ORANGE AREAS

EXAMINING THE ORIGIN AND STATUS

Anil Garg

National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune

First Published in January 2005

Published by:

National Centre for Advocacy Studies,

Serenity Complex, Ramnagar Colony,

Pashan, Pune 411 021,

Maharashtra. INDIA

Tel/Fax: +91+20- 22952003 / 22952004

E-mail : ncas@vsnl.com

Website: www.ncasindia.org

The contents of this book may be reproduced by voluntary organisations, social action groups, people’s organisations, public interest professionals and citizens for non-commercial purposes with due acknowledgement of the source. Any other form of reproduction, storage in retrieval system or transmission by any means requires prior permission from the publisher.

Editors:

Amitabh Behar, Pankajkumar Bedi and Rifat Mumtaz

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

INTRODUCTION
ORANGE AREAS: GENESIS AND PRESENT STATUS
EMERGING ISSUES

FOREWORD

What happens when it is discovered that two departments of the government namely the Forest Department and the Revenue Department have committed grave errors in discharging their duties, especially when the error has led to the denial of rights enshrined in the Constitution to thousands of people? The Orange Area land dispute is a classic example of such a case and has policy and legal implications in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

The “Orange Area” is disputed and claimed by both, the Revenue and the Forest Departments. As a result of its ambiguous status, thousands of tribals have lost their homes and lands since 1958. On the whole, the Forest Department has been tardy in completing the de-notification proceedings as per section 34 A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Revenue Department has been lazy in updating its records pertaining to the transfer and re-tranfer of the said land.

In current times the emphasis on environment protection, wild life protection and protection of bio-diversity is fairly visible in the policies and laws of the country. However what is not visible is the neglect and contempt with which forest dwellers (mainly tribals) have been (mis) treated by the government under the garb of protecting the environment. Notwithstanding the fact that forests have been the primary source of livelihood for tribes dwelling in the forests, it is these tribes which are branded as ‘encroachers’ on forest land. Their right to life and livelihood are seriously threatened by the growing hegemony of the industry and the state on the one hand, and the forest department on the other.

It is a well documented fact that the Forest Department was created by the British with the express purpose of harvesting the wealth of the forests. The Indian Government further strengthened laws and regulations which alienated forest dwellers from their livelihood sources. In the face off between the self proclaimed protector of forests, namely the Forest Department, and the people dependent on the forests, namely the tribal communities, it is often the tribal community that has been denied its rights to life, livelihood and the right to reside. The question here is whether the rights enshrined in and guaranteed by the Constitution have any validity when they are flouted and go unchallenged by the haphazard application of laws like the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Conservation of Forest Act, 1980 and biased Supreme Court decisions as given in the Godhavarman Case?

This small publication is aimed at presenting the “error” committed by the two departments leading to the dispute regarding the status of 12,274 sq. km of land also known as “Orange Area”. The information provided herein is based on years of research and is pertinent to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Documents and correspondence proof of all matters raised and presented are available with the authors.

Hope this publication will provide an insight into the issue, generate support and enable others in the field to examine land and forest issues in this light.

Anil Garg

Amitabh Behar

ORANGE AREAS

EXAMINING THE ORIGINS & STATUS

I. Introduction

The states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh[1] are home to 60,385,118 (19.94% tribals) and 20,795,956 (27.49% tribals) people respectively. While Madhya Pradesh has an area of 308,144 sq. km, the state of Chhattisgarh is spread in an area of 135,191 sq. km. Madhya Pradesh with 77,265 sq. km of forest cover has the maximum forest cover amongst all states/UTs and Chhattisgarh has the third largest with 56,448 sq. km.

Taken together both these states have the highest number of national parks and wild life sanctuaries in the country. Madhya Pradesh has 9 National Parks and 25 Wildlife Sanctuaries and Chhattisgarh has 3 National Parks and 9 Wildlife Sanctuaries. This has led to the alienation of the tribal population whose livelihood depends upon forest and forestland while thousands more continue to live in abject poverty in the so called “forest villages”. Under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, only land can be compensated whereas livelihoods are not taken care of.

Forest villages are a constitutional anomaly and a hangover of the British-established labour colonies in the then abundant forests of the country for the express purpose of harvesting forest wealth. Today the dwellers of these villages wage a constant war of survival with the forest department. They are prisoners in their homes and awaiting legitimate settlement. Currently there are 923 forest villages in Madhya Pradesh and 422 in Chhattisgarh. Scheduled tribes predominantly inhabit these villages.

There are over 60,00,000 landless people in these two states most of them belonging to Schedule Tribes and Schedule Caste. Most of these people (specially those belonging to the Schedule Tribes) became landless with the enactment and haphazard application of the Indian Forest Act 1927, Wild Life Protection Act 1972 and Forest Conservation Act 1980. In 1990 the Government of Madhya Pradesh made a policy decision for regularisation of encroachments on forestland. As a result some eligible encroaches were regularized prior to 3.12.76. Proposals for regularisation of remaining encroachers and eligible encroachers prior to 24.10.80 are still under consideration with the Government of India (GoI).

It is important to note that the dwellers of forest villages were not included in either of the two surveys undertaken for regularisation. The Government of Madhya Pradesh is unable to regularise the encroached land due to non-clearance by the GoI.[2] The GoI has no qualms about diverting forestland for non-forestry purposes such as mining and irrigation, but has great reservations on regularising landholdings and homesteads of people dwelling on forestland since hundreds of years. This is clear from the data presented in Table 1 and 2.

Table-1

Details of forest land diverted for different user agencies since 1980

User Agency	Number of Cases	Forest Area diverted (in hectares)
Irrigation	149	67155.362
Major mining	106	9793.132
Minor mining	48	701.537
MPEB/NTPC/DTPL	179	3268.100
Miscellaneous	79	40105.938
Total	561	121024.069

Source: Forest Survey of India – State of Forest Report 2001 (Forests of Madhya Pradesh)

Table-2

Settlement of Encroachments

Category	No. of Persons	Forest Area (in hectares)
Settlement of encroachments upto 31.12.76 undertaken in 1990	41530	53342.758
Left out encroachers of 1976 survey and eligible encroachers prior to 24.10.80 still awaiting settlement	70141	90560.824

Source: Forest Survey of India – State of Forests Report 2001

Forests have been the source of sustenance and livelihood for people since times immemorial and more so for the tribal communities. Tribals have been struggling to assert and retain their rights over their forests more so in current times when environmental protection weighs heavily on the minds of both the developed and developing nations. It is easy to ask a pertinent question – Why is it that only the tribals and the marginalised get ousted from their lands and homes in the name of protection of environment and or development?

There is no doubt that in the denial of the rights of a large number of tribal and schedule caste communities some basic tenets of the Indian Constitution have been flouted:

Article 14 – Equality before law. This provides that legally every individual or group of people such as the tribals, local forest dwellers, industries and others who use the forest resources must be treated equally. But its often the tribals who loose their rights to forests and land.

Article 21 – Right to life and livelihood. This provides that the people have a basic right to natural resources on which their life and livelihood are dependent. Yet the story of most tribal communities in the country, whether it’s the Sehrias in Madhya Pradesh, the Baigas in Chattisgarh, the Mundas in Orissa, the Musahars in Bihar, or any other tribal community in any other part of the country, is a case of denial of this right.

Article 19 – Right to reside. This provides that people have a fundamental right to reside in an area in which people have domiciled for long. Yet the ousting of tribals in the name of national parks and sanctuaries, big power projects and mining, all for a vague common good, is a clear denial of this right.

The Forest and land laws in India have combined to produce a situation where the tribals find themselves on shifting grounds. Land laws have been codified since the British came to India and have undergone various changes. Mahesh Rangrajan, in his book “Fencing the Forest” states that few wooded lots were owned by the British government. In 1854 the government reserved rights to ‘large tracts of forest’ but left patches of jungles to the local landholders. The village forest were left open to the public. Jungles and woodlots in the control of zamindars and malguzars continued to be managed under varying rules and regulations.

The land and revenue department has been in existence since the British created the forest department in 1865 with the passage of the first Indian Forest Act[3]. It was amended in 1878 when a comprehensive law, the Indian Forest Law Act VII came into force. The provision of this Act established a virtual state monoply over the forests in a legal sense[4]. The Act also attempted to establish that the customary use of forests by the villagers was not a ‘right’ but a ‘privilege’ that could be withdrawn at will. It should be noted that it was on the basis of such Acts that the British were, through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, unquestionably the world leaders in deforestation decimating the forests of north-eastern United States, Southern Africa and the Western Ghats of India.

The historical context of laws relating to forests seems to present two distinct views on their objectives. One view, which is held by the state is that forests were reserved to restrict use and enable sustainable harvesting, which would meet the objectives of both conservation and livelihood requirements of the people. Another view is that ‘for the colonial government, the Forest Acts were a mere instrument of controlling and exploiting common property land’ by restricting peoples access to forest resources and securing exclusive control over the forests.

Post independence, the state only moved to strengthen its monopoly, and the global movement for protection of the environment gave a further impetus to fortify its claims. The rights of the people that had already been turned to privileges were now further eroded and termed concessions. In a hurry to catch up with the west defined environmentalism, we can be seen to have “skipped a whole stage of environmentalism so to say – where environmentalism is principally a question social justice, of allowing the poor to have as much claim on the fruits of nature as the rich and the powerful [5]”.

Inspite of Gandhi’s vehement opposition to industrialisation and the wide spread movements by tribal communities against forest laws, the Indian state continued exercising its monopoly over natural resources. New laws and Acts such as the Wild life Protection Act were passed leading to the ousting of tribals all over the country. Here one is not contending the need for wild life protection and environmental protection but wondering at why all the protection has to be done at the cost of those who eke out their living from the forest and natural resources of the land. How is it that the concern for the environment does not prevent the government from ignoring the existing laws but even enacting new laws for enabling industrial houses to acquire forestlands for mining and power projects? Why doesn’t this concern prevent the state itself from submerging and destroying thousands of hectares of forest land for power projects, dams, highways, mining and so on?

In post independent India, both the Department of Revenue and Department of Forests grew into huge bureaucratic machineries. Both evolved a plethora of laws, records and regulations to govern their respective resources-land and forests. While both departments were meant to work in consultation and in instances jointly for the protection, management and enhancement of their resources, the truth is that it didn’t really happen. No frameworks or processes were created to facilitate their collective functioning even though their resources are entangled. A large number of lands that are today forest lands were earlier revenue lands. And even though land settlement and forest settlement processes have been carried out by both departments their records are in spectacular disarray.

This case is aimed at bringing to fore this confusion and disarray of both the departments that has far and wide reaching impacts upon the lives and livelihoods of people and specifically the tribal communities. The data and information provided pertain to one state – Madhya Pradesh but the overall implications of the case are relevant to the whole country post independence. It is not the aim of this paper to provide information for the whole country but it is hoped that the case will enable others in the field to examine the land and forest issues in this light.

II. Orange Areas: Gensis and Present Status

Consider the sequence of events and processes presented in Table-3. Each event and process has a larger backdrop of the laws and Acts pertaining to the forest and land issues in the country. Add to this the complex interplay of state specific laws and Acts governing land and forests and the stage for utter chaos and confusion is set. The confusion is not exactly a state secret as its implications and repercussions are evident in most cases that are raging against the two departments in various judicial courts of the country.

Madhya Pradesh is currently battling a case in the Supreme Court as a result of confusions and ill maintained records of the two departments. There are a number of Supreme Court judgments in cases pertaining to peoples’ fight for their rights to natural resources namely land and forests. There are various cases pending before various judicial courts, tribunals and committees about peoples rights vis-à-vis increasing state and industrial monopoly over natural resources.

Table-3 presents the story of 12,374 square kilometers of disputed land. This land is recorded as forest land in the records of the Department of Forests and as revenue land in the records of the Department of Revenue. This disputed land is also known as the “Orange Area” since on the maps it has been marked in orange color. It is proposed that if this dispute is resolved then the pending regularisations of land and distribution of land to the landless can be undertaken smoothly.

At the time of creation of the state of Madhya Pradesh in 1956, 94.781 lakh hectares of common land were declared as protected forest under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. The last notification for this purpose was made on 10 July 1958.

In 1959 the same land was considered as “dakhal rahit bhoomi” (land free from all encumbrances) and set aside for nistar rights of the people as per the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959. [6] Since then this land has been the cause of immense confusion and strife not only among the two departments but also for the people who were distributed land under various schemes of the government. If the records have to be set right and if the government is serious about its commitment to land distribution and land settlement, then it is imperative that this dispute must be settled once for all.

Table-3 explains the origin of the dispute and thereafter the increase in the confusion and strife due to the conflicting and simultaneous proceedings initiated and undertaken by the two departments on the same lands.

Table-3

REVENUE DEPT		FOREST DEPT
1910	In the undivided Madhya Pradesh during the process of settlement (bandobast) of different types of villages such as malguzari, zamindari and ryotwadi villages, a plan was made and the missal bandobast was undertaken on the basis of this plan. Similarly, wajib-ul-urz (settlement record of public rights in private lands) was also prepared for the nistar lands of these villages and lands were reserved for this purpose. The above settlement process is recorded in the settlement record of the Revenue Department (missal) and a Record of Rights (missal haqaiyat) and the usufruct rights records (nistar patrak) of each village was prepared mentioning the kind of activities and the land use in future. This settlement was also accepted as community settlement/public settlement for the villages. Lands classified as Nistari van, malguzari/zamindari van, revenue van, bade jhad ke jungle, chote jhad ke jungle, ghas, charnoi, charagah, etc. were reserved according to their usage and settled on a similar basis in all the villages. Provisions for gothan, khalihan, kabristan, shamshan, skinning of hides, play ground, padav, bazaar, etc. were determined on these lands. This entire settlement has been mentioned in the missal, and nistar patrak of each village was prepared mentioning these facilities. This settlement was also accepted as community settlement, public settlement for the villages. In the malguzari and zamindari villages the control of this system was handed over to the malguzars and zamindars but in the ryotwadi villages this control was handed over to the revenue officials. In order to limit the usage of wood, forest produce by the village community; land blocks of sometimes as much as 500 acre were included and reserved within the boundaries of the revenue village. This was done so that villagers would stop entry into reserved forest areas and the said areas would come into the control of the British government for commercial use.
1950	After independence the Abolition of malguzari and zamindari Act came into force [Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No.1 of 1951) was enacted which among other things vested all Proprietary Rights in such Estate, Mahal, Alienated Village or Alienated Land (as the case may be) with the State free from all encumbrances.] Under this, acquisition proceedings were started for the nistar lands so far in the control of malguzars and zamindars. After acquisition of these nistar lands, the control was handed over to the revenue department.
1954	The above mentioned dakhal rahit/nistar lands passed into the lawful control of the forest department but no changes were made in the revenue records to reflect the changed status of these lands.	The then state governments passed orders to the effect that the management of the nistar lands thus acquired should be handed over to the forest department. The forest department thus considered all the lands registered in the nistar patrak and wajib-ul-arz of the revenue villages as within their mandate and started proceedings of survey and demarcation. These proceedings were carried so that the appropriate lands for forest use could be notified as reserved forest and given legal status. It is pertinent to mention that in the survey and demarcation work which was started at that time, it has been categorically mentioned that “a number of areas though transferred on account of their being recorded as bada jhad ka jungle, grass land or “pahar chattan” were actually under cultivation or remained so even then”.
1956: The states within the country were reorganized bringing into fold many independent riyasats and on 1^st November 1956 the new state of Madhya Pradesh came into existence. This new state included many riyasats that had earlier had their own laws and practices vis-à-vis management and control of land.
1958	The revenue department, made no changes in its records or procedures even after these nistar lands were notified by the forest department and these lands continued to be registered as dakhalrahit bhoomi (land free from all encumbrances) in the revenue records. Now a situation was created where by a twofold control over the same land was established: one the land seen within the control of the forest Department as per the notifications made in 1958 and two the control over the same lands as dakhal rahit bhoomi or land free from all encumbrances in the control of the Revenue Department as seen within the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.	In order to strengthen the management procedures for the lands handed over to the forest department in 1954, the state governments made notifications in their respective state gazettes. In 1958, vide Notification No. 9-X-50 dated 10^th July 1958, the State Government considered it necessary to make the provisions of Chapter IV of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927) applicable to all such forest land which has been vested in the State by virtue of the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No.1 of 1951) and transfer it to the forest department for management. Such forestlands were denoted as undemarcated Protected Forests and thus were neither Reserve Forest nor Protected Forest. The said notification also assured that pending the enquiry for recording of rights (as required by Sub section 3 of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act) existing rights of individuals or Community in such land shall not be abridged or effected in any manner except in so far as they may be modified by the State Government from time to time. For some districts in Mahakaushal region notifications were made for each village according to the khasra details. In Reeva region, all lands other than reserved forest, personal land and land included in urban territories were notified. In Gwalior region lands adjoining reserved forest were notified as protected forest. In most other regions the notifications so made did not give details of the land and were thus open to varied interpretations (chayawadi). In this manner the forest department managed to provide a one sided lawful status to all these lands by declaring them as protected forest under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
1959	After the formation of the new state of M.P. all previous revenue laws and practices were considered null and void and the new M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was deemed applicable in the entire state. In chapter 18 (aabadi tatha dakhalrahit bhoomi mein adhikar aur uski upaj) of the Code, provisions were laid down – section 233: description of dakhalrahit land; section 234: preparation of the nistar patrak; section 235: subjects that will be covered in the nistar patrak; section 236: other subjects in the nistar patrak; section 237: land set aside by the collector for use of nistar rights; section 238: rights in the banjar land of another village; section 239: rights to the produce of fruitbearing trees planted in the dakhalrahit land and responsibilities and powers of the revenue officials were laid down.

1960	The Revenue Department’s total silence in the face of the 1960 Rules clearly suggests that it accepted the full control of the Forest Department on the nistar rights. Despite this implicit acceptance, the Revenue Department did not make any changes in the records of the lands registered as nistar lands under its own control thus continuing the old system and the confusion over the status of these lands.	A notification was made in the state gazette on 2.09.1960 under section 32 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in order to bring in the Protected Forest Rules, 1960. As per these rules the nistar rights so far enjoyed by the communities were given in the control of the forest department and were henceforth to be seen as nistar concessions/facilities (suvidha) given by the forest department.
1962-63	However no corrections were made on this basis in the existing revenue land records thus these lands continued to be recorded as dakhal rahit bhoomi in the land records.	That to overcome all the above uncertainties, a decision was taken in 1963 where demarcation, survey proceedings and mapping were initiated by the Forest Department for the lands declared as protected forest under various notifications. Under the demarcation proceedings encroachment on small pieces of land were to be left out of the Forest Compartments. In addition to this, attention was to be given to set aside land for village nistar future expansion and cultivation. A strip of land was to be left between the forest compartments and the village lands kept aside for future village expansion, nistar and agriculture land of the villages. At the same time, instructions were given that if in the areas that were not transferred to the Forest Department, land was found that had a standing forest or that or that was surrounded by forest area then it was to be included in the forest compartment. This entire exercise was time bound and special groups were constituted to undertake this exercise. For the purpose of demarcation of protected forest compartments maps were prepared by the patwaries indicating all the khasra areas that were handed over to the forest department. Then forest compartments were drawn on the maps based on the earlier khasra indications. Thereafter based on the ground survey and directives, steeples were made on the sites and the boundaries drawn. After these activities a survey was undertaken and the boundaries drawn on the maps. In the patwari maps the areas that were included in the protected forest compartment were shown in the colour green and the areas that were left outside the protected forest compartments were depicted in orange colour. Eventually these areas that were left outside the forest compartments came to be known as the orange area lands. Further at the time of creation of forest compartments there were lands that were cultivated and owned by people as personal property but that were surrounded by forest. Thus it was included within the compartments with the intention that it would be later acquired. The above said position has been unequivocally accepted by the State through its letter dated January 24th, 1994 by the then Additional Secretary, Department of Forests, Government of Madhya Pradesh. On completion of the demarcation and survey proceedings, the forest compartments were indicated on the patwari maps. In addition to this, a proceeding completion application was made which indicated a) the khasra numbers pertaining to land (within each village) transferred to the forest department, b)land included in the forest compartment, c)land excluded (left out) from the forest compartments, and d)land included within the forest compartment but belonging to the revenue department or owned by people as personal cultivation land. A copy of these completion applications and maps was handed over to the District Magistrates with the belief that based on these relevant changes, corrections would be made in the revenue records. In a number of private land holdings that were included in the forest compartments; initial notifications for proposed Reserve Forests were issued under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The process of settlement under the Indian Forest Act has an a elaborate procedure for settlement of rights (Sections 5-19). Only after such a due process of settlement a final notification is issued which concludes the process of reservation of a Forest Land as a Reserve Forest. In the present case, these initially notified areas form a substantial portion of the forest land where the settlement process is not complete. Even in such lands, pattas were given to individuals pending the process of settlement. During the process of settlement, the Forest Department and the Revenue Department jointly reviewed the cultivable forest land (including left out Area) and after enquiry, prepared reconciliation statements (Samadhan Patrak). In such statements details of the village including both old and new survey number, total area, amount of land transferred, reserve forest and village forests within the control of Forest Department etc. were recorded.
1965	Lands recorded as nistar lands, chote jhad ke jungle, bade jhad ke jungle, jungle khurd, jungle janla, sarna, karat, jhudpi jungle, nistar jungles, etc. were taken in control by the forest department and notified as protected forest under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 but due to lack of amendments in the MP Revenue Land Code, 1957 these same lands continued to be recorded as dakhalrahit bhoomi.	The disputes that came into existence as a result of transfer of control (of chote-bade jhad ke jungle, jungle khurd, junglre janla, etc.) to the forest department led to an acceptance by the government that for the resolution of these disputes provisions will have to be made in the law. Thereafter on 20.03.1965, sub-section 20 A was added to the existing section 20 and sub section 34 A was added to the existing section 34 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Section 20 A. Forest–Land or Waste Land deemed to be reserved forests – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this act or any other law for the time being in force, any forest land or waste land in the territories comprised within an Indian State immediately before the date of its merger in any of the integrating states now forming part of this state….. [7]. Section 34 A. Power to declare forests no longer protected – (1) the state government may, by notification, direct that from a date fixed in that behalf by such notification, any forest or portion thereof protected under this Act, shall cease to be a protected forest. (2) from the date so fixed, such forest or portion thereof shall cease to be protected by the rights, if any, which have been extinguished therein shall not revive in consequence of such cessation.[8]
1966	Madhya Pradesh Padat Bhoomi Cultivation Act, 1966 was brought into force with the publication of a notification in the government gazette on 3.10.1966. Under the provisions of this Act, revenue officials were given responsibilities for distribution of pattas to land controlled by the department prior to 30.05.1966. Therefore, for the first time lands recorded in section 237 of the MP Land Revenue Code were distributed as pattas to the landless people. Section 237. Collector to set aside land for exercise of Nistar rights. – (1) subject to the rules made under this code, the Collector may set apart unoccupied land for the following purposes, namely – For timber or fuel reserve; 1) For pasture, grass, bir or fodder reserve; 2) For burial ground and cremation ground; 3) For gaothan; 4) For encamping ground; 5) For threshing floor; 6) For bazaar; 7) For skinning ground; 8) For manure pits 9) For public purposes such as schools, play grounds, parks, road, lanes, drains and the like; and 10) For any other purposes which may be prescribed for the exercise of right of nistar….[9]
1967	Agriculture Co-operative Committees were formed by the state for the people belonging to the schedule castes under the ‘Grow More Food’ scheme of the Government of India. It was decided that government land would be distributed to these committees for agriculture. The land that was given to these committees was the same land that was transferred by the forest department to the revenue department without the required denotification proceedings (section 34 A). 2339 agriculture cooperative committees were formed after the orders of the state government and land transferred by the forest department to the revenue department (land found inappropriate for forest use after the survey) was given to them. In some areas this land was declared as kabil kasht by the Collector prior to its distribution. But in most places it was distributed without similar proceedings. In the revenue land records, the land was recorded as registered in the name of the cooperative committees. It is pertinent to mention here that the land given to these committees was the same that was transferred by the forest department to the revenue department without the required de-notification proceedings (section 34 A). This is brought out by the fact that detailed formats were prepared for the transfer of Forestland from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department for the ‘Grow More Food’ scheme.	The State Government gave directives to the Forest Department that the lands which were found inappropriate for forest use during the demarcation survey should be handed over to the revenue department under the ‘Grow More Food’ scheme so that these lands could be distributed to the samuhik krishi sehkari samiti.
1968	As per the process laid down in chapter 18 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, Revenue Department carried out a bandobast. The lands that were recorded as nistar lands in the revenue land records and handed over in the control of the forest department in 1954 were then notified in 1958 and then in 1965 after an amendment (20A) declared as protected forest. Nistar patrak were made for all these lands (even those notified under section 4 and included in the working plans of the forest department) during the bandobast as well as the record of rights.	The Forest Deaprtment continued to be engaged in the process of settlement of Section 4 notified forests.
1969	10 revenue department officials were appointed as forest settlement officers for hearing of disputes, complaints, etc. related with the lands notified under section 4 for declaration as reserved forest by the forest department. Inspite of the appointment of these 10 deputy collectors as forest settlement officers, no progress was made in the direction of rectifying the revenue records. Tree felling was undertaken on the nistar lands within the control of revenue department but the revenue records make no mention of these activities nor is it reflected in the revenue maps.	The lands that were found inappropriate for forest use by the forest department and therefore given back to the revenue department were included in the forest-working scheme for clearance by felling of trees (imarati vrikshon ki katai). The working schemes were known as 10 lakh patan and 25 lakh patan working scheme and khasra wise records were made for the lands on which felling was to take place.
1970	A notification was issued in the government gazette on 24.10.1970 vis-à-vis dakhalrahit boomi in the villages of Madhya Pradesh and the Vishesh Upbandh Adhiniyam, 1970 came into existence. By virtue of this, rules were made for the distribution of land specified under section 237 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959. This land was to be distributed to the occupants on land prior to 26.05.1970. Distribution of lands described under section 3, subsections a, b, and c were stalled. Section 3 – a) lands at a specified distance from city limits, national and state highways b) lands reserved for burial ground, cremation ground, gaothan, khalihan, skinning, bazaar and other public interests c) lands reserved for special purposes by the central or state government. Under section 5 it was stated that the land declared as protected forest land under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 will not be distributed till it is denotified under section 34 A. Despite a clear legal mandate to prohibit the issuance of patta in the forest lands without de-notification, the revenue officials distributed lands under the Vishesh Upbandh Adhiniyam, 1970 without de-notification proceedings under 34 A. These lands were the ones recorded as chote jhad ke jungle, bade jhad ke jungle, jungle janla, jungle khurd, sarna, karat, etc.
1974	All the revenue department offices at the