Chhattisgarh
,
Pendakodu
,
Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki
Published :
Jun 2026
|
Updated :
Adivasi livelihoods and stalled CFR claims in Forest Development Corporation forests in Chhattisgarh's Mohla-Manpur
Reported by
Hritik Bhatnagar
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Rakshit Dhingra, Amrita Chekkutty
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
250
Households affected
1000
People affected
Year started
2200
ha.
Land area affected
250
Households affected
1000
People Affected
Year started
2200
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Forest Administration (Other than Protected Areas)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
Sector
Conservation and Forestry
Reason/Cause of conflict
Forest Administration (Other than Protected Areas)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

The Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (MMAC) district in Chhattisgarh is home to a predominantly Adivasi population—constituting 63 percent of the district's total—whose livelihoods and cultural practices are deeply rooted in the surrounding forests.

Since 1976, however, these forests have been under the administrative control of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd (CGRVVN), also known as the Forest Development Corporation (FDC), a state-owned company that operates industrial-scale monoculture plantations of teak and bamboo across the Panabaras Project Division in Mohla block. The FDC fells two to three lakh trees annually and transfers auction revenue to the state government's accounts, while Gond Adivasi communities who depend on non-timber forest products including mahua, char, tendu, honey, and bamboo for sustenance, nutrition, and income are routinely denied access to these forests despite rights formally recognised under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.

Community members report harassment by forest guards when collecting bamboo or other produce, with tools confiscated and villagers turned away. Industrial monoculture has led to the loss of several native species critical to Adivasi livelihoods. The conflict between communities and the FDC dates to the early 1980s, and a near-identical dispute arose in 2015–16 in the neighbouring Sanauli gram sabha, where CGRVVN conducted thinning operations inside a recognised CFR area without Gram Sabha consent. A joint inspection confirmed the FDC was in the wrong and it was forced to withdraw.

Since 2022, 22 villages in Mohla and Manpur blocks, with support from NGOs and civil society organisations including Ekta Parishad, filed Community Forest Rights (CFR) and Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) claims with the district administration. The District Level Committee approved all 22 claims in January 2025. In a ceremony on 15 January 2025, titles were distributed to three villages, namely, Marka Tola, Kande, and Mading Piding Dhenu, before being immediately taken back by officials on procedural grounds.

Subsequent titles were issued only to two villages —Butakasa and Belargondi— whose claimed land falls under revenue forest rather than FDC-controlled forest. The reason for this distinction has since become clear: in January 2025, the FDC submitted a proposal to the Chhattisgarh Additional Chief Secretary arguing that the 2,17,881 hectares of forest land leased to it statewide should be excluded from the purview of the FRA entirely.

On 6 May 2025, the three official members of the MMAC District Level Committee jointly proposed to the Tribal and Scheduled Caste Department that CFR rights should not be granted over FDC-leased land. In June 2025, the Forest Department escalated further, demanding that all CFR titles already issued to Gram Sabhas over FDC lands be cancelled — a demand that has no legal basis, as the FRA contains no provision for cancellation of titles.

Despite a march of over 1,000 people to the Collector's office in June 2025 and a formal memorandum in December 2025, the 20 villages whose CFR and CFRR claims fall within FDC-administered forest had received no titles as of April 2026. The administration promised a joint meeting with FDC officials in February 2026; no such meeting had taken place as of April 2026.

A local activist told LCW on condition of anonymity, "The conflict started back in 2023 when two villages (Kulhardoh and Khadbattar), who had received CFR rights had refused tree logging in their forests and soon after, the rest of the villages followed." Despite the DLC approving all 22 claims and titles being distributed in a ceremony in January 2025, the certificates were immediately withdrawn. "They took them back saying they needed some signatures and we haven't gotten it back since," the activist recalled.

The administration has since added new conditions: "The Collector is now saying that we have to submit more documents related to our traditional sites such as caves and trees, whereas this information had already been given when we made the claim." Eight Gram Sabhas have been called for re-verification, with villages asked to document their daily forest use requirements afresh.

Communities also allege that the FDC attempted to insert a clause in its working plan asserting a continued right to logging over CFRR-titled areas—a provision villagers say violates the intention of both the FRA and PESA.

Following a notice sent to the Chief Minister on 3 January 2026, the CM's office directed the State Level Monitoring Committee to act, which in turn referred the matter to the DLC. As of May 2026, titles for the remaining 20 villages have not been released.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

4.17

Type of investment:

Not Available

Year of Estimation

2010

Page Number In Investment Document:

8

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Forest Development Corporation (FDC); Divisional Forest Officer (DFO)

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Ekta Parishad; Maha Gram Sabha

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Ekta Parishad

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Hritik Bhatnagar
Hritik has been working on community forest rights and decentralised forest governance in Chhattisgarh for the last two years, focusing mainly on post-rights management and process documentation. He holds an undergraduate degree in Biology and a postgraduate degree in Environmental Studies.
Show more work
Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Agricultural land, Other Natural Resource extraction/dependence, Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us