FCRI, residential school remove solar fencing following High Court intervention
The campuses, which are situated in the bottleneck area of the Kallar corridor aka crucial Jaccanaire - Hulikal Durgam elephant corridor, removed the impediments to elephant movement following the intervention of a Special Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The Bench came to know of the hindrances caused by the two campuses to free movement of elephants after the amici curiae appointed by it inspected the places and submitted their report, as part of its visit to Government Horticulture Farm at Kallar. The amici curiae of advocates Chevanan Mohan, Rahul Balaji, and M. Santhanaraman were appointed for the hearing of a 2022 writ petition filed by S. Manoj Immanuel of Kodaikanal, who sought for the relocation of the farm at Kallar to improve the functionality of the elephant corridor.
With regard to the issues relating to FCRI campus , which has 12 blocks from A to L, the court had directed that blocks A, B and C should be restored as part of the corridor, by removing the elephant-proof trenches (EPT) and solar fences. The institute, which is located in Odanthurai reserve forest on Mettupalayam - Kotagiri Road, informed the court on June 20 that solar fences of the blocks were removed. The court granted 30 days time for levelling the EPTs outside these blocks completely so that the elephants can freely move.
The amici curiae had opined that power fencing and EPTs were not necessary for blocks D, E, F and G as the entire administrative blocks and the activities of the institute was limited only to H and J. It opined that the four plots can be used but also be permitted for free movement of the elephants as their habitat.
Mr. Santhanaraman brought to the attention of the court of a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated June 11, which suggested that A,B and C shall be taken into possession of the Forest Department and be part of the corridor while the institute can have the administrative control of D,E,F and G blocks, without any fencing or EPTs.
However, due to the difference of opinion between FCRI Dean and the Forest Department as well as the amici curiae with reference to the D,E,F and G blocks, the court directed that a status report on the work being carried out in A, B and C blocks be filed on July 18. It proposed a joint inspection of the Forest Department, Dean, amici curiae along with the members of the Bench, if necessary, for further discussion on D,E,F and G blocks.
Regarding the school, Mr. Balaji had brought to the notice of the court a 2023 report the Wildlife Institute of India titled 'ElephantCorridors of India', according to which the area concerning Satchidananda Jothi Nikethan International School is specifically mentioned as a major bottleneck.
The court had directed the school to remove the solar fencing along with pillars on the campus. The school informed the court during the hearing on June 20 that it has complied with the directions and removed the solar fencing, besides levelling the land and closing pits between its boundary wall and the forest boundary.
The court directed the Forest Department to inspect the area and file a status report with regard to the further actions and levelling, if any, on July 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
Forest Department clears 300 acres of encroachment in Tumakuru district
The Forest Department cleared 300 acres of encroached land in the Muthugadahalli reserve forest in the Bukkapatna Chinkara Wildlife Sanctuary in Tiptur sub-division of Tumakuru district. This includes 209 acres of forestland and also land given to the Horticulture Department by the Forest Department. Given by Mysore kings Environment Minister Eshwar B. Khandre on Thursday said that the Maharaja of Mysore had given the land in Survey No. 46 in Muthugadahalli Ambarpur to the Forest Department in 1926 under the Mysore Forest Act. 'However this forestland was illegally allotted to some people. Some others had encroached on it. A case had been registered in the High Court and an order was issued to save it as a forest,' the Minister said. A complaint was also filed with the Lokayukta after Revenue officials failed to cancel the illegal sanction. Lokayukta's instructions The Minister said that as per the instructions of the Lokayukta, the land had been registered in the name of the Forest Department and the encroachment had been cleared. The encroachment drive was conducted under the supervision of the Chief Conservator of Forests of Hassan-Tumakuru division with the support of the police.
Indian Express
18 hours ago
- Indian Express
Decode Politics: Why a forest rights order has sparked differences between Chhattisgarh govt depts
A unilateral directive by the Chhattisgarh Forest Department in May on community forest resources (CFR) has sparked a turf war within the administration, apart from creating a furore among tribal communities and environmental activists. In its May order, the Forest Department barred all other government departments, and non-governmental and private organisations, from carrying out any work related to CFR – which refers to common forest land that has been traditionally protected and conserved for sustainable use by a particular community – until the Centre creates a scientific template for such forest resources. However, this has raised the concern of the Tribal Welfare Department given that Chhattisgarh's sizeable and politically significant tribal communities have been given rights over the management of CFR areas under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and the issue technically falls within its domain. What was the Forest Department's directive? In the absence of guidelines on aligning the execution of local CFR management plans with the National Working Plan Code, 2023, inconsistencies in the implementation of CFR rights were being seen increasingly, a forest official said. Field officers were uncertain whether to adhere to previously approved working plans or accommodate unstructured community-prepared plans, leading to administrative confusion and potential deviation from scientific forest management practices. On May 15, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) V Sreenivasa Rao issued a directive saying that the Centre had issued detailed guidelines regarding proper management of CFR rights, and that the Supreme Court too had said that the management of forest areas be based on scientific methods. The directive further said that a March 2024 joint letter issued by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, had clarified that the Tribal Ministry would prepare 'a Model Community Forest Rights Management Plan / Micro-plan' in accordance with the Environment Ministry's National Working Plan Code, 2023. '(It) will then be shared with all the states,' the directive said. Rao said that the Chhattisgarh Forest Department had requested for a copy of this model management plan, and that further decisions by it on forest management would be based on it. 'At present, the provisions of the National Working Plan Code, 2023 are applicable in the entire notified forest area,' the PCCF said, adding that till the model management plan was received, 'no other department or NGOs or private organisations should do any kind of work within the CFR rights-allotted forest area'. 'At present, no plan other than the working plan approved by (the Union Environment Ministry) can be implemented in the entire forest area of the state,' Rao said. What are the directive's implications for forest-dwelling communities? The directive effectively stops all the community-related work done by forest dwellers to conserve, protect and manage forest resources. With the Chhattisgarh government recognising CFR rights only in 2022, much of the work related to such land remains at a nascent stage. As per the Chhattisgarh government, there are at least 11,450 villages with the potential to be granted CFR rights, but only 4,396 villages have received it so far. The recent directive has halted the further implementation of CFR rights. The directive also stalls the implementation of the Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan, a Central scheme granting Rs 15 lakh to each gram sabha for development purposes. As part of its CFR rights, a gram sabha must submit development plans to the District Level Monitoring Committee, headed by the district collector and including a forest official. In the wake of last month's directive, these monitoring committees are no longer processing the gram sabha plans. One such plan concerns Dhudmaras, situated in the heart of Kanger Valley National Park that was selected last year by the United Nations World Tourism Organisation for its Best Tourism Village Upgrade programme. The directive will affect forest dwellers who are largely from Scheduled Tribe (STs), including Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), and Scheduled Caste (SC) communities. Chhattisgarh has four Lok Sabha (out of 11) and 29 Assembly seats (out of 90) reserved for STs, while 10 Assembly seats and one Lok Sabha seat are reserved for SCs. How have affected communities and political parties reacted? On Wednesday, villagers across nine districts – Dhamtari, Surguja, Kanker, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Narayanpur, Gariaband, Mahasamund, Balod and Bastar – submitted a memorandum to Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai against the directive, alleging it was passed to weaken the Forest Rights Act and constitutional rights of gram sabhas in Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh Congress chief and tribal leader Deepak Baij said, 'The BJP government has put all the laws of the Forest Rights Act on hold in Chhattisgarh and they are trying to steal the jal, jungle and zameen (water, forest and land) and minerals of tribals to help private corporations. The forest department is not following the law.' However, state BJP spokesperson Sanjay Srivastav said, 'We are looking into the issue. The BJP will not infringe upon tribal rights and a decision will be taken in the people's favour.' How has the Tribal Department reacted? Sonmoni Borah, who is the Principal Secretary, Tribal Development, Scheduled Caste Development, and Other Backward Classes and Minority Development Departments, maintains that it is the Tribal Department which is the nodal agency on the issue, with the Forest Department a 'supporting authority'. '(The May directive) is being examined… For ensuring the implementation of CFR rights, the Forest Department has the coordination role,' Borah said, adding that they are speaking with the Forest Department and have also sought clarification from the Centre. Forest rights activists have also questioned the Forest Department's move. Environmental activist Alok Shukla said, 'The directive reflects the department's persistent mindset of maintaining absolute control over forest management. This approach stands in direct contradiction to the Forest Rights Act, which not only recognises the community rights of forest dwellers but also empowers them to plan, protect, and manage forest resources independently. It appears to be a desperate attempt by the department to undermine the remarkable progress made by forest-dependent communities.' Another activist, Bijay Bhai, who is also national convener of tribal rights group Bharat Jan Andolan, said the consequences could be widespread. 'On a large scale, (the government) will divert forest land for corporations. Secondly, the democratic governance of forest areas as envisioned by the Forest Rights Act is going to be dismantled. Also, the forest bureaucracy will be strengthened by this and ultimately tribal people and other forest dwellers would get displaced from their ancestral areas.' How has the Forest Department reacted to the opposition to its directive? Countering the Tribal Department's concerns, PCCF Rao said: 'In the absence of a clear directive, there was a serious risk that forest areas would be managed based on unvetted or ad hoc community resource plans… This could have resulted in ecological mismanagement, conflicts between gram sabhas and forest officials, and legal challenges regarding the violation of existing norms… Additionally, it could have jeopardised sustainable forest practices, wildlife habitats, and the long-term ecological balance in sensitive forest zones.' Rao added that the opposition to the Forest Department's initiative seems to stem 'from a misunderstood perception that the directive undermines the spirit of community autonomy envisaged under the Forest Rights Act'.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
FCRI, residential school remove solar fencing following High Court intervention
The Forest College and Research Institute (FCRI) and Satchidananda Jothi Nikethan International School near Mettupalayam have removed solar fencing and made a few other arrangements to improve movement of wild elephants through the critical Kallar elephant corridor. The campuses, which are situated in the bottleneck area of the Kallar corridor aka crucial Jaccanaire - Hulikal Durgam elephant corridor, removed the impediments to elephant movement following the intervention of a Special Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The Bench came to know of the hindrances caused by the two campuses to free movement of elephants after the amici curiae appointed by it inspected the places and submitted their report, as part of its visit to Government Horticulture Farm at Kallar. The amici curiae of advocates Chevanan Mohan, Rahul Balaji, and M. Santhanaraman were appointed for the hearing of a 2022 writ petition filed by S. Manoj Immanuel of Kodaikanal, who sought for the relocation of the farm at Kallar to improve the functionality of the elephant corridor. With regard to the issues relating to FCRI campus , which has 12 blocks from A to L, the court had directed that blocks A, B and C should be restored as part of the corridor, by removing the elephant-proof trenches (EPT) and solar fences. The institute, which is located in Odanthurai reserve forest on Mettupalayam - Kotagiri Road, informed the court on June 20 that solar fences of the blocks were removed. The court granted 30 days time for levelling the EPTs outside these blocks completely so that the elephants can freely move. The amici curiae had opined that power fencing and EPTs were not necessary for blocks D, E, F and G as the entire administrative blocks and the activities of the institute was limited only to H and J. It opined that the four plots can be used but also be permitted for free movement of the elephants as their habitat. Mr. Santhanaraman brought to the attention of the court of a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated June 11, which suggested that A,B and C shall be taken into possession of the Forest Department and be part of the corridor while the institute can have the administrative control of D,E,F and G blocks, without any fencing or EPTs. However, due to the difference of opinion between FCRI Dean and the Forest Department as well as the amici curiae with reference to the D,E,F and G blocks, the court directed that a status report on the work being carried out in A, B and C blocks be filed on July 18. It proposed a joint inspection of the Forest Department, Dean, amici curiae along with the members of the Bench, if necessary, for further discussion on D,E,F and G blocks. Regarding the school, Mr. Balaji had brought to the notice of the court a 2023 report the Wildlife Institute of India titled 'ElephantCorridors of India', according to which the area concerning Satchidananda Jothi Nikethan International School is specifically mentioned as a major bottleneck. The court had directed the school to remove the solar fencing along with pillars on the campus. The school informed the court during the hearing on June 20 that it has complied with the directions and removed the solar fencing, besides levelling the land and closing pits between its boundary wall and the forest boundary. The court directed the Forest Department to inspect the area and file a status report with regard to the further actions and levelling, if any, on July 18.
