it for livelihood for at least three generations before 13 December 2005 (Section 2(o)).

A generation is 25 years. Both definitions require the claimant to live in the forest and depend on it (para 48). Section 3(1) recognises rights including holding forest land for habitation or self-cultivation, and ownership and use of minor forest produce traditionally collected.

Under Section 6, the Gram Sabha starts the process by receiving and verifying claims. Appeals go to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee within 60 days and then to the District Level Committee, whose decision is final and binding on the record of rights.

The State blamed the Madras High Court interim order, which kept the Act in abeyance until this Court vacated it in 2016.

The bench noted that the Section 6 process was still not begun for years after the stay was lifted. It seems to have started only after the Court took suo motu cognisance, and there was total inaction before that (paras 52 to 54).

Claims by forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers are to be decided strictly under Section 6 and the Rules, and not merely on present occupation. The benefit goes only to those who meet Sections 2(c) and 2(o). Others may be removed in accordance with law (para 55).

The bench added a marker for the whole exercise, saying that with Megamalai declared a tiger sanctuary or reserve:

“the sanctity of the critical tiger habitat has to be given primacy” (para 56)

Silk cotton as minor forest produce

The State relied on the classification of silk cotton (Ceiba pentandra) as minor forest produce. Its sources were the Agritech portal of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the Working Plan for the Madura Division, 1936-37 to 1945-46. Silk cotton floss, it said, is non-timber produce of plant origin under Section 2(i).

The bench noted that the State’s own additional affidavit of 6 September 2026 shows the Government itself promoted or facilitated the cultivation. No notification or other material shows silk cotton as a cultivated crop recognised as minor forest produce under the Act or any other forest law (para 59).

Section 3(1)(c) covers minor forest produce traditionally collected. What the affidavits show, the bench said, is promoted and sponsored cultivation of a commercial crop, not traditional collection of parts of the tree (para 60).

The affidavit describes silk cotton introduced as a planned plantation from the 1930s. The bench held that planned cultivation of a commercial crop runs against the concept of naturally occurring minor forest produce, which Section 2(i) requires. If commercial crops are allowed in the forest, it said:

“the very nature of the forest is bound to change” (para 61)

The affidavit’s own figures, the bench added, show large swathes of forest destroyed under the garb of silk cotton cultivation (para 62).

The State’s own table

The Revenue Department’s affidavit sorts occupiers into three categories. Category I is 1,595 people permanently residing in the forest and cultivating, on 1,679.73.3 hectares. Category II is 232 people cultivating with temporary residence, on 525.20.4 hectares.

Category III is 2,767 people living outside the forest boundary, on 2,867.70.6 hectares. In all, 4,594 occupations cover 5,072.64.3 hectares, and silk cotton stands on 3,637.83.2 hectares of that, in 2,643 holdings (paras 62 and 63).

The affidavit also said the Revenue Department had no material showing large commercial enterprises financing or directing the cultivation. The bench said its own table contradicts that. A person living outside the forest could hardly grow a commercial crop inside it without financing or help from others (para 66).

Who is out, and who may claim

Because Sections 2(c) and 2(o) require a claimant to reside primarily in the forest, people with only temporary residence (Category II) and those living outside the boundary (Category III) cannot qualify on the strength of cultivation alone. The Court excluded them from consideration under the Act (para 64).

The direction does not exclude Category I, the 1,595 permanent residents.

The bench also took a prima facie view that planned or promoted cultivation of a commercial crop in the forest is “completely impermissible”, since the Act recognises no such right. It called the State’s claim that silk cotton justifies the cultivators’ presence wholly unacceptable (para 65).

It left one point open. The CEC is to give its own opinion on whether silk cotton is minor forest produce, as the State’s affidavit projects, without being prejudiced by the bench’s observations (para 67).

Justice Gavai and the clock

Mr. Gupta told the Court the three-tier mechanism was operational and the exercise would be done in about four months. The State was ready to accept supervision by a retired Judge of this Court. The Amicus wanted the CEC involved in supervision. The bench accepted both suggestions (paras 68 and 69).

It held the State primarily responsible for the delay. Before the Court took cognisance of the encroachments, even the Gram Sabhas had not been constituted. As an indulgence, because the Act is beneficial legislation, the Court gave the State a last 30 days from 6 November to form the remaining Gram Sabhas.

Once constituted, the Gram Sabhas must invite any remaining claims. Adjudication through the three tiers must be concluded within five months of the Gram Sabhas’ constitution (direction (ii)).

A Special Committee is headed by Justice B. R. Gavai and assisted by an officer of the CEC and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Tamil Nadu. It will scrutinise the orders passed under the Act and report to the Court in a sealed cover.

It will also issue directions to hasten disposal, and the State must send monthly progress reports (direction (iii)).

The Committee starts forthwith. The State must give logistical and administrative help and name an officer of Joint Secretary (Administration) rank as Nodal Officer. The Chairperson is to be paid an honorarium of Rs 25,00,000 in each of four instalments, and the State bears all other expenses (directions (iv) and (v)).

The Committee is to try to finish its scrutiny within two months of the outer limit in direction (ii) (direction (vi)). The CEC must also give its opinion on the State’s projection of silk cotton as minor forest produce (direction (vii)).

A highway tunnel and a Law Department

The National Highways Authority of India, or NHAI, applied to be impleaded and to modify paragraph 66(vi) of the 29 May order, which bars new non-forestry activity and diversion proposals in the landscape. Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj appeared for it.

He said NHAI has a fresh proposal on NH-744, including the Puliara-Edamon tunnel section, that needs diversion of a limited extent of Reserved Forest land. It is not seeking automatic approval or post-facto regularisation, only that the authorities be allowed to receive, process and examine the proposal under the forest, wildlife and environmental laws.

The bench directed the CEC to consider NHAI’s application and file a response before the next hearing. It told the CEC to keep Section 3(2) of the Act in view. That section allows diversion of forest land for listed Government facilities such as schools, hospitals, water pipelines and roads, up to 75 trees per hectare (paras 76 and 77).

The provision applies only where each diversion is under one hectare and the Gram Sabha recommends it. The Court did not rule on whether the NHAI proposal fits within it.

The State Law Department also applied to be impleaded and to modify paragraph 66(iii), which made it monitor encroachment cases in the District Courts and file a tabular status report.

Ms. Vrinda Bhandari said the Department was not a party then. It only gives legal advice, she said, while the forest records sit with the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department.

The bench allowed both applications. The Law Department is impleaded as a respondent, and the monitoring responsibility under paragraph 66(iii) now rests with the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and subordinate authorities (paras 81 and 82).

Order

The Supreme Court excluded Category II and Category III persons, as classified in the State’s additional affidavit of 6 September 2026, from consideration as forest dwellers under the Forest Rights Act. It gave the State 30 days to form the remaining Gram Sabhas and five months from their constitution to decide claims.

It constituted the Special Committee under Justice Gavai and asked the CEC for its opinion on silk cotton. The CEC will respond to NHAI’s application, and the Law Department was impleaded.

The matter will be listed on 1 February 2027 for an interim status report and stays listed as a part-heard matter (paras 71 and 72).