Goa: The chairperson and members of the Little and Great Nicobar Tribal Council have moved the Calcutta high court’s Port Blair bench seeking to be made party to an ongoing public interest litigation challenging the Forest Rights Act (FRA) proceedings to divert 166 sq km of forest land for the Great Nicobar mega project, the Indian Express reported on Tuesday (October 20).To put the scale of the proposed diversion into perspective, 166 sq km of forest land would form a square approximately 13 km long and account for about 18% of Great Nicobar Island’s total area.According to the report, the Union government, through the environment ministry and the tribal affairs ministry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Island administration have opposed the impleadment plea, saying it is delayed and seeks to expand the scope of the ongoing litigation.Council chairperson Barnabas Manju, two village captains and one resident of Pulo Bhabi have stated that they want to be made party to the case as the Nicobarese community has never consented to the diversion of the land, no Gram Sabha of the tribals was ever conducted under the FRA, and they have always wanted to return to their ancestral land on the southeastern and western coast.Diverted forest land is indigenous ancestral landManish Chandi, an independent researcher and social ecologist who has worked in the Nicobar Islands for over two decades, told The Wire that the land demarcated for the mega project lies within tribal territories that had been inhabited by the Great Nicobarese for centuries, until the 2004 tsunami, due to which all tribal villages were relocated to Rajiv Nagar, Campbell Bay, the administrative headquarters of Great Nicobar Island.“It is far away from their ancestral land and they have no access to any land for plantations anymore. Their economy revolved around rearing livestock but now they work as manual labourers. They have always asked to return to their ancestral lands to renew the occupation of their ancestral lands ,” Chandi said.In a report on Mongabay, Titus Peter, the first captain of Pulo Bhabi village, said, “When we were resettled, we were promised that we could return to our land after some time, but that never happened. The areas we have been relocated to are too small to do any fishing, cultivation, or even celebrate our festivals properly.”As part of the Rs 81,000 crore project, the Union government wants to build a transshipment port at Galathea Bay, a nesting site for leatherback sea turtles, an integrated township, a solar and gas-based power plant and a greenfield military and civilian-use airport.Petitioners allege forest-rights certificate falsely records consentThe bench is hearing a clutch of petitions, and key among them is a plea by former Union secretary Meena Gupta challenging the validity of proceedings under the FRA – the process followed to convene three gram sabhas, the composition of a sub-divisional level committee (SDLC) that examines resolutions passed by gram sabhas, and the eventual Record of Forest Rights (RoFR) certificate issues for land diversion, the Indian Express reported.Also read: Suspend Great Nicobar Projects Until Detailed Studies Have Been Completed, Says UN CommitteeThe plea, which has been accessed by The Wire, states that the petitioners were constrained to approach the high court since their repeated pleas and demands for the withdrawal of the RoFR certificate went unaddressed.The petitioners also allege that the RoFR certificate issued on August 18, 2022, falsely records the consent of the concerned Gram Sabhas to the diversion of forest land, citing meetings of the settled community’s Gram Sabhas that, they claim, were attended by no Nicobarese.The meetings happened in three villages which were non-tribal villages and are largely home to settlers.One person cannot consent to divert indigenous community landThe petitioners have challenged the SDLC’s backing of the Gram Sabha resolution, which carried a no-objection signature from Chairperson Manju. According to the plea, Manju was unaware that he was a member of the SDLC until he arrived at the meeting. “He was asked to come to a meeting on 13.08.22, and it was there that he was informed that he was part of the SDLC,” the plea states.“….He [the SDLC chairperson] was not authorised to consent on behalf of the entire Nicobarese community, and his consent is vitiated and invalid and cannot be considered as consent of the entire Nicobarese community” the plea further mentioned.“It is tribal community land that belongs to several communities and people; one person cannot waive off rights and access to a large piece of land that belongs to multiple people and kinship groups,” Chandi told The Wire.Firstly, their rights under the FRA have to be recognised beyond the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (ANPTR). For the Gram Sabha meetings, there have to be representatives from each of those families or people who own those lands, which never happened,” Chandi added.“They were denied free prior informed consent, have been told they would be rehabilitated, but never were, and all they’re asking for is their return to their ancestral lands and to live a life of dignity and of their choosing,” he said.Consent was ‘hurried’ and uninformedAccording to the Indian Express report, under the FRA, the SDLC is tasked with verifying forest rights claims forwarded by Gram Sabhas and preparing a draft RoFR for the district-level committee.As per the plea, although Manju signed a no-objection certificate during the SDLC proceedings on August 13, 2022, he withdrew it through a detailed letter dated November 22, 2022, opposing the diversion of forest land.The letter, also accessed by The Wire, states that, in 2019, when NITI Aayog commissioned a report to gauge stakeholder views on the proposed development plans, the tribal community had made its position clear. “…we had clearly mentioned that we do not want tourism or any other development on our land and wish to go back to our pre-tsunami villages of Chingenh and Pulo Bhabhi area,” the letter states.Also read: Supreme Court Rejects Union Govt’s Challenge to PIL on Great Nicobar ProjectThe letter further alleges that the community was not adequately informed about the implications of forest diversion, the areas it would cover or its consequences for those keen to return to their ancestral lands. It also states that the community’s concerns, raised at the meeting, were not recorded in the proceedings and that members were given inconsistent information.“The captains of the villages that wish to be resettled were only asked for a verbal consent hurriedly and were not given all the details to understand what was written in the document,” the letter states.Union government, administration reject withdrawal of consentIn a response affidavit filed in September, the Union and the Union Territory administration opposed the plea, arguing that it was delayed and would expand the scope of the ongoing litigation.In its response, the Directorate of Tribal Welfare argued that Manju could not retract his consent after signing the SDLC proceedings and the no-objection certificate. “The applicant [Manju] attended the meeting of the Sub-Divisional Committee held on 13.08.22 and appended his signature to the proceedings and the No-Objection Certificate on 13.08.22. Having participated and consented, he cannot now approbate and reprobate.” The response stated that the withdrawal of the consent letter has “no sanctity in law”.The Union government argued that the petitioners had not raised their concerns or used available legal remedies during the statutory process, stating that they were “sleeping over their alleged rights” and therefore should not be allowed to join the ongoing case at this stage.The response also mentions that the applicants were aware of the SDLC proceedings since August 2022 and claimed to have “withdrawn” consent in November 2022 but approached the HC for impleadment only in July 2026. No explanation was offered for the delay, the Union government argued, adding that impleadment at this late stage would “derail” the hearing.