The Chenchu community, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) inhabiting the Nallamala forests, has strongly opposed their proposed relocation from the Amrabad Tiger Reserve in Nagarkurnool district of Telangana. They contend that the process – marked by the issuance of relocation cheques without free, prior, and informed consent – violates a well-established legal framework that prioritises coexistence over displacement.
Moreover, dominant non-tribal groups in the area are exerting undue influence, luring tribal families to opt for relocation and attempting to undermine the concerns of the Chenchu tribal families in collusion with the forest bureaucracy.
The unfolding situation highlights a critical tension between conservation policy and constitutional safeguards for tribal communities. At stake is not merely the question of wildlife protection but the survival, dignity, and legal rights of the Chenchus, whose identity and livelihood are inseparable from the Nallamala forests.
During a recent meeting held in Hyderabad under the banner of the Chenchu Solidarity Forum, members of the Chenchu community voiced serious concerns regarding the declaration and management of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve, particularly the ongoing process of relocation from their ancestral habitats.
According to government reports, of the 417 families from four villages in the core area of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve, 160 families have opted for cash compensation, whereas 257 families have consented to the rehabilitation package. It is also unclear how Rs 15 lakh is equivalent to a house and five acres of land.
A forged and irregular resolution of the gram panchayat agreeing to the relocation of tribal families from Sarlapally village has also come to light. The resolution states that the meeting was presided over by the Sarpanch. However, it is argued that the meeting was not conducted by him and that his signature was forged.
The Chenchus strongly asserted that these measures are being pursued without meaningful consultation or consent, raising fundamental questions about legality, justice, and the future of their existence within the forest landscape.
In fact, as per Section 2(p) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, a “village” means a village notified under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 in a Scheduled Area. From the resolution, it appears that it was passed at the gram panchayat level, involving ward members and the panchayat secretary, instead of the PESA vice-president and secretary, as required.
Under Section 38V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, read with the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), relocation from critical wildlife habitats can be considered only after the recognition and vesting of forest rights and only with informed consent. The FRA further strengthens this position through Sections 3(1)(e) and 3(1)(i), which recognise community forest resource rights and, critically, habitat rights of PVTGs—rights intended to protect their distinct socio-cultural and ecological relationship with their habitats.
Moreover, relocation without the settlement of forest rights in the village amounts to a violation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. If forest rights are violated, it constitutes a penal offence under Sections 7 and 8 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and the State Level Monitoring Committee is primarily responsible for addressing such violations. Moreover, wrongful eviction, dispossession, or interference with forest rights of Scheduled Tribes attracts the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended in 2016.
As per Rule 12B(1) of the Forest Rights Rules, 2012, the District Level Committee headed by the Collector is responsible for the recognition of habitat rights claims of PVTGs. The process of relocation without recognition of the habitat rights of PVTGs is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Union Government in January 2026. These provisions clearly establish that displacement is not the norm but an exception, strictly regulated by law.
The concerns raised by the Chenchus go beyond immediate displacement to the irreversible consequences of being moved outside Scheduled Areas. Such relocation would strip them of constitutional safeguards under the Fifth Schedule, along with the protections of key laws such as the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), which ensures self-governance through gram sabhas; the Land Transfer Regulations (LTR), which prohibit alienation of tribal lands; and money-lending regulations designed to prevent exploitation by moneylenders. Displacement would thus not merely be a physical shift but a legal and constitutional dispossession.
Evidence from earlier relocations of tribals from Mysampet and Rampur villages in the Kawal Tiger Reserve of the erstwhile Adilabad district reveals a pattern of non-compliance with mandatory procedures—absence of genuine gram sabha consent, failure to conduct social impact assessments under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR), and incomplete recognition of forest rights. The result has been landlessness, loss of livelihoods, and deep social and economic distress, particularly among women.
The proposed relocation also raises serious questions about policy coherence at the national level. The Union Government, through initiatives such as the PM JANMAN programme, has explicitly committed to developing PVTGs in situ, providing basic facilities such as pucca houses, electricity, drinking water, and livelihood support linked to agriculture. Blocking or withholding such development activities in PVTG habitations to facilitate relocation from the Amrabad Tiger Reserve further calls into question the actions of the Telangana government.
Similarly, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ Conservation-cum-Development (CCD) approach is premised on strengthening livelihoods, culture, and autonomy within their natural habitats—not displacing them. The ongoing relocation efforts, therefore, stand in direct contradiction to these policy objectives, undermining both the spirit and letter of central schemes meant to safeguard PVTGs.
At its core, the issue is not a conflict between conservation and tribal rights, but a question of the model of conservation being pursued. India’s constitutional and legal framework envisions a participatory, rights-based approach in which forest-dwelling communities are recognised as custodians of biodiversity.
The Chenchus’ demand is therefore both lawful and reasonable: halt forced or coerced relocation; withdraw fabricated cases; recognise and vest community and habitat rights; and adopt a coexistence-based model of conservation anchored in Gram Sabha governance. Only by aligning conservation practices with constitutional guarantees, statutory mandates, and lived realities can the State ensure ecological sustainability alongside justice, dignity, and the survival of indigenous communities
Palla Trinadha Rao is a lawyer and an activist working for tribal rights for more than three decades. Views expressed here are the author’s own.