Chhattisgarh
Taurenga, Jangara, Sahebin Kacchar, Koyba, Indagaon and Bhoot Bera panchayats
,
Mainpur
,
Gariaband
Published :
Aug 2017
|
Updated :
October 20, 2026
Wildlife conservation, Adivasi forest rights, and displacement: The Udanti-Sitanadi tiger reserve conflict in Chhattisgarh
Reported by
Asha Verma
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
12000
People affected
2004
Year started
0
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
12000
People Affected
2004
Year started
0
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Protected Areas
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

Under Project Tiger, the state government had classified Udanti and Sitanadi Wildlife Sanctuary as a composite tiger reserve in February 2009. Since then, the tribespeople living in the core area for generations have become vulnerable to displacement.

Reportedly, after the process to classify the tiger reserve started in 2004, the forest department barred the tribes from accessing and gathering minor forest produce. This severely affected the lifestyle and livelihood practices of 17 villages. Some tribeswomen also alleged that forest officials attempted to frame fake charges on them for collecting firewood from the core area of the tiger reserve. 

The villagers claimed that the forest department offered them resettlement packages to move out of the core zone. But the tribespeople demanded that their rights be recognised under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Over the years, the Kamar, Gond and Bhunjia tribal communities have come together to demand their entitlements. 

According to a 2014 news report, the six panchayats that would be affected refused to surrender their land for the tiger reserve.

In 2014, a media report stated that over 200 villagers held a meeting where they decided to focus on increasing the forest cover and wildlife population themselves. They also drafted a petition to demand the management of the forests. They claim that they have already submitted applications to the administration for both individual and community forest rights, but the government has only granted individual forest rights to some families.

The Gram Sabhas also submitted many applications to the sub-divisional magistrate and other state officials, including the chief minister, requesting urgent attention to their problems. But the state has so far failed to address their concerns. The panchayats, under the banner of Udanti-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve Forest Jansamiti, continue to demand recognition of their rights. 

In February 2019, the Supreme Court verdict about the eviction of forest dwellers with rejected FRA claims came as a shock to the tribespeople, and it only intensified their demand for rights. 

In the same year, the new state government gave another chance to forest dwellers to reapply for their FRA titles, but this process has been delayed due to “bureaucratic hurdles”. 

A breakthrough came in August 2020 when the government granted community forest rights to a few villages in the Risgaon zone. 

The Dhamtari district collector told a newspaper that in October 2020, the Department of Tribe and Scheduled Caste had informed that “it was not possible to go on with the rights recognition process at this time.” However, the same news article also quoted a December 2020 letter by the Secretary (Tribal Affairs), which stated that the “…the Central Government hereby recognises and vests forest rights under Section 3(1) of the same [FRA] Act”. 

Based on this letter, the villagers claimed that the forest officials and the district administration were delaying the process even after receiving communication from the tribal department. 

On 19 January 2021, villagers gathered in thousands and protested outside the office of the Tiger Reserve Deputy Director. Prior to this, on 8 January, they had attended a public meeting to discuss their strategy.

Subsequently, the district administration informed the villagers that the area is classified as a Critical Wildlife Habitat and it was only following protocol.

On 16 February 2021, the villagers wrote a letter to the sub-divisional magistrate to request a special Gram Sabha to settle the rights. Meanwhile, the administration is yet to start a process to consider the claims for FRA titles, Benipuri Goswami, a local activist, told LCW.

Of the 51 villages in Dhamtari and Gariaband districts falling within the reserve's core zone, only 30 had been granted Community Forest Rights as of September 2024, leaving 21 villages without recognition despite over a decade of claims. Forest rights activist Benipuri Goswami confirmed that CFR titles have proven critical in resisting Forest Department encroachment, while villages without titles remain highly vulnerable.

Since 2020, eviction notices have been issued to Sornamal village under Koyba Gram Panchayat—home to Bhunjia, Gond, and Kamar communities—alleging post-2009 settlement based on satellite imagery, a claim communities categorically deny. In 2022, families in Ichhradi and Dashpur villages were forcibly evicted on the same basis. The tiger reserve's Deputy Director told Mongabay India that approximately 70 percent of characterised encroachments had been cleared, including eight settlements covering 200 hectares. FRA claims from Kurrubhata and Bargaon villages were rejected without due process; farming has been banned for two years in affected villages; and forest officials have entered CFR-titled areas in at least seven villages to fell trees and build salt licks without Gram Sabha consent.

On 19 August 2025, seventeen panchayats wrote to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs alleging intimidation and violations of the FRA and Wildlife Protection Act. MoTA responded on 26 September, writing to the Chhattisgarh government reaffirming that no relocation can proceed without explicit Gram Sabha consent.

The conflict reached its most recent flashpoint on 18 May 2026, when a Forest Department team led by DFO Varun Jain arrived at Jaitpuri village to carry out anti-encroachment action, booking 166 villagers. Villagers alleged assault, with women's bangles broken and clothes torn; the following day they surrounded the Dhamtari Collectorate demanding action against forest officials.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

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 collection/dependence, Dwelling/habitation use

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

₹

2.08

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

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

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:

Kamar, Gond and Bhunjia tribes

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
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us