Tribespeople Oppose Telangana Forest Department's Use of Podu Land for Haritha Haram

Reported by

Seethalakshmi

Legal Data by

Edited by

Updated by

Published on

October 14, 2016

October 14, 2016

Updated on

October 14, 2016

Location of Conflict

Karepalli, Cherla, Kothagudem, Illendu mandals

Khammam

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Plantations

(

)

People Affected by Conflict

9984

Households Affected by Conflict

80

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

81

ha

Starting Year

2016

State

Telangana

Sector

Conservation and Forestry
Summary
Fact Sheet
Legal Data
Additional
Information
Resources
Images
Videos

Over the past few years, tribespeople in Khammam district have been at the receiving end of the state's forest department's attempts to forcibly take over their podu lands. Several thousand tribal households have been traditionally practising "podu" (slash and burn or swidden) cultivation in roughly 250,000 acres. However, as of July 2020, land titles granting forest rights had been distributed under the to only 93,639 of the 1,86,679 claims received by the government.
The conflict is rooted in Telangana's flagship afforestation programme, Haritha Haram (Green Garland), under which the state government aims to plant 230 crore saplings across the state to increase its forest cover from 24 per cent to 33 per cent. However, of the 66 lakh acres of the state's forestland, 18 lakh acres do not have proper ownership records, creating substantial confusion and conflict about whether the earmarked land belongs to the tribespeople or the forest department.
The confusion over ownership of lands has been capitalised by political parties and has resulted in several ambiguous decisions. In July 2019, a woman forest officer was brutally attacked by a mob, allegedly belonging to the ruling Telangana Rashtra Samithi that has championed Haritha Haram. A year later, in June 2020, 14 Adivasis were beaten up and booked under several criminal sections for obstructing forest officers from doing their work. Moreover, the forest department, with the help of police personnel, has also reportedly been resorting to strong-arm tactics like destruction of standing crops, threats, filing false cases against several tribespeople and also using physical force. In February 2021, hundreds of tribespeople protesting against the implementation of the programme on their podu lands were joined by political parties like the CPI and CPM. There has also been a suicide attempt by a tribal woman in protest of the acquisition of her land.
There are numerous claims from the tribal community alleging that they have documents to prove their ownership, forest authorities claim that these lands lie elsewhere, away from the area where the programme is being implemented.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Refusal to give up land for the project

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

Type of Common Land

Forest

Total investment involved (in Crores):

₹

3350

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2019

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Section 3(1)(a) [This section recognises the right of forest dwellers to hold and live on forestland under either individual or common occupation, to either live on or cultivate]; Section 3(1)(f) [This section grants to forest dwellers rights over disputed land regardless of the nature of dispute]; Section 4(1) [This section vests all forest rights in Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers]; Section 4(2) [This section lays down stringent conditions that must be fulfilled before any forest dwellers are resettled or any of their rights are affected]; Section 4(5) [This section states that no Adivasi claimant should be evicted or acted against until the legal processing and verification of claims are completed]
Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
Section 4(m)(i) [Gram sabha shall be consulted before making the acquisition of land in the Scheduled Areas for development projects and before resettling or rehabilitating persons affected by such projects in the Scheduled Areas; the actual planning and implementation of the projects in the Scheduled Areas shall be coordinated at the state level]; Section 4(m)(iii) [While endowing panchayats in the Scheduled Areas with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government, a state legislature shall ensure that the panchayats at the appropriate level and the gram sabha are endowed specifically with the power to prevent alienation of land in the Scheduled Areas and to take appropriate action to restore any unlawfully alienated land of a Scheduled Tribe]

  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Non-implementation/violation of FRA

Non-implmentation/violation of PESA

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Scheduled Tribe status or lack of status

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Pending

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Supreme Court of India; High Court for the State of Telangana

Case Number

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 109/2008

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Farmers had gone to the high court against the forest officials' attempts to take the land alleging violation of the Forest Rights Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. After hearing their case, the court directed officials to not take over lands where farmers have valid documents while directing the concerned Integrated Tribal Development Agency project officer and officials to address the claims of farmers speedily. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 109/2008, Order dated February 13, 2019: This case pertains to the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. After receiving affidavits from all states, including Telangana, with details on which forests are affected, the Supreme Court noted that once the orders of eviction had been passed, the eviction ought to have taken place. This includes the land in dispute for this conflict. The court observed that all those forest dwellers whose claims have been rejected will be treated as “encroachers” on their own land as they have failed to prove their rightful ownership and control over forest resources. It ordered that all households whose rights claims under the FRA have been rejected should be evicted from forests by July 2019. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 109/2008, Order dated February 28, 2019: After widespread protests from tribal groups and a petition by the Centre, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed its own order with respect to the eviction.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Lathicharge/teargas/pellets

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

14 Adivasis were beaten up and booked under several criminal sections for obstructing forest officers from doing their work.

Date of Violation

June 20, 2020

Location of Violation

Khammam District

Nature of Protest

Protests/marches

Self-immolation

Riots

Objections as part of official procedures

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Telangana Forest Department, Telangana Revenue Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

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:

Adivasis, Adivasi Joint Action Committee

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch

You can read our past newsletters here

Your privacy and security are of utmost importance to us. Read our ‘Privacy Policy’ for information on how your data is used.

Company

Conflict DatabaseAbout UsOngoing ResearchPublicationsClosed Conflicts

Social

TwitterInstagramFacebookLinkedin

Legal

Code to Combat Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
IC Order
Privacy PolicyData Sharing PolicyTerms and ConditionsRefund Policy

© 2022 Nut Graph LLP
All Rights Reserved.

Get in Touch!

contact@landconflictwatch.org
X

Support our work

Your contribution ensures continuity of this crucial project.
‍
As a member, you will get exclusive access to special reports, policy papers and research projects undertaken by Land Conflict Watch and behind-the-scenes interactions with the writers and researchers about their work.
Join Now