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

Van Gujjars in Uttarakhand Fight for Legal Recognition of Forest Rights

Reported by

Eleonora Fanari

Legal Review by

Edited by

Anupa Sagar Kujur

Updated by

Urvashi Mahtolia, Chicu Lokgariwar

Published on

October 25, 2016

March 8, 2024

Edited on

March 7, 2023

October 25, 2016

State

Uttarakhand

Sector

Conservation and Forestry

People Affected by Conflict

7728

Households Affected by Conflict

1610

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

0

ha

Starting Year

1985

Location of Conflict

Kunao

Pauri Garhwal

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Protected Areas

National Park

Land Conflict Summary

Rajaji national park was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1983 and later, a tiger reserve in 2015. The Van Gujjars, a pastoral nomadic community, have been living inside the park for decades. During winters, the Van Gujjars migrate with their herds to the foothills of the Shivalik mountain range, and in summers, they migrate to pastures high up in the mountains. The community has been granted the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, but in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh they are still classified as Other Backward Classes (OBC). 

The settlement of nomadic communities on common land is often termed as encroachment by the state and society. Generations of these communities have moved from one place to another, along with their cattle, to earn their livelihood. Many of these communities belong to ‘denotified tribes’, which were earlier classified as ‘criminal tribes’ by the colonial government. The Criminal Tribes Act was repealed in 1945, but the denotified tribes have little protection even today when it comes to land rights, unlike many others belonging to the SC and ST communities. Whenever these nomads settle on any common land, they claim traditional rights over it and demand ownership. The state, on the other hand, considers them encroachers as they have no legal titles over what the state considers government land. The absence of permanent land to settle in and the lack of legal titles as well as laws to safeguard their interests has left these nomadic communities vulnerable.

Currently, around 1,610 Van Gujjar families live within the Rajaji National Park, while 1,393 families have been relocated in the past 15 years on the pretext of wildlife conservation and encroachment.

The first attempt to relocate the Van Gujjars from the park was undertaken in 1985. In the following years, the community members were regularly harassed to vacate the land and move out of the park.

Faced with the threat of eviction, the community approached the Uttarakhand High Court in 2005 under the banner of Ban Gujjar Kalyan Samiti. In 2008, the court served a contempt notice to the director of Rajaji National Park for evicting the community without settling their forest rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. However, the Van Gujjars till date continue to fight against the forest department to get access to resources in the park.

On June 28, 2011, Noorjamal, a Van Gujjar and an activist, was detained in Sharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, on false charges. To protest against his illegal arrest, many women from the Van Gujjar community in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand protested in their respective states. In Uttar Pradesh, they locked police personnel inside their homes. Noorjamal was released later on the same day.

The relocation of Van Gujjars have continued over the years. In 2011, the Uttarakhand government issued orders to vacate 228 families from the Chillawala range. In 2017, 22 families from Chillawalla range, 13 families from Gohri range and one family from Ramgarh range were ordered to be relocated.

In 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court termed the settlement of the Van Gujjars in Rajaji National Park illegal, ordering eviction without rehabilitation. This started a wave of protests. In September 2018, the Supreme Court stayed the order of the high court.

In June 2020, forest officials visited the homes of eight Van Gujjar families living in the Asharodi Forest Range at the park to question them on why they built their houses inside the park. A confrontation ensued during the interrogation, and forest officials allegedly assaulted members of the community, two of whom were seriously injured. They also assaulted women. The officials arrested 10 community members. When the Van Gujjars, led by Mustafa Chopra, went to register a complaint, the police refused to do so and asked them to put the application in a drop box.

A week after the incident, several organisations staged demonstrations in Ramnagar, Almora and Khatima condemning the attacks on tribes-people and demanding action against the officials responsible. Following the outcry, forest minister of Uttarakhand, Harak Singh Rawat, ordered a probe into the incident.

On August 17, 2020, the Uttarakhand High Court asked the state government to set up a committee within six weeks to look into the problems faced by the Van Gujjars. This was after a PIL was filed by a non-profit organisation, Think Act Rise Foundation, which said that the community lacks basic rights and is often forcefully evicted. The committee was formed on October 20, 2020, comprising the principal chief conservator of forests and wildlife of Uttarakhand, the state chief wildlife warden, field director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve, a person nominated by the Wildlife Institute of India, and a person nominated by the World Wildlife Fund.

In March 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court rapped the state government for constituting a committee that was not competent to examine the issues and rights of Van Gujjar community. It directed the government to re-constitute the committee with competent members and gave specific directions to the committee thus formed to submit its recommendations within three months. In June, the state government reconstituted the committee.

There has been no update on the report submitted by the reconstituted committee.

In 2022, Van Gujjar Tribal Yuva Sangathan (VGTYS) submitted claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and further submitted them to the SDM office seeking an ST status.

However, they continue to be at the receiving end of anti-encroachment drives by the Uttarakhand government. Van Gujjars face eviction notices not only in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, but along the Rajaji National park, Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary, as well as in Haldwani.

The Van Gujjars with the help of community based organisations such as the Van Panchayat Sangharsh Morcha have contested these eviction notices. In May 2023, the Uttarakhand Forest Department admitted errors in the notices issued to the Van Gujjars.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-Forest, Non-Forest (Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

8

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

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Yes

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Yes

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

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860

147, 148, 504, 506, 333, 353, 307

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

154

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?

On June 16, 2020, forest and police officials visited the homes of eight Van Gujjar families, assaulted women of the village, destroyed some shelters, and manhandled people who opposed them in Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand. Noor Mohammad, one of the persons named in the FIR (17/06/2020), claimed that they approached the Clement town police station for registering an FIR relating to the June 16 incident. However, there are allegations that the complaint was not filed. Instead, an FIR was registered against the Van Gujjars, who were consequently arrested, except two who were detained. The arrested people claim that the charges against them were fabricated. Those detained by police alleged custodial violence. Noorjahan, one of the women in police custody, claimed that she was assaulted on her sensitive parts. They also claimed that the medical reports presented before the Magistrate did not have an accurate record of their injuries.  

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

Grazing, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence

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?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Forest Rights Act of 2006

Legislations/Policies Involved

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Section 38V(5) [This section lays down the strict conditions that must be met if there is to be resettlement of Scheduled Tribes or forest dwellers]
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 in forest land 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]
Indian Forest Act, 1927
Section 61-A [This section lays down the procedure for summary eviction of unauthorised occupants, which in this case has not been followed]
Section 61-A [This section lays down the procedure for summary eviction of unauthorised occupants, which in this case has not been followed]
  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

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Scheduled Tribe status or lack of status

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Non-rehabilitation of displaced people

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)

High Court of Uttarakhand, Supreme Court of India

Case Number

WPPIL No. 79 of 2020, WPPIL No. 140 of 2019

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

The Uttarakhand high court was of the view that the Van Gujjars have rights in law that need to be protected and that they not only require legal protection but should benefit from the law as well. In this spirit, it directed the state government to constitute a committee to help the Van Gujjars. It directed the additional advocate general to submit a proposal regarding the constitution and scope of the committee and the extent to which an inquiry would be done by the committee.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Sexual violence/sexual harassment

Torture

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Other harassment

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Yes

Reported Details of the Violation:

Noorjamal, a Van Gujjar living inside the Rajaji National Park, was detained in Biharigarh Police Station in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, on false charges filed by the forest department; On June 16, 2020, forest officials visited the homes of eight Van Gujjar families and assaulted women of the village in Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand.

Date of Violation

June 27, 2011

Location of Violation

Biharigarh Police Station, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh; Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

Protests/marches

Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Uttarakhand Forest Department, National Tiger Conservation Authority

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:

Van Gujjars

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

8

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

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Yes

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

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860

147, 148, 504, 506, 333, 353, 307

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

154

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?

On June 16, 2020, forest and police officials visited the homes of eight Van Gujjar families, assaulted women of the village, destroyed some shelters, and manhandled people who opposed them in Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand. Noor Mohammad, one of the persons named in the FIR (17/06/2020), claimed that they approached the Clement town police station for registering an FIR relating to the June 16 incident. However, there are allegations that the complaint was not filed. Instead, an FIR was registered against the Van Gujjars, who were consequently arrested, except two who were detained. The arrested people claim that the charges against them were fabricated. Those detained by police alleged custodial violence. Noorjahan, one of the women in police custody, claimed that she was assaulted on her sensitive parts. They also claimed that the medical reports presented before the Magistrate did not have an accurate record of their injuries.  

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

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

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Rajaji national park was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1983 and later, a tiger reserve in 2015. The Van Gujjars, a pastoral nomadic community, have been living inside the park for decades. During winters, the Van Gujjars migrate with their herds to the foothills of the Shivalik mountain range, and in summers, they migrate to pastures high up in the mountains. The community has been granted the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, but in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh they are still classified as Other Backward Classes (OBC). 

The settlement of nomadic communities on common land is often termed as encroachment by the state and society. Generations of these communities have moved from one place to another, along with their cattle, to earn their livelihood. Many of these communities belong to ‘denotified tribes’, which were earlier classified as ‘criminal tribes’ by the colonial government. The Criminal Tribes Act was repealed in 1945, but the denotified tribes have little protection even today when it comes to land rights, unlike many others belonging to the SC and ST communities. Whenever these nomads settle on any common land, they claim traditional rights over it and demand ownership. The state, on the other hand, considers them encroachers as they have no legal titles over what the state considers government land. The absence of permanent land to settle in and the lack of legal titles as well as laws to safeguard their interests has left these nomadic communities vulnerable.

Currently, around 1,610 Van Gujjar families live within the Rajaji National Park, while 1,393 families have been relocated in the past 15 years on the pretext of wildlife conservation and encroachment.

The first attempt to relocate the Van Gujjars from the park was undertaken in 1985. In the following years, the community members were regularly harassed to vacate the land and move out of the park.

Faced with the threat of eviction, the community approached the Uttarakhand High Court in 2005 under the banner of Ban Gujjar Kalyan Samiti. In 2008, the court served a contempt notice to the director of Rajaji National Park for evicting the community without settling their forest rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. However, the Van Gujjars till date continue to fight against the forest department to get access to resources in the park.

On June 28, 2011, Noorjamal, a Van Gujjar and an activist, was detained in Sharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, on false charges. To protest against his illegal arrest, many women from the Van Gujjar community in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand protested in their respective states. In Uttar Pradesh, they locked police personnel inside their homes. Noorjamal was released later on the same day.

The relocation of Van Gujjars have continued over the years. In 2011, the Uttarakhand government issued orders to vacate 228 families from the Chillawala range. In 2017, 22 families from Chillawalla range, 13 families from Gohri range and one family from Ramgarh range were ordered to be relocated.

In 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court termed the settlement of the Van Gujjars in Rajaji National Park illegal, ordering eviction without rehabilitation. This started a wave of protests. In September 2018, the Supreme Court stayed the order of the high court.

In June 2020, forest officials visited the homes of eight Van Gujjar families living in the Asharodi Forest Range at the park to question them on why they built their houses inside the park. A confrontation ensued during the interrogation, and forest officials allegedly assaulted members of the community, two of whom were seriously injured. They also assaulted women. The officials arrested 10 community members. When the Van Gujjars, led by Mustafa Chopra, went to register a complaint, the police refused to do so and asked them to put the application in a drop box.

A week after the incident, several organisations staged demonstrations in Ramnagar, Almora and Khatima condemning the attacks on tribes-people and demanding action against the officials responsible. Following the outcry, forest minister of Uttarakhand, Harak Singh Rawat, ordered a probe into the incident.

On August 17, 2020, the Uttarakhand High Court asked the state government to set up a committee within six weeks to look into the problems faced by the Van Gujjars. This was after a PIL was filed by a non-profit organisation, Think Act Rise Foundation, which said that the community lacks basic rights and is often forcefully evicted. The committee was formed on October 20, 2020, comprising the principal chief conservator of forests and wildlife of Uttarakhand, the state chief wildlife warden, field director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve, a person nominated by the Wildlife Institute of India, and a person nominated by the World Wildlife Fund.

In March 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court rapped the state government for constituting a committee that was not competent to examine the issues and rights of Van Gujjar community. It directed the government to re-constitute the committee with competent members and gave specific directions to the committee thus formed to submit its recommendations within three months. In June, the state government reconstituted the committee.

There has been no update on the report submitted by the reconstituted committee.

In 2022, Van Gujjar Tribal Yuva Sangathan (VGTYS) submitted claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and further submitted them to the SDM office seeking an ST status.

However, they continue to be at the receiving end of anti-encroachment drives by the Uttarakhand government. Van Gujjars face eviction notices not only in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, but along the Rajaji National park, Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary, as well as in Haldwani.

The Van Gujjars with the help of community based organisations such as the Van Panchayat Sangharsh Morcha have contested these eviction notices. In May 2023, the Uttarakhand Forest Department admitted errors in the notices issued to the Van Gujjars.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-Forest, Non-Forest (Grazing Land)

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

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 Rights Act of 2006

Legislations/Policies Involved

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Section 38V(5) [This section lays down the strict conditions that must be met if there is to be resettlement of Scheduled Tribes or forest dwellers]
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 in forest land 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]
Indian Forest Act, 1927
Section 61-A [This section lays down the procedure for summary eviction of unauthorised occupants, which in this case has not been followed]
Section 61-A [This section lays down the procedure for summary eviction of unauthorised occupants, which in this case has not been followed]
  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

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Scheduled Tribe status or lack of status

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Non-rehabilitation of displaced people

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)

High Court of Uttarakhand, Supreme Court of India

Case Number

WPPIL No. 79 of 2020, WPPIL No. 140 of 2019

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

The Uttarakhand high court was of the view that the Van Gujjars have rights in law that need to be protected and that they not only require legal protection but should benefit from the law as well. In this spirit, it directed the state government to constitute a committee to help the Van Gujjars. It directed the additional advocate general to submit a proposal regarding the constitution and scope of the committee and the extent to which an inquiry would be done by the committee.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Sexual violence/sexual harassment

Torture

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Other harassment

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Yes

Reported Details of the Violation:

Noorjamal, a Van Gujjar living inside the Rajaji National Park, was detained in Biharigarh Police Station in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, on false charges filed by the forest department; On June 16, 2020, forest officials visited the homes of eight Van Gujjar families and assaulted women of the village in Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand.

Date of Violation

June 27, 2011

Location of Violation

Biharigarh Police Station, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh; Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand

Nature of Protest

Protests/marches

Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Uttarakhand Forest Department, National Tiger Conservation Authority

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:

Van Gujjars

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

Other Land Conflicts in Uttarakhand

cross
Not a member yet?
Sign up now