Jammu Kashmir Approves 6,097 Forest Rights Claims | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir government told the Legislative Assembly that 6,097 claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 have been approved across the Union Territory, with the vast majority classified as community forest rights.

In a written reply from the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, officials said 350 individual forest rights and 5,747 community forest rights have been recognised. Rajouri and Poonch accounted for the largest shares, with 2,852 and 2,054 approvals respectively, followed by Kishtwar (273), Anantnag (246) and Shopian (223).

The departmental note, tabled in the Assembly, set out the statutory process for recognition. Claims are first scrutinised at Gram Sabha level, examined by sub-divisional committees chaired by the sub-divisional magistrate or additional deputy commissioner, and finally decided by district level committees headed by the deputy commissioner. The department said an inbuilt appeal mechanism exists and that “there is no inordinate delay in settlement of eligible claims”.

Separately, the reply said the question of regularising Rehbar-e-Janglat employees is “under examination in coordination with various departments”, offering no timeline for a decision. The department also asserted it has adequate staff and that it draws on assistance from sister wings such as the Forest Protection Force, wildlife protection authorities, revenue and police departments where required.

On grievances over pay anomalies for frontline forest staff, the department told legislators that it had considered petitioners’ claims and that these were rejected under a government order. The reply cited directions of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the matter.

The Forest Rights Act was applied to Jammu and Kashmir after the Union Territory’s reorganisation in 2019, the note added, and the department said applications not meeting prescribed procedures and norms are not recommended. The reply supplied district-wise figures showing smaller approvals in districts such as Budgam (181), Shopian (223), Anantnag (246), Doda (51) and Kathua (42), while several districts recorded single- or low-digit individual rights approvals.