# Udasa & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1898 of 2026
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/udasa-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-54479
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

56. These WRIT-C No. 648 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 665 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 889 of 2026,
WRIT-C No. 1118 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 2577 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 2711 of 2026, WRIT-C No.
2989 of 2026 and WRIT-C No. 4227 of 2026 are allowed in terms of the directions given above.

57. Petitions in WRIT-C No. 1489 of 2026 and WRIT-C No. 1768 of 2026 have rendered
infructuous and accordingly are consigned to records.

58. In the light of submissions made by learned counsel in WRIT-C No. 2691 of 2026, we
dispose of this petition with a direction that the amount that has been withheld by the bank shall
abide by the final outcome of the order of jurisdictional magistrate.

59. No order as to cost.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 834
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ C No. 1898 of 2026

Udasa & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the District Level Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioners' claim for community forest
rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006 by relying upon an interim order of the Supreme Court without examining whether the said interim order
was applicable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

HEADNOTE
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
- ss.3, 4 and 6 - Community forest rights - Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes - Recognition and
vesting of forest rights - Rejection of claim by District Level Committee - Committee relying
solely upon interim order passed by Supreme Court in proceedings under Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 - Legality -
Held: The object and reasons of the Act show that the same is for furtherance of the forest rights of the
forest dwellers - The primary objective to be achieved by the Act is not only limited to recognizing and
vesting the forest and occupation in forest land to these forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes but also to ensure
their livelihood and food security - Section 3 provides for specific forest rights available to forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, including the right of ownership, access to collect, use
and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries
- Section 4 begins with a non-obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the Central Government recognizes and vests forest rights in the forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes in respect of all forest rights mentioned in Section 3 - The legislature has not
4 All. Udasa & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
835
created any new rights for these forest dwellers, rather has recognized the existing rights and occupation of
these people who had been traditionally restricted to this place of dwelling in forest - District Level Committee
ought to have made an assessment of the forest rights of the forest dwellers taking into account the object
and scope behind the Act - Authority concerned neither discussed nor appreciated the specific intent of the
Act and has presumably short-circuited the existing rights of the petitioners by relying on an interim order of
the Supreme Court without even discussing as to whether the said interim order is applicable to the
petitioners in the present facts and circumstances or not - Impugned order has not taken into account the
relevant provisions of the Act and has only dealt with the Supreme Court interim order passed in the year
2000, previous to enactment of the Act - Impugned order quashed - Authorities directed to grant opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law - Till such time the
order is passed by the District Level Committee, the forest dwellers shall be vested with all their existing rights
as enumerated in the Act, in accordance with law. [Paras 6 to 16][Paras 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
NIL

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950;
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006;
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007;
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

List of Keywords
Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes; Other traditional forest dwellers; Community forest rights; Forest rights;
Recognition and vesting of forest rights; Community rights; Minor forest produce; Ownership, access to
collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce; Livelihood and food security; Forest land; Historical injustice;
Existing rights and occupation; Object and scope of the Act; Non-obstante clause; District Level Committee;
Final and binding decision; Relevant provisions of the Act; Interim order of the Supreme Court; Applicability of
interim order; Opportunity of hearing; Reasoned order; Fresh consideration; Existing rights enumerated in the
Act; Forest dwellers; Statutory rights.
CASE ARISING FROM
Impugned order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the District Level Committee rejecting the petitioners' claim for
community forest rights.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Nandini Verma, Desh Deepak Singh, Rajat Srivastava.
Advs. for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ
petitioner has prayed for the following substantial relief(s):

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ or certiorari quashing the order
dated 15.03.2021 passed by the District Level Committee annexed as Annexure No.1 to this writ
petition.
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the
District Level Committee, District Lakhimpur Kheri, to reconsider and decide the claim for
community forest rights of the petitioners afresh, in a time bound manner and in accordance with
the provisions of the Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006 and Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Rules, 2007 (as amended by the Rules of 2012).

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the
State Level Monitoring Committee to perform its functions in accordance with the provisions of the
Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
and Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules,
2007 (as amended by the Rules of 2012) in the process of recognition, verification, and vesting of
the rights to community forest resources."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance on Sections 3(a),
3(b), 3(c), 4 and 6 of the Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to buttress her arguments that the Act
is for the benefit of the Schedule Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who are dwelling in
the forest areas. She submits that these rights as per Section 3 of the Act include the community
rights relating to rights of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce
including the jalauni lakadi and reeds,which have been traditionally collected within or outside of
the village boundary. She submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement that has been relied
in the impugned order was passed in the year 2000 and was in reference to the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. She submits that the impugned order does not take into account the
factum of the Act overriding the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.
No.337 of 1995.

4. Furthermore, she relies on a Circular No.23011/33/2010-FRA dated 08.11.2013, wherein
certain clarifications have been issued to all the State Governments/UT Administrations. The
relevant part of the Circular is delineated herein-below:

Sl.No.
Issue
Clarification

1.
Whether the provisions of the
Forest Rights Act, 2006
supersede the provisions of
Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980
and
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
judgment
dated 13.11.2000 in I.A.No.2
in WP NO.337/1995

It is a well settled principle of statutory interpretation that a subsequent statute
supersedes all preceding court judgments or orders of prior date.
Section 4(1) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which recognizes and vests forest rights in
the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in the States or areas in States where they are
declared as Scheduled Tribes and the other traditional forest dwellers, lays down that the
forest rights under Section 3(1) of the Act, including the right under Section 3(1)(h), are
recognized and vested in the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force". This non-obstante clause, therefore, recognizes and vests the forest rights under
Section 3(1) in accordance with the provisions of the FRA regardless of whether such
forest rights might be contrary to other laws, which includes statutory law as well as
judicial precedent, if any.

Further, Section 4(7) of the Act provides that the forest rights under the said Act shall be
conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements, Including clearance
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, requirement of paying the 'net present value'
and 'compensatory afforestation' for diversion of forest land, except those specified In the
said Act. The plain meaning of this provision Is that recognition and vesting of all forest
4 All. Udasa & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
837
rights, including the settlement and conversion of forest villages and other such villages
Into revenue villages under Section 3(1)(h), has been exempted from the requirements of
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as well as the requirement of
compensatory afforestation as well as payment of net present value.
After operationalization of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 with effect from 31.12.2007, the
interim order dated 13.11.2000 of the Apex Court in I.A.No.2 in WP NO.337/1995,
which was passed in the context of the widespread violation of the provisions of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would, therefore, be guided by the provisions of Section
3(1)(h) of the FRA, 2006 and that the forest right relating to conversion of forest villages
and other such villages into revenue villages under this Section has also to be vested and
recognised as per the laid down procedure, like any other forest right specified in Section
3 (1) of the Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the
impugned order stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement has been referred to in the said
order, and accordingly, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected.

6. We have given a patient hearing to counsel for both the sides. Upon a perusal of the objects
and reasons of the Act, one would see that the same is for furtherance of the forest rights of the
forest dwellers. The preamble of the Act is set out herein:-

"An Act to recognise and vest the forest and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for
generations but whose rights could not be recorded: to provide for a framework for recording the
forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in
respect of forest land.

Whereas the recognised rights of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers include the responsibilities and authority for sustainable use,
conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance and thereby strengthening the
conservation regime of the forests while ensuring livelihood and food security of the forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers;

And whereas the forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately
recognised in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent
India resulting in historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem;

And whereas it has become necessary to address the long standing insecurity of tenurial
and access rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
including those who were forced to relocate their dwelling due to State development interventions."

7. Section 2(c) of the Act defines "forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes" to mean members or
community of the Scheduled Tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forests or
forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist
communities. Admittedly, the petitioners are residents of village- Sariyapara, Tehsil- Palia Kalan,
District- Lakhimpur and belong to the "Tharu" community, which has been notified as Scheduled
Tribes by notification dated 24.06.1967, issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India and
are "forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes" within the meaning of the said provision.
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Further, we see that the primary objective to be achieved by the Act is not only limited to
recognizing and vesting the forest and occupation in forest land to these forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribes but also to ensure their livelihood and food security.

9. It is in furtherance to the aforesaid objective that Section 3 of the Act provides for specific
forest rights, which are available to such forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers. Section 3 bestows on these forest dwellers various rights enumerated from Section
3(a) to 3(m) of the Act and a facial reading of these sections would show that these provisions also
includes a right to collect and use of minor forest produce for their livelihood. Section 3(a), 3(b)
and 3(c) of the Act relied by the petitioners requires specific mention and are being extracted as
herein-below:-

"3. Forest rights of Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other tradional forest
dwellers.-(1) For the purposes of this Act, the following rights, which secure individual or
community tenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands, namely:-

(a) right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation
for habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers;

(b) community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those used in
erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes;

(c) right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce which
has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries;"

10. It is to be further noted that Section 4 of the Act specifically deals with recognition and
vesting of the forest rights as defined under Section 3 of the Act upon the forest dwellers. This
Section begins with a non-obstante clause, wherein it states that notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Central Government recognizes and vests forest rights in the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes in
States in respect of all forest rights mentioned in Section 3 of the Act.

11. Thus, keeping in mind the above provisions, it is patently clearly that the forest dwellers,
who have been living for centuries in these forests, have been specifically provided the forest rights
as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act and such rights have been vested upon them by virtue of
Section 4 of the Act. Apparently, it seems that with the enactment of the Act, the legislature in its
wisdom has not created any new rights for these forest dwellers, rather has recognized the existing
rights and occupation of these people, who had been traditionally restricted to this place of
dwelling in forest owing to various reasons. The said fact is further fortified from the use of the
language in the objects appended to this Act, which starts with the words "An Act to recognize and
vest.........".

12. According to this Court, the object clearly demonstrates the scope and specific purpose
behind its enactment. Time and again, it has been held by this Court that the true character of a law
must be ascertained by its object, purpose and context. The District Level Committee has been
given sweeping powers under the Act, inasmuch as Section 6(6) of the Act provides that a decision
4 All. Rajiv Mundhra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
839
of the said Committee shall be final and binding on the records of the forest right. We do not find
any plausible reason as to why the Committee ought not to have made an assessment of the forest
rights of the forest dwellers, without taking into account the object and scope behind the Act..

13. Having, discussed the object and scope behind the enactment of the 'Schedule Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006', we find ourselves in total
disagreement with the impugned order. Although the impugned order has been passed on 15.03.2021,
however we find that the Authority concerned has neither discussed nor appreciated the specific intent of
the Act and has presumably short-circuited the existing rights of the petitioners by relying on an interim
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, without even discussing as to whether the said interim order is
applicable to the petitioners in the present facts and circumstances or not.

14. Thus, we hold that the impugned order, in our view, has not taken into account the relevant
provisions of the Act and has only dealt with the Hon'ble Supreme Court interim order that was
passed in the year 2000, previous to enactment of the Act.

15. In light of the same, the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 is quashed and set aside with a
direction upon the authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and/or their
representatives, and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The authority
concerned shall be at liberty for requisition of all such records, which may be necessary for
adjudication of the rights of the petitioners, including the latest judgement/order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any, for arriving at a fair, legal and proper decision, keeping in mind the
object to be achieved under the Act.

16. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein
livelihood of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes has been adversely effected, we provide that till
such time the order is passed by the District Level Committee, the forest dwellers shall be vested
with all their existing rights as enumerated in the Act, in accordance with law.

17. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 839
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 22 of 2023
Alongwith
Application U/S 482. No. 9058 of 2023

Rajiv Mundhra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties