The Supreme Court has held that people who cultivate land in the Megamalai forest area while living outside the forest boundary, or with only temporary residence inside it, cannot qualify as forest dwellers under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The Court excluded these persons from consideration under the Act. It also set up a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to supervise how the remaining claims are decided.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order in proceedings concerning encroachments in the forest areas of the Agasthyamalai landscape. The matter remains part-heard.
Background
By an order dated May 29, 2026, the Court had issued directions for a time-bound process of eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration in the forest areas. Applications were later filed raising issues about how the Forest Rights Act applies to persons living in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region. On August 19, 2026, the Court directed Tamil Nadu to respond on four points: silk cotton cultivation in the Reserved Forest, pattas granted by the District Collector, action against 118 Government servants identified as encroachers, and the status of claims under the Act.
Submissions
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the State’s Revenue Department. He submitted that silk cotton had long been cultivated with the tacit sanction of the authorities, at a time when the lands were not Reserved Forest, and was treated as minor forest produce. He said the State is no longer permitting or encouraging such cultivation. He also said 20 of the 118 Government servants had agreed to remove their encroachments, and he suggested a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge to supervise the exercise.
Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu, for the Department of Social Justice, argued that persons with possible statutory rights cannot be treated as encroachers before their claims are decided. He said about 40 Gram Sabhas had been constituted and about 1,600 claims received.
Amicus Curiae K. Parmeshwar opposed reopening matters already settled. He relied on a March 17, 2022 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had considered the 1978 forest settlement proceedings. He argued that persons living outside the forest cannot claim protection merely because they cultivate forest land, and he sought supervision of the process by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
Primary Residence Is Essential, Says Court
The Court noted that both the definition of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(c) and that of other traditional forest dwellers under Section 2(o) require the claimant to primarily reside in, and depend on, the forest. It held that claims must be determined “with strict adherence to the mechanism under Section 6 of the FRA, 2006 read with the Rules framed thereunder, and not merely on the basis of present occupation.”
The State’s own affidavit showed 4,594 persons occupying about 5,072.64 hectares of forest land, of which about 3,637.83 hectares was under silk cotton. Among them were 232 persons cultivating with temporary residence and 2,767 persons living outside the forest boundary. The Court held that these two categories cannot qualify on the basis of cultivation alone.
The Bench stressed that with Megamalai declared a tiger reserve, “the sanctity of the critical tiger habitat has to be given primacy over any claim which intends to encroach upon the forest area.”
Silk Cotton Not a Forest Right
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on silk cotton as minor forest produce. It found that no notification had been placed on record recognising cultivated silk cotton as minor forest produce. It also found that the material showed sponsored commercial cultivation rather than traditional collection. It observed that “the concept of planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce.”
Recording a prima facie view that planned commercial cultivation inside forest areas is impermissible, the Court called the State’s claim that silk cotton cultivation justifies the cultivators’ presence “wholly unacceptable.”
The Court also found that the State’s assertion that no large commercial enterprise was financing the cultivation was contradicted by its own figures. It remarked, “Apparently, a person residing outside the forest would not be in a position to cultivate the commercial crops inside the forest without financing or facilitation by others.” It directed the CEC to examine this aspect and to give its opinion on whether silk cotton is minor forest produce.
State Primarily Responsible for Delay
The Court held that the State is primarily responsible for the delay. It noted that Gram Sabhas had not even been constituted before the Court took cognizance of the encroachments, and that the State appeared to have “woken up, albeit belatedly” only after the Court’s mandate.
Directions
The Court issued the following directions:
- The Category II and Category III persons are excluded from consideration under the Forest Rights Act.
- As a last opportunity, the State has 30 days to form the remaining Gram Sabhas. Claims must then be decided within five months of their constitution.
- A Special Committee headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, will scrutinise orders on the claims and report in a sealed cover. It will be assisted by a CEC officer and Tamil Nadu’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
- The State will bear the Chairperson’s honorarium of four instalments of ₹25 lakh each, along with all other expenses of the Committee.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj appeared for NHAI, which sought permission to have its NH-744 proposal processed, including the Puliara–Edamon tunnel. The Court directed the CEC to respond to this application, keeping Section 3(2) of the Act in view.
On the plea of Advocate Vrinda Bhandari for the State Law Department, the Court impleaded the Department as a party respondent. It transferred the duty of monitoring encroachment cases to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department.
The matter will be listed on February 1, 2027 for an interim status report.
Case Title: A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 6395-6397 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: 06.11.2026
