45 Years of FCA and No Compensation—Will the Centre Finally Pay Up?

SHIMLA: Himachal Pradesh has locked horns with the Centre over a crucial question—if the state cannot divert even an inch of its government land for non-forest purposes under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, then why should it bear the cost of maintaining its forests? 

The voices supporting this  narrative  is becoming louder by the day in Himalayan state.

Consider this: The salaries and pensions, perks and scales, reimbursement  of the government employees have shot up by over hundred times ever since independence. 

On the other hand,  plight of the farmers have worsened. Their only source of income- land- remained segmented and fragmented due to the division in the family.

The state and centre consider only the welfare of its employees- OPS, NPS and UPP and New Pay Scales.  Who will talk about the plight of the farmers?   

Those who support the narrative further urge  the  state government to  press for full reimbursement of salaries, pensions, and all administrative expenses of the Forest Department ever since the FCA came into force 45 years ago.
This line of  argument is simple—if forest land is completely under the Centre’s control, then logically, the Forest Department should be funded by the Government of India, not the state exchequer, asserted Manoj Kumar, a hydropower expert in Himachal Pradesh.
This narrative has gained ground as the farmers of  Himachal Face eviction from the  land near the forest now  termed as ‘forest land’, despite the fact that they have been living in sync with the forest,  have been protecting  them over the centuries long before FCA came into being in 1980.  
The state farmers whose ancestors   originally used to practice shepherding, fall in the definition of forest dwellers as defined in the Forest Right Act , 2006.   
Himachal has approached the Supreme Court, seeking permission to allot land to land-starved farmers—a demand long blocked by FCA regulations. Farmers used to get land under the Nautore Land policy . 
This policy  was long abandoned  by the state government due to the FCA, 1980 as the state does not have power to allot and regularise the government land. 

Green Services, But No Green Compensation?

Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, Speaker Kuldeep Singh Pathania, and Deputy CM Mukesh Agnihotri have been repeatedly raising the issue at various forums with the Centre. 
They argue that FCA has impeded development  in Himachal, forcing it to seek permission from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) even for essential infrastructure projects.
But the bigger question is: What about compensation for the ecosystem services Himachal provides to the nation?
•    The state has already suffered huge economic losses due to the ban on green felling under the Supreme Court order of 1996 and state government itself banning green felling long before this order.
•    Had sustainable logging under scientific silviculture been allowed through working plans, Himachal could have earned thousands of crores every year.
•    If the state is providing vital ecological services—like carbon sequestration, water conservation, and biodiversity protection—shouldn’t the Centre pay Green Cess as compensation?

Why Were Farmers Left Out of Regularisation?

The issue of land-starved farmers has reached a boiling point these days in Himachal Pradesh as farmers have come under the single banner seeking regularisation.
 Back in 2000-2002, the Himachal government had invited applications from farmers  for regularisation of their  encroached land. 
Over 1.56 lakh farmers had applied, hoping for legal rights over the land they had been cultivating for decades. But nothing moved forward.
Now, with the FCA (Amendment 2024) and new interpretations of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the entire issue has landed in court, putting these farmers at risk of eviction. 
The High Court’s strict orders against encroachments have further complicated matters. The state could have resolved this by implementing the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which protects small and marginal farmers. 
But successive governments have dragged their feet on this critical legislation not applying this to the entire state and centre  remained indifferent to the “issue of land of the farmers” of the state.
A Piquant Situation—And No Way Out?

Himachal is stuck between a rock and a hard place:

✅ It cannot use its own government land for development without FCA clearance.
✅ The Centre refuses to compensate for lost economic opportunities.
✅ Farmers face eviction despite being invited to apply for regularisation two decades ago.
With arrears piling up for 45 years, the Himachal government  should make a clear case—either compensate the state for its forests, or let it use the land for development and giving relief to the farmers who are losing their sources of livelihoods.  
The Supreme Court’s verdict could set a precedent for other forested states facing similar dilemmas.
The ball is now in the Centre’s court—will it accept Himachal’s claim, or will the state’s forests remain a financial liability for the fund-strapped state like Himachal with no relief in sight.

READERS COMMENTS: 

Forest Rights Act 2006 codify the rights of traditional forest dwellers and this aspect is substantially ignored 

Gram Sabha is a Statutory authority under this Act for giving consent for allotment of land to those traditional dwellers having enjoyed forest rights for three generations ( 75 years)

Land settlement in hill State under Rampur Bushehr right from the beginning is based upon the concept that who cultivate the land ,gets ownership during settlement means possession is nine points of ownership 

Old gazetteer of Bushehr Riyasat will reveal this concept ,but require detailed research 

Another important aspect is that , there are two kinds of rights,one is right in land and another right is over the land

One of this right belongs to govt and another to the farmers of vicinity 

Welfare govt under directive principles of State policy is required to frame land laws for settlement of the marginal farmers for their livelihood although focus in the budget is always on farmers subsidy and related other freebies 

If farmers don't have land then providing subsidy etc becomes meaningless as farmer's original land holdings is significantly fragmented on increasing families

The issue raised by you in the interest of the farmers is important 

This needs further propagation so that govt attention is catched- A RETIRED JUDGE HIMACHAL PRADESH, Requesting Anonymity.

2: Let's not forget that there is lot of elite capture of land in himalyas in all states . Small farmers only need protection.  From.kashmir to nagaland it's same story-- former Bureaucrat.