How Sehore exposes MP's forest crisis

The Sehore dispute began when tribal families from the Barela community were evicted from forestland in Kosma on October 11. The land had been allotted to the Madhya Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation, a state government commercial entity. The district administration later described the occupants as encroachers, turning a local removal into a test of tribal claims, forest protection and government authority.

The controversy grew because Kosma falls within Vidisha Lok Sabha constituency, represented by former chief minister and Union minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, and the Budhni assembly segment central to his political career. Chouhan met Chief Minister Mohan Yadav and demanded answers. Yadav then ordered an inquiry, but the district report supported the eviction.

The dispute now reflects a wider crisis. Madhya Pradesh reports about 5.75 lakh hectares of illegal forest occupation. Yadav’s government has defended the officials’ operation and presented Sehore as part of a broader anti-encroachment campaign. That position must balance forest protection with tribal rights and political pressure.

Forestland encroachment is unauthorised occupation or use of land officially notified as forestland. It matters because occupation can reduce the forest department’s control and threaten plantations, habitat and public forest assets. In Sehore, officials classified the families’ presence as encroachment, while the political controversy reflected the need to examine tribal claims fairly.

Legally recognised tribal occupation is not simply any settlement on forestland. Under India’s Forest Rights Act, eligible forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers may have pre-existing individual or community rights recognised through a legal process. Recognition depends on statutory conditions and evidence, rather than only physical possession. A recognised right therefore differs from a new or unauthorised occupation.

The article does not describe the families’ Forest Rights Act claims or any title process. It reports that the district administration called them encroachers, noted houses and voter registration elsewhere, and used satellite imagery to date occupation from 2022. Those findings support the administration’s case, but they do not by themselves explain every legal rights question.

Madhya Pradesh has 94.69 lakh hectares of notified forestland. Forest department data indicate that about 5.75 lakh hectares are under illegal occupation, equal to roughly six per cent of the state’s total notified forest area. This scale makes encroachment a continuing governance challenge, not merely a dispute involving one village.

The distribution is highly uneven. Burhanpur has the largest reported area under encroachment, at 52,751 hectares. Raisen follows with 46,000 hectares. Alirajpur has 25,601 hectares, while Chhatarpur has 12,957 hectares and Khandwa 4,034 hectares. These areas remain outside the forest department’s possession.

The figures explain why officials frame the Sehore eviction as part of a wider campaign. They also show why enforcement can create political tension, especially where tribal communities claim forest connections or where local livelihoods are involved. The article presents no statewide recovery target or deadline, but the continuing scale points to a difficult protection challenge.

The affected area expanded sharply between 2021 and 2025. In 2021, the forest department recorded 1,825 cases involving 2,110 hectares. By 2024, cases had slipped to 1,774, but the area involved had more than doubled to 4,275 hectares. In 2025, 2,345 cases covered 4,292 hectares.

The key mechanism is that case counts do not measure the size of each encroachment. A smaller number of cases can involve large parcels, while many cases may involve smaller plots. That is why the 2024 figures look less alarming by case count but much worse by land area. The 2025 total confirms that the larger footprint continued.

The article therefore describes expansion as faster than changes in annual case numbers suggest. This complicates enforcement planning and performance measurement. Authorities need to track both cases and hectares, because relying on case totals alone could understate the forest area being lost or contested.

Shivraj Singh Chouhan intervened after 12 Barela families were removed from forestland in Kosma. The village lies within the Vidisha Lok Sabha constituency he represents and the Budhni assembly segment that anchored his career as Madhya Pradesh chief minister. He met Mohan Yadav and pressed for answers, turning a district operation into a prominent political dispute.

Yadav assured Chouhan that he would order an inquiry. The Sehore district administration then submitted a report supporting the eviction. It said only nine families were living on the disputed land, claimed they also had houses and voter registrations in Singhpur and Habibnagar, and cited Google Earth imagery showing occupation only from 2022. It also alleged that 78,000 saplings were destroyed.

Yadav’s government has refused to act against officials involved in the operation. Its position is that the department must protect forest assets and respond to a much wider encroachment problem. This supports administrative authority, but it leaves the government managing continuing tribal, political and legal sensitivities.

Expanding forest encroachment can reduce the forest department’s control over land and make protection harder. It may fragment forest areas, disturb regeneration and create prolonged disputes over who can use particular parcels. The article directly links the Sehore occupation to alleged plantation damage, giving the conflict a concrete environmental and financial dimension.

On the disputed 31-hectare parcel, the administration alleged that 78,000 saplings were destroyed from the 3.37 lakh planted there. If such damage occurs, public money, labour and years of restoration effort can be lost. Encroachment can also prevent departments from managing plantations or enforcing forest plans consistently across large areas.

The human consequence is more complicated. Strong enforcement may protect forests, but poorly handled evictions can undermine tribal security and trust, especially where communities claim legally recognised rights. The article does not establish that the Kosma families held such rights. It shows instead why future action must address both forest damage and the lawful status of affected communities.

India’s Forest Rights Act attempts to correct the historical exclusion of forest-dwelling tribal communities from decisions about land and resources. It can recognise individual and community rights for eligible forest-dwelling tribal people and other traditional forest dwellers. The purpose is not to legalise every occupation, but to establish rights through evidence and a prescribed process.

Recognition generally involves claims being examined by local rights committees and reviewed through higher administrative bodies. The law also gives communities responsibilities linked to protecting wildlife, forests and biodiversity. This creates a balancing mechanism: recognised rights can support habitation and livelihoods, while conservation rules and protected-area provisions continue to matter.

The article does not say whether the Kosma families filed or received Forest Rights Act claims. It only reports the administration’s finding that they were encroachers and its evidence about houses, voters and satellite imagery. Therefore, the Act’s framework matters to the broader debate, but the article does not settle the families’ legal status.