Hadubandhu Singh, a resident of Ambapadia of Krushna Nagar village under the Daruthenga Gram Panchayat, located in the district of Khurda, Odisha. This presentation narrates his story, how he has been deprived from right and justice. He is going to be evicted from forest land, if Hon'ble Supreme Court of India accepts affidavit submitted by the Government of Odisha in the matter of W.P.(C)109/2008.

1. Hadubandhu Singh
Denied Rights and Justice

2. BrieflyabouttheSlides This is a story of Hadubandhu Singh of Ambapadia hamlet
under the Krushnanagar village of Daruthenga Gram Panchayat
in Bhubaneswar Sub-division of Khurda district. He belongs to
Bhumij, an ethnic group of Scheduled Tribe of Odisha. Dharmu
Singh, father of Hadubandhu Singh, had come from Mayurbhanj
district and settled in forest area of Chandaka in mid seventies.
Hadubandhu Singh narrated his experience of claim submission
under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 to 25th June 2019 before a
group of researcher, who went to their village to document the
process followed by the SDLC and DLC, while hearing his
rejected claims. The Research team has collected available
documents from Hadubandhu Singh to analyse his case.
The slides contents two parts. Part – 1 narrates his narrative
before the team and Part – 2 highlights gap in between the
provisions and practices adopted by the SDLC and DLC.

3. PART - 1

4. • Name: Hadubandhu Singh
• Age: 62
• Father’s Name: Dharmu Singh
• Age: 90
• Total Family Members: 12
• Caste: Scheduled Tribe
• Ethnic group: Bhumija
• Name of the Village: Ambapadia of
Krushnanagar
• Gram Panchayat: Daruthenga
• Sub-Division: Bhubaneswar
• District: Khurda

5. “I can not tell exact year,
when we came here. When
I was a child, my father and
mother shifted to this area
from Mayurbhanj. My
father told me that in mid-
seventies there was severe
drought in their village.
Food scarcity was high. So,
they decided to shift here.
At that time I was around 7-
8 years old. Now I am 62
years old”

6. “We do not have any
recorded land. We have
survived on this small piece
of land. As this soil is not fit
for paddy, we are only
doing vegetable cultivation
and selling it in nearby
markets. From vegetables
we are earning around 10
to12 thousand rupees per
year. Besides that we earn
some money by doing
labour work in
Bhubaneswar or nearby
villages.”

7. “Initially there was no
problem. But, after
declaration of this area as
Sanctuary, we have been
facing lot of problem. They
are not allowing us, even to
collect leaves and tubers
from sanctuary area. Just
few years back they came
and destroyed our vegetable
gardens. And told us that we
will be evicted from this
area. They called us as illegal
encroacher.”

8. “We have been deprived
from all sorts of
government programs
and schemes. Just 6 – 7
years back, the
Government opened a
School and an
Anganwadi Centre in our
village. We got electricity
connection last year. The
scheme of one rupee rice
helps us to survive”

9. “In 2008 we came to know
about the Forest Rights Act
from a youth of neighbouring
village Chudanga. He helped us
in filing claims. I filed claim in
2008 for 3 acres of forest land,
which have been under our
occupation. In 2009, revenue
inspector came to our village
and prepared sketch map. We
were happy on that day. We
thought we are going to get
patta on this land. And Forest
Department will not harass us
any more.”

10. “In 2009, some people
from neighbouring
villages got patta
(title). Then we went to
RI office and asked him
about our claims. He
told us you check with
the Collector. From
2009 to till last month
we are running from
pillar to post without
any response on our
claims”

11. “Last month on 15th June
2019, we got a paper from
a youth of neighbouring
village informing that we
all need to go to the Sub-
Collector office for a
meeting to discuss on our
forest right claim.
Accordingly, we collected
Rs.100 from each
household and hired a
vehicle and attended the
meeting ”

12. We waited there for more
than two hours to meet with
the officials. After two hours
of waiting they called name
one after another. When I
entered into the hall, they
asked me about the paper. I
produced the paper, then he
took my signature on a paper.
And told me to meet another
officer.
I was not given even few
minutes to keep my points
before the officials

13. “The officer just asked
me my name and age.
Then asked about my
native place. I told them
I came to here with my
father from
Mayurbhanj. Then, they
told me to sign in
another paper. After
signing, they told me to
go out.”

14. “Once again I got another
paper on 23rd June 2019
from same person. He
told that we all need to
go to the Collector office
located in Khurda town to
discuss on our forest right
claim. Once again, we
collected Rs.100 from
each household and hired
a vehicle and attended
the meeting”

15. “They called name one
after another. When I
entered into the hall, they
asked me about the
paper. I produced the
paper, then he took my
signature and told me to
meet another officer.”

16. “The officer just asked me
my name and age. Then
asked about my native
place. I told them I came
to here with my father
from Mayurbhanj. Then,
he asked me about caste
certificate. I told him we
are living in forest land.
We donot have any patta
land. Who will give us
caste certificate?

17. “Then, they took my
signature on a
paper, and told me
to go out. That day
more than 500
people were there. I
don't know why they
called us after 10
years of submission
of claim.”

18. Part - 2PART - 2

19. Methodology • The team interacted with the members of the Forest Rights
Committee and gathered information related to filing of the
forest right claims;
• The team did focused group discussion with forest right
claimants including women claims of the village and gathered
documents from them.
• The research team interacted with Revenue Inspector of
Chandaka RI circle.
• Reviewed all orders issued by the Odisha and Central
Government pertaining to review of rejected claims including
proceedings of SLMC.
• Google Earth Map of 2005

20. Decisions of the State Level
Monitoring Committee related
to appeal against rejection of
Forest Right Claims

21. The Final minutes of Gram Sabha meeting is neither available
with the Secretary of Gram Panchayat nor in the proceedings
book maintained by the Forest Rights Committee
• As per the Chief Secretary
letter dated 4th February
2009 (No. 6061/SSD)
• All copies of the Gram Sabha
meeting shall be available at
the Gram Panchayat Office
• The minutes of the Gram Sabha
Proceedings were not found at
the Gram Panchayat Office;
• Only minutes of two Gram
Sabha meetings is recorded in
the proceedings book available
with the President of FRC;
• The claim approval proceedings
of the Gram Sabha is not
recorded in the proceedings
book available with the
President of FRC;
• While discussing with the
members of FRC, they have
denied about any rejection of
claim by the Gram Sabha.
KeyInstruction

22. The members of the Gram Sabha and the Forest
Rights Committee denied of receiving of any
communication either from the SDLC or DLC in
regards to their claims till 14th June 2019
• As per the Chief
Secretary letter dated
4th February 2009 (No.
6061/SSD)
• The abstract of relevant
portions of the agenda
notes and proceedings
of the SDLC and DLC of
particular village must
be made available to
the concerned Gram
Sabha/Palli Sabha

23. Decisions of the State Level Monitoring
Committee never been adhered with
letter & spirit
Date of SLMC Meeting Decision Responsibility
Decision of SLMC held on 24th October 2008
An authenticate copy of the SDLC proceedings needs to be given to Palli/
Gram Sabha so that the Palli Sabha shall know about the
recommendations of the SDLC. The Palli/ Gram Sabha will in turn inform
the persons affected and the appeal opportunity can be made use of.
[Action: PR Deptt., R&DM Deptt, F&E Deptt.]
Decision of 4th SLMC held on 29th March 2011
Regarding high percentage of rejection of claims under the
implementation of the Forest Rights Act, it is suggested that at least 5%
of the rejected claims may be verified on random sampling.
[Action: ST&SC Dev. Deptt/ Collectors]

24. Decisions of the State Level Monitoring
Committee never been adhered with
letter & spirit
Date of SLMC Meeting Decision Responsibility
Decision of 6th SLMC held on 23rd November 2012
In case of rejection of claims filed by Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers, each district should carry out the sample survey to
ascertain the reasons, report the results thereof and take
corrective measurers. This survey may be carried out in at
least 20 cases per district or 2% of such rejected claims
which ever is more.

25. Decisions of the State Level Monitoring Committee
never been adhered with letter & spirit
8th SLMC, 21st July 2015

26. Decisions of the State Level Monitoring
Committee never been adhered with
letter & spirit
9th SLMC, 16th March 2017

27. Processes as Suggested by the SLMC
in its 8th meeting never been
implemented
• Till end of June 2019, a total of 9
meetings of SLMC held in the State.
In 4 meetings out of 9, the SLMC
had discussed matter related to
rejection of the Forest Rights Claim;
• In 8th SLMC meeting, which was
held on 21st July 2015, the SLMC
had devised a action plan for
review of rejected claims;
• In 9th SLMC proceeding mentions
that out of 1.49 lakh rejected IFR
claims, only 5980 rejections were
communicated to the claimants.
And this meeting was held 2 years
after the 8th SLMC.
• Sri Hadubandhu Singh, received
intimation about cause of rejection
only after interim order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
NOT because of SLMC decision.
Key Decisions of 8th SLMC vis
a vis Sri Hadubandhu Singh
Preparation of
Data base on
rejected claims
Generation of
Awareness on
provisions and
processes
Hearing and
disposal of
appeal
petitions by
SDLC
Communication
of cause(s) of
rejection to
Claimants

28. Provisions under the
Forest Rights Act, 2006
and Rules, 2008
(amended upto 2012)

29. Provisions under the ActSub-Section(2)ofSection
6oftheAct
Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to
the Sub-Divisional Level Committee constituted under sub-section (3) and the Sub-
Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition;
Provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date
of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha;
Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved
person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case;
Sub-Section(4)ofSection6of
theAct
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee may
prefer a petition to the District Level Committee within sixty days from the date of
decision of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee
shall consider and dispose of such petition:
Provided that no petition shall be preferred directly before the District Level
Committee against the resolution of the Gram Sabha unless the same has been
preferred before and considered by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee:
Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved
person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case

30. Provisions under the Forest Rights Rules,
2008 (amended upto 2012)
Rules Provisions
12A(3) In the event of modification or rejection of a claim by the
Gram Sabha or a recommendation for modification or
rejection of a claim forwarded by the SDLC to the District
Level Committee, such decision or recommendation on
the claim shall be communicated in person to the
claimant to enable him to prefer a petition to SDLC or DLC
as the case may be, within a period of sixty days which
shall be extendable to a period of thirty days at the
discretion of the above said committee
14(1) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha
may within a period SIXTY DAYS from the date of
resolution file a petition to the SDLC.

31. Provision
versus Practice
Date of issue of
letter by SDLC
01.06.2019 After 17
DAYSDate of Hearing 18.06.2019
Claimant Received
Intimation about
cause of rejection
15.06.2019 3 DAYs
Got ONLY 3 Days instead of 60 Days

32. Provision Vs.
Practice
DLC issued a letter to the
Claimant to Intimate him
about Cause of Rejection by
the SDLC
20.06.2019 5 DAYS
Date of Hearing 25.06.2019
Claimant Received
Intimation about cause of
rejection
23.06.2019 2 DAYs
Got ONLY 2 Days instead of 60
Days

33. The St & SC Development Department had prescribed a set of
formats to the Sub-Divisional and District Level Nodal Officer
for communication of Cause of rejection to the Claimant on 27th
April 2019 vide letter No. 7893/SSD
FormatforINTIMATIONofCUASEofREJECTIONtothe
ClaimantbySub-DivisionalLevelCommittee
TheSub-DivisionalLevelCommitteeMODIFIEDthe
FORMAT
60 days from the
date of receipt
SDLC DELETED it

34. The St & SC Development Department had prescribed a set of
formats to the Sub-Divisional and District Level Nodal Officer
for communication of Cause of rejection to the Claimant on 27th
April 2019 vide letter No. 7893/SSD
FormatforINTIMATIONofCUASEofREJECTIONtothe
ClaimantbyDistrictLevelCommittee
TheDistrictLevelCommitteeMODIFIEDtheFORMAT
60 days from the
date of receipt
SDLC DELETED itCompletely Changed the
sentence prescribed
As per SC/ST Dept. format, respondent is given 60 days to respond and the hearing is to be fixed by
the administration in case s/he responds. The actual notice from the administration changed this to
unilaterally fix a hearing date and assert that “If you are absent on the day of hearing it will be decided
that you have no appeal against the order and the rejection would be considered as final”

35. Different Cause of Rejection given by SDLC & DLC
As per SDLC Notice, cause of rejection
is ‘Multiple Claimants’
As per DLC Notice, cause of rejection is
‘lack of Caste Certificate and evidence
against occupation’

36. Documents Attached by Sri Hadubandhu
Singh with his Forest Right Claim form
Voter I-card establishes that Sri
Hadubandhu Singh have been
residing in said area prior to 2005
Encroachment Fine Receipt
establishes that Sri Hadubandhu
Singh is in occupation over the land
in 2002 for which he had fine

37. The Gram Sabha had adopted resolution in regards to
the caste of claimants as decided in 2nd SLMC Meeting
held on 24th Oct 2008 & subsequent orders issued by
R&DM Deptt., and ST & SC Dev Deptt. in 2008

38. Examples from other
Districts of Odisha

39. Kandhamal District
Name of the Claimant Sibaram Patra
Village/ Gram Sabha Ratang
GP Ratang
Date of Communication of
cause of Rejection by
Phulbani SDLC
20.05.2019
Date of Hearing Notice
issued by SDLC
31.05.2019
Date of Hearing by SDLC 21.06.2019
Place of Hearing Office of the Sub-
Collector, Phulbani
Sibaram got ONLY 11 Days instead of 60 Days

40. Name of the
Claimant
Nirmala Ekka
Village Gaijor
GP Meghadega
Thana Sadar
Date of
Communication of
cause of Rejection
by SDLC
07.06.2019
Date of Hearing by
SDLC
17.06.2019
Place of Hearing Office of the
Tehsildar, Tangarpalli
Sundargarh District
Nirmala Ekka got ONLY 10 Days instead of
60 Days

41. Sundargarh District
Name of the
Claimant
Naik Kisan
Village Dalkijoraj
GP Gundiajiri
Tehsil Lepripada
Date of
Communication of
cause of Rejection
by SDLC
Not Mentioned
Date of Hearing by
SDLC
19.06.2019
Place of Hearing Office of the
Tehsildar, Lepripada

42. Bargarh District
Name of the
Claimant
Bajaru Bag
Village Dunguripada
Block Jharbandh
Dist Bargarh
Date of
Communication of
cause of Rejection
by SDLC
30.05.2019
Date of Notice
issued by DLC
08.06.2019
Date of Hearing
fixed by DLC
26.06.2019
Place of Hearing Conference Hall,
District Collectorate
Office, Bargarh
Bajaru Bag got ONLY 24 Days instead of 60
Days

43. Deogarh District
Name of the Claimant Rajan Sethi
Village Talakudar
GP Utunia
Dist Deogarh
Date of
Communication of
cause of Rejection by
SDLC
11.06.2019
Date of Hearing fixed
by SDLC
17.06.2019
Place of Hearing Not Mentioned
Remark If you are unable place
require documents
within 7 days before the
undersigned authority,
then no futher chance
would be given to you.

44. Sri Hadubandhu
Singh is not only
example, such
situation prevails
in most of the
Districts and
Subdivisions of
Odisha after
Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India’s
Interim Order

45. Guardians
of Forests
need your
VOICE.
#iamnotanencrocher

46. Field Research Team
• Archana Soreng
• Panchali Bhagawati, Tejpur University, Assam
• Arti Singh, Tejpur University, Assam
• Pritirani Deka, Tejpur University, Assam
• Aurobindo Rout
• Ranjita Pattnaik