Chandrapur: In Maharashtra’s eastern Vidarbha region, a wave of protests is mobilising tribal communities as they face the prospect of losing control over Zudpi Jungle – traditional lands integral to their livelihoods. Moves by the state government to designate these commons as reserve forests have ignited widespread unrest, laying bare the tensions between conservation policies, the development imperative and the land rights of forest-dwelling communities.
From Gadchiroli to Chandrapur and Nagpur, these communities, dependent on common lands for grazing, agriculture, and cultural practices, are raising their voices against decisions they believe threaten their survival. When an area is declared a reserve forest, several restrictions follow – locals need permission from the forest department to access the reserve area, and grazing, tree felling, and the use of forest resources are banned unless specific orders are issued. In some villages, activists alleged that land, where tribals got land ownership titles under the Forest Rights Act of 2006 (FRA), was also included in the notification for reserve forests, effectively cancelling the legal rights of tribals. The conflict is a reflection of broader governance challenges around land, rights, and development.
The contested Zudpi Jungle
The Zudpi Jungle is a type of common land that is covered by scrubs and bush growth instead of tall trees. It is spread across six districts in the east Vidarbha region – Bhandara, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Nagpur, Wardha, and Gondia. For generations, these commons have served as grazing grounds as the vegetation is suitable for feeding livestock, threshing sites, cremation grounds, and community spaces for Adivasi communities. But their ambiguous legal status has made them a flashpoint of conflict.
Historically, the Zudpi Jungle has been classified as revenue land (in practice, they are like village commons, with the customary rights applicable). But since the name includes “forest”, they have been treated as such. This meant that under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, the state required central approval for diverting these lands. This ambiguity was compounded by the landmark T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India judgment in 1996, which defined all lands recorded as forests – regardless of use – as such.
In 1998, a central committee recommended that 92,115 hectares of Zudpi Jungle be notified as reserve or protected forests while freeing up 86,409 hectares for development. Over the years, successive state governments have attempted to implement these recommendations. The attempt really took off in 2019, when the Maharashtra government filed an Interlocutory Application (IA) in the Godavarman case, seeking clarity on denotification.
Since then, efforts to settle claims and finalise the notification process have escalated. The state aims to complete the forest settlement of over 93,000 hectares, sparking fear and resistance among tribal communities dependent on these lands.
Mangli village: A protest erupts
The struggle is perhaps most visible in Chandrapur’s Mangli village, where a reserve forest notification has galvanised protests. The village is in Brahmapuri Taluka, 32 km from the district headquarters and only 50 km from the Chhattisgarh border. The village is home to people from the Madia Gond community. Their community forest rights, covering 62.27 hectares, were approved in 2014, though titles were issued in 2018. These rights allow them to protect, conserve, and manage shared forest resources, access grazing land, and safeguard biological diversity, intellectual property, and traditional knowledge.
However, their CFR area excludes nearby Zudpi lands now earmarked for reserve forest status. These lands, vital for cattle grazing and used for livestock burial pits, are central to the community’s livelihood.
The villagers were first informed about the reserve forest notification dated February 2019, in May 2024. The same month they submitted a written complaint to the sub-divisional officer, saying that the notification should not be given a go-ahead. Despite this, on August 20, 2023, an order was passed acquiring a few parcels of land in their village for the constitution of the reserve forest, without any mention of the written complaint.
“When the sub-divisional officer of Warora had first come to inform us about it, I asked what would happen when the said land is declared as reserved forest, she had no answer. Another officer (forest settlement officer) also had no idea what happens after an area is called a reserve forest,” said Kunal, a local protest leader. Nearby villages, including Pirli, Chora, and Dhanoli, face similar threats, prompting fears of restricted access to grazing lands and water bodies.
For Mangli’s residents, the implications are severe. The reserve forest notification details what they can and cannot do. The villagers were told that they would need permission from the collector’s office to visit the reserve forest area and graze their animals, which they had earlier been doing freely. They were given a stipulated time between 10 am to 2 pm when the grazing and access to the pond would be allowed but only after getting the required consent. They were also informed that only buffalo and cows would be allowed to graze on that land and not sheep or goats.
“We struggled for years to understand and exercise our CFR rights. Now we’re being pushed back into uncertainty,” Kunal said.
Representative image of animals grazing in common lands. Photo: Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)
FRA violations
The notifications have drawn criticism from activists and academics who allege violations of the FRA. In several villages, reserve forest notifications have reportedly included parcels already covered by FRA titles.
“There is no official data on which areas the forest department plans to declare as reserves. Why are community forest rights committees being excluded from the process?” asked Dr Nishant Mate, assistant professor at the College of Social Work, Kamptee.
In Chandrapur’s Dhanoli and Bhandara’s Tawepar villages, activists claim reserve forest designations overlapped with FRA-recognised lands. Several activists, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, pointed to a lack of clarity and transparency, despite a recent meeting with the Additional Commissioner of State Tribal Development Ravindra Thakre, where concerns over these overlaps were raised.
The Chandrapur District Collector, Vinay Gowda, emphasised that the process is still at the verification stage. “Field verification is ongoing to classify land as agricultural or inhabited. If any issues arise, I will ensure they’re resolved with the respective SDOs,” he said.
But the villagers and activists are not uncertain. “Notifications are being issued without proper communication or consultation. Communities are being sidelined,” one activist said.
Also read: ’76 Years After Independence, We Still Fight’: In Gadchiroli, a 150-Day Protest Against Mining
Impacts on livelihoods
The reserve forest designations threaten to upend the livelihoods of Adivasi communities across Vidarbha. In Mangli, the designated area includes a pond critical for both livestock and villagers. Restrictions on grazing hours and livestock types further exacerbate the challenges.
Similar issues have been reported in Nagpur’s Ramtek taluka, where reserve forest notifications have banned fishing, grazing, and tree cutting. Permissions for such activities are theoretically possible but often inaccessible to marginalised communities due to bureaucratic hurdles.
Dr Mate stressed that such policies deepen marginalisation. “When the state fails to provide clarity or support, it only amplifies the anxiety of those already struggling to survive,” he said.
The Divisional Forest Officer Prashant Khade said that forests are being overseen by the Joint Forest Management, a community-based program that involves the state forest department and local communities working together to protect and manage forests. “There are different types of rights forest-dwelling communities can exercise in reserve forest – cattle grazing, Non-Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) collection, among others. If the communities are granted those rights, there won’t be any restrictions,” he said.
Risks of denotification
While reserve forest status restricts access, denotifying Zudpi lands presents its own risks. An IA filed in the Godavarman case in 2020, highlighted illegal non-forest use, including mining, on lands not yet officially denotified. Activists fear that opening these areas for development could lead to further exploitation and displacement of tribal communities.
“This is a double-edged sword,” said an activist. “On one hand, reserve forest designations marginalise communities; on the other, denotification could invite industrial misuse.”
A fight for justice
The protests in Mangli and other villages are part of a broader movement across Vidarbha. Kunal and others are rallying neighbouring villages to strengthen their resistance, calling for greater transparency and adherence to FRA provisions. Activists are urging the government to balance conservation with community rights, emphasising that policies must evolve to reflect modern realities.
As Vidarbha’s Adivasis fight to protect their land, their struggle underscores a critical question: Can India’s colonial-era forest laws adapt to serve its marginalised communities? For now, the answer remains elusive, but the voices from these forests are growing louder.
Sukriti Vats is a writing fellow with Land Conflict Watch, an independent network of researchers that carries out research on land and natural resources.
