- Residents in villages around the Udanti–Sitanadi Tiger Reserve in Chhattisgarh fear eviction as officials conduct surveys and mark lands for relocation.
- Tribal groups alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act and a lack of Gram Sabha consent for relocation.
- The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has reminded the state that no eviction can occur without recognising community rights.
- Experts emphasised that genuine conservation is only possible with the trust and participation of the local community.
In the dense forests straddling the border of Gariaband and Dhamtari districts in Chhattisgarh, an unusual silence prevails these days. In villages surrounding the Udanti-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, gram sabha meetings are being held one after another, and one question echoes through them all — will we have to leave the villages where our families have lived for generations, deep inside these forests?
Residents of 17 village panchayats claim that over the past few months, officials from the Forest Department have been conducting surveys, showing maps, measuring fields, and marking land. They are concerned that these actions may be the first steps in a plan to relocate entire settlements for tiger conservation.
The Udanti-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve is one of the oldest protected areas in Chhattisgarh. It was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1984, but tensions began in 2004 when it was proposed as a tiger reserve. Since then, the Forest Department and local Indigenous communities have often been at odds.
Arjun Singh Nayak, president of the Gram Sabha Federation of the Udanti-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, said that forest officials began restricting their traditional rights, especially their collection of minor forest produce. Forest guards falsely accused several tribal women of illegally collecting wood from the core area and even filed criminal cases against them, he claimed.
Barkha, a social activist working on forest rights in the region, said, “Around this time, the department offered rehabilitation packages for villagers willing to move out of the core zone, but the communities rejected these offers, insisting first on the recognition of their legal rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Despite their resistance, the area was officially declared a tiger reserve in 2009.”
The reserve and its elusive tigers
Spanning approximately 1,842 sq km, the reserve comprises 851 sq km of core area and 991 sq km of buffer zone. The Udanti and Sitanadi rivers sustain the reserve’s ecosystem, lined with dense forests of sal, teak, and bamboo. It is home to sloth bears, leopards, wild dogs, sambar deer, gaur, and many rare birds.
A 2006 wildlife census estimated six to eight tigers in the region. But after its designation as a tiger reserve, sightings disappeared for years. Surveys in 2014 reported four tigers, one in 2018, and one in 2022. For a time after that, there were none at all.
Recently, however, camera traps captured fresh pugmarks, prompting officials to celebrate the tiger’s return as a major conservation success, a sign, they said, that the reserve’s ecology was improving. Yet, almost immediately, preparations began to relocate the villages situated within the reserve.
This controversy did not erupt overnight. It has been simmering for years. Concerned about the decline in tiger numbers across the state, the Chhattisgarh government has launched several initiatives since 2018, first in Udanti-Sitanadi, then in Achanakmar, and subsequently in Guru Ghasidas National Park, to revive tiger populations.
These plans included tiger relocation projects, aiming to bring tigers from neighbouring states, such as Madhya Pradesh, to repopulate Chhattisgarh’s forests. The idea was that such efforts would enhance biodiversity and boost eco-tourism.
However, over the past two years, the plans have faltered. No tigers were relocated.
Living in fear of eviction
For generations, the Kamar, Gond, and Bhunjiya tribes have lived in these forests. Today, they live under the constant fear of eviction. Village residents alleged that the Forest Department is attempting to displace them under the guise of conservation.
Gram Sabhas continue to meet frequently. The residents assert that they have always lived in harmony with tigers and other wildlife. Forced displacement, they argue, violates both their constitutional and traditional rights.
Seventeen panchayats and tribal organisations wrote to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs on August 19, 2025, accusing the state Forest Department of rights violations and seeking central intervention.
They pointed to Section 4(2) of the Forest Rights Act, which prohibits any relocation without Gram Sabha consent. Section 4(5) further states that no forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe or traditional forest dweller can be evicted until rights recognition is complete. Similarly, Section 38V(5) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, allows relocation only when it is scientifically proven that humans and wildlife cannot coexist in an area.
Allegations of rights violations
In their letter, the Adivasi communities accused the Udanti-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve authorities of violating the FRA (2006) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act. They alleged that the tiger reserve authorities have been attempting to forcibly evict the village residents by using unlawful means, including intimidation and harassment. Since 2020, the tiger reserve authorities have been issuing arbitrary eviction notices to Sornamal village under Koyba Gram Panchayat. Sornamal and nearby villages are inhabited by Bhunjia, Gond, and Kamar (a PVTG group) communities who have been living inside the Sitanadi-Udanti forests for generations.
However, the letter reads, tiger reserve authorities are trying to evict the villages based on the deliberate non-recognition of forest rights and the arbitrary use of satellite imagery to enforce the claim that these villages were settled inside the Sitanadi-Udanti forests after 2009. The communities called this claim absolutely false and said it violated the FRA and the Rules made under it.
Several families from Sornamal village have already been forcibly evicted without any compliance with the due process laid down under sections 4(2) and 4(5) of the Forest Rights Act. Similarly, in Ichhradi and Dashpur villages under Sahebin Gram Panchayat, several families belonging to the Kamar and Gond communities were forcefully evicted in 2022 based on the malicious use of satellite imagery, the letter read.
The letter also claimed that the Deputy Director of the reserve began implementing tiger reintroduction plans secretly, without consulting or informing the Gram Sabhas or the Community Forest Resource Management Committees (CFRMCs).
Furthermore, under the pretext of ‘preparing tiger habitat,’ reserve officials have allegedly been cutting trees and building salt licks in community forest resource (CFR) areas of villages such as Nagesh, Karlajhar, Devjharmali, Motipani, Aamda, Koyba, and Udanti, all without consent, even though these lands have been legally recognised as belonging to the Gram Panchayats.
Following these complaints, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) sought clarification from the state government, via a letter dated September 26, 2025, questioning why actions were being taken without Gram Sabha approval. The ministry reaffirmed that no relocation from a tiger reserve’s core area can occur without the explicit consent of the local community.
The ministry’s intervention caused a stir in administrative circles, signaling that even the central government had begun to question the process, a forest official said, requesting anonymity to avoid any controversy.
The state government has yet to issue an official statement, but Forest Department sources claim that only surveys are being conducted and no displacement has occurred. They argue that preparing suitable tiger habitats is essential, and identifying such forest zones is part of that process. The Gram Sabhas, however, remain skeptical. They believe these surveys are the first step toward eventual eviction.
“The Individual Forest Rights claims of villagers from Kurrubhata and Bargaon are being rejected without following the due procedures under the Forest Rights Act,” he said. “Officials have shared satellite images as evidence, and on that basis, the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (DLC) and District Level Committee (DLC) are arbitrarily rejecting claims. As a result, villagers are being removed from their ancestral homes and farmlands. Farming has been completely banned for the past two years, threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of families.”
A deep bond
The Adivasis of Udanti-Sitanadi insist they have always lived in balance with nature. Their livelihoods, traditions, and culture are deeply intertwined with the forest. The FRA, 2006, grants them the legal right to reside in, manage, and use forest resources, yet due to slow and uneven implementation, many communities still lack formal recognition of these rights.
Local resident Ishwar Netam told Mongabay India that the Gram Sabha has not approved any relocation, nor have the residents received any clear information about rehabilitation plans. Therefore, any forced eviction, he said, would not only be illegal but would also violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and dignity.
District Panchayat (elected body at district level) member Lokeshwari Netam added, “We Adivasi communities have lived in these forests for generations, so did our ancestors. Tigers coexisted with us naturally in the past. It was the negligence of the Forest Department that led to their decline. Now they want to bring tigers from outside and displace us from our ancestral land.”
She continued, “Every Adivasi community protects forests and wildlife through its totem system. In my Netam community, for instance, the Sonkutta (wild dog) and turtle are our totems. The Sori community reveres the tiger as a sacred animal. Each tribe and clan has its own totem, a creature of water, land, air, and a tree. These are not mere symbols; they represent our sacred duty to protect and nurture nature. Conservation is in our DNA.”
Conservation beyond ecology
Deputy Director of Udanti-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve, Varun Jain, told Mongabay India that no revenue villages were displaced during the recent operations—only illegal settlers were removed. “Some of these settlers had come from Odisha and Jagdalpur and were occupying forest land without authorisation,” he claimed.
Jain said, “Satellite imagery reveals that after 2012, several people continued to expand their settlements by clearing forest areas. We have removed about 70% of the illegal encroachments within the Udanti-Sitanadi Tiger Reserve. So far, eight major settlements have been cleared. Large encroachments —some consisting of 70 to 80 houses spread across nearly 200 hectares of forest land —have already been removed. Those evicted were not recognised as genuine forest dwellers under the FRA. Two revenue villages have voluntarily agreed to relocate from the tiger reserve, and the process for their resettlement is currently underway.”
Experts said the issue is not only ecological but also social, ethical, and deeply human. No conservation effort can succeed without the trust of local communities. When people are excluded from decision-making, they not only resist; they can also become alienated from the very concept of conservation.
Vijendra Aznabi, convener of the Van Adhikar Manch, Chhattisgarh, stated that the Forest Department and the tribal communities have had conflicting interests from the outset, which is why this dispute has persisted for years.
He says, “Most of the Forest Department’s laws are from the British era, primarily aimed at forest exploitation and profiteering. In contrast, the Forest Rights Act and the PESA Act, applicable in Fifth Schedule areas, talk about protecting the rights of tribal people. This creates a clear contradiction between the two.”
“India’s conservation history shows that where communities were included, results were sustainable. But wherever conservation was imposed as a ‘top-down model,’ conflicts only deepened,” he further added.
Read more: Two tiger reserves, two different stories of resettlement
Banner image: Local community members protest against alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act. Image by special arrangement.
Credits
