Angry outbursts and tears of desperation swept the hillsides in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve (ABR), particularly in Theni district. In the last few weeks, the Forest Department has issued eviction notices to thousands of households on the Tamil Nadu side alleging they had encroached on forest land.

Based on the findings and recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Supreme Court directed a time-bound encroachment eviction plan, rehabilitation where applicable, legal action against willful violators, and post-eviction ecological restoration. It also imposed additional penalties against 118 government servants found to be encroachers, and ordered the dismantling of all structures, utilities, logistical facilities, etc. within encroached forest areas. Finally, the Bench prohibited the diversion of forest land or the start of new non-forest activities within the ABR until all encroachments had been removed.

Likewise, it granted immunity from prosecution to all forest, police, revenue, and other officials involved in surveying, demarcating, and removing encroachments as part of this exercise except in cases involving mala fide or arbitrary action. Significantly, the Court directed the CEC to recommend the deployment of paramilitary forces if the Tamil Nadu government failed to comply with the Court’s directions.

The State is also to decide on the utilisation, retention, relocation or removal of all infrastructure and other establishments belonging to the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, Ltd. (BBTCL) in the Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, in consultation with the CEC.

Historical injustice

Parliament enacted the Forest Rights Act in 2006 to undo the historical injustice suffered by forest dwellers. It recognised and vested forest rights on forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who had occupied forest land before December 13, 2005.

The FRA provided for a transparent process for these individuals to claim their individual and community rights, to be verified and approved by gram sabhas. Six-member sub-division- and district-level committees — with representatives from the Revenue, Tribal, and Forest Departments and the elected members of panchayats — have to examine the claims and issue titles. Those forest land occupations that didn’t fall within the FRA’s scope could then become the actual encroachment.

But over the years, State governments, the CEC, the Forest Departments, and even the Supreme Court have ignored this basic legal fact. Despite the FRA having operated for two decades, no official has asked for data on forest land occupation falling outside the FRA’s scope nor has such information been presented to the public — making the data presented on encroachment and encroachers in any forum suspect.

In fact, in the recent hearings, the Supreme Court should have hauled up the recalcitrant State governments for poor FRA implementation. The Tribal Department, which is the nodal department to implement the Act, has also been problematically silent over these infirmities.

The FRA also prohibits authorities from evicting people who have allegedly encroached on forest land “till the recognition and verification procedure is complete”. Violating these forest rights has been described as an atrocity under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 since 2016. Yet courts and officials have continued to breach this principle.

Nowhere does the FRA produce a requirement that other traditional forest dwellers have to have occupied the land they are claiming for three generations (75 years) before 2005. Nor does the Act prohibit commercial activities on all forest lands or cultivating commercial crops there. In fact, the FRA defines “bonafide livelihood needs” to include the “sale of surplus produce arising out of exercise of such rights”. It also explicitly permits grazing on all forest lands. Yet the administration and the judiciary have hampered the FRA’s implementation on these dubious grounds.

CEC’s findings

The ABR spans 3,500 sq. km across Kerala (including parts of Pathanamthitta, Kollam, Idukki, and Thiruvananthapuram) and Tamil Nadu (Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Tenkasi, Theni, and Dindigul). It also covers protected areas as Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, the Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary, and the Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary in Tamil Nadu. In Kerala, it includes the Periyar Tiger Reserve and the Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary.

In March 2025, the Supreme Court directed the CEC to conduct an extensive survey of the entire Agasthyamalai landscape and report within three months on non-forestry activities in violation of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.

Based on inputs from the Forest Departments, field visits besides, and the previous Madras High Court orders pertaining to Megamalai, the CEC submitted its interim report on July 10, 2025, and the final report on January 16, 2026. The Court’s latest directions were based on the contents of these reports. Five of its findings follow:

(i) Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve: Around 4,595 individuals encroached 5,071.2 ha across Varusanadu, Megamalai, Gandamanur, and Chinnamanur, per 2020 records. The Theni district magistrate reported 4,601 encroachers had occupied 5,072.6 ha. The CEC also recorded 118 serving or retired government employees had encroached 15 ha.

(ii) Kalakad- Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: Of the 3,388.6 ha of land leased to BBTCL — of the Wadia Group — roughly 3,300 ha had been handed over to the Forest Department in May 2025. The remaining 89.6 ha housed factories, offices, schools, common places with shops, weigh bridges, etc. Their dismantling was to be completed shortly. Another 10.1 hectares had been occupied by 99 families of workers involved in building the Papanasam Upper and Lower Dams in 1942.

(iii) Kanniyakumari Forest Division: Some 427.4 ha had been encroached by 553 persons, of which 237 ha by 47 persons was involved in court cases.

(iv) Periyar Tiger Reserve: About 700 non-tribal inhabitants have lived on tea estates in core areas since the early 20th century.

(v) Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary: 1.3 ha had been occupied by tribal people in Kattilappara and Rosemala settlements.

Petitions dismissed

The apex court’s new orders relate to appeals against the Madras High Court order denying the petitioners’ claims about implementing FRA in Manjolai tea estate and rehabilitating evicted estate workers. The Court subsequently extended the case’s scope to cover ABR, inside which the estate is located.

The lease of the 3,388.7 ha of land leased to BBTCL for 99 years was set to expire in 2028. The Tamil Nadu government declared this land to be part of the critical tiger habitat of the Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in 2007, notified it as reserve forest in 2018, and issued the eviction notice in 2023. BBTCL then initiated a voluntary retirement scheme for its workers.

These workers filed several PILs and writ petitions challenging the scheme as well as the State’s actions, but the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court both dismissed them in 2024 and 2025.

One petition had contended that as the estate had been set up in 1929, the workers should be considered for forest claims under the FRA as ‘other traditional forest-dwellers’ fulfilling residence in the region for three generations. But the High Court declared these workers to be estate employees, not forest dwellers, and circumscribed them from the FRA’s ambit.

Thus, the historical injustice continues.

C.R. Bijoy examines natural resource conflicts and governance issues.

Published - August 05, 2026 09:45 am IST