Gujarat
,
Dharampur
,
Valsad
Published :
Aug 2025
|
Updated :
Sacred space and legal authority clash over forest land in Valsad
Reported by
Suchak Patel
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Sourabh Rai, Amrita Chekkutty
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People affected
2025
Year started
0
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
2025
Year started
0
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Encroachment by Non-Right Holders (Other than Caste-based)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Encroachment by Non-Right Holders (Other than Caste-based)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

A notice issued by the Forest Department to remove a cross from a hillock has triggered protests by members of the Christian community in Dharampur taluka in Valsad district of Gujarat.

The structure, a red-painted cross with a fenced enclosure built on a seven square feet area, is located on Sulliya hillock in Motikorad village. The Forest Department claims it was built on reserve forest land without permission. However, protestors argue that the local Gram Panchayat approved the structure nearly 17 years ago and that it holds deep religious significance for the local Christian tribal population.

According to documents accessed via the Right to Information (RTI) Act, residents submitted a memorandum on 15 April 2025 to the Dharampur Prant Officer and Deputy Collector, Amit Chaudhary, asking for the cross to be allowed to remain. They stated that prayers have been conducted at the site since 2008 and that no one had objected to its presence over the years. They also pointed out that there are other religious structures on the hillock, but only the cross has been targeted for removal.

Despite these claims, the Dharampur Range Forest Officer (RFO) recently served a notice to members of a local church responsible for the cross, ordering its removal. An RTI filed to the RFO office requesting further details received no response.

In response, members of the Christian community held a protest rally starting from Birsa Munda Chowk and marching for two kilometres to the Prant office in Dharampur. They were led by Kalpesh Patel, a Congress member of the Dharampur Taluka Panchayat, along with Yusuf Gamit, former president of the Songadh Taluka Panchayat in Tapi district.

The memorandum, which was accessed via RTI, states: “The cross structure was erected on the forest land on Sulliya hillock in Motikorad village… and people from nearby villages have regularly been carrying out prayers there since 2008. The villagers had also passed a resolution at the Gram Panchayat about setting up the structure and nobody objected to it. The Sulliya hillock has become a tourist destination due to its beauty, and many people visit it regularly. There are thousands of Christian tribals residing in the villages near Motikorad, and their religious sentiments are attached to the said structure. There are non-Christian tribals in the area, and they don’t object to such a structure.”

The memorandum criticised the Forest Department for singling out the Christian structure, even though there are other religious symbols on the same hillock. It added that Christian tribals from Dharampur and nearby Kaprada taluka strongly oppose the demolition and want the cross to remain untouched.

Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF), Valsad, Lokesh Bhardwaj, confirmed to The Indian Express that a complaint had been received and that the structure was found on encroached forest land. “We have asked the caretakers to remove it voluntarily. If they don’t, we will act with the help of the district administration and police,” he said.

According to RTI documents, the Forest Department issued notices to Shravan Jamadar, the caretaker, on 27 March, 1 and 4 April, asking him to remove the cross. The notices warned that legal action would be taken if the structure was not removed.

According to RTI documents, forest officials also met local villagers and leaders to explain the legal issues involved. During the meeting, they requested the community to remove the cross and any other unauthorised religious structures on their own to resolve the matter amicably.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

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

Religious/Sacred/Cultural value

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:

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:

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
Show more work
Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

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

Religious/Sacred/Cultural value

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