Saranda
(Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |- |colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%"> This article has been extracted from <br/> THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908.<br/> OXFORD, AT THE CLAR...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | =Saranda, 1908= | ||
| + | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
''' Note: National, provincial and district boundaries have changed considerably since 1908. Typically, old states, ‘divisions’ and districts have been broken into smaller units, and many tahsils upgraded to districts. Some units have since been renamed. Therefore, this article is being posted mainly for its historical value. ''' | ''' Note: National, provincial and district boundaries have changed considerably since 1908. Typically, old states, ‘divisions’ and districts have been broken into smaller units, and many tahsils upgraded to districts. Some units have since been renamed. Therefore, this article is being posted mainly for its historical value. ''' | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | |||
Hill range in the extreme south-west corner of Singh- | Hill range in the extreme south-west corner of Singh- | ||
bhum District, Bengal, lying between 22 i' and 22 28' N. and 85 o' | bhum District, Bengal, lying between 22 i' and 22 28' N. and 85 o' | ||
| Line 20: | Line 23: | ||
in deep valleys, and belongs for the most part to the Ho and other | in deep valleys, and belongs for the most part to the Ho and other | ||
aboriginal tribes. | aboriginal tribes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =21st century= | ||
| + | =Saranda game reserve> sanctuary= | ||
| + | ==The issues in 2025== | ||
| + | [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=18_10_2025_020_005_cap_TOI Oct 18, 2025: ''The Times of India''] | ||
| + | |||
| + | New Delhi : After agreeing to declare 310 sqkm of pristine Sal tree forest in Saranda game reserve as a sanctuary and risking contempt proceedings, Jharkhand govt told Supreme Court it was ready to notify 250 sqkm and sought exemption of 60 sqkm on the grounds that they were inhabited by a huge tribal population. | ||
| + | |||
| + |
Appearing for the state, senior advocate Kapil Sibal presented Google Maps to demonstrate that 250 sqkm were substantially free of habitation and placed before a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran a draft notification for the area. SC has already exempted the mines operated by Steel Authority of India within the limits of Saranda forest. | ||
| + | |||
| + |
Senior advocate Gaurav Sharma, appearing for tribals, said declaring the entire 310 sqkm as a sanctuary would severely impact the livelihood of the approximately 91,000-strong tribal population, which resided in 99 villages within the proposed sanctuary limits. He said the forest rights of the tribal people should be settled prior to declaring the forest as a sanctuary. | ||
| + |
Both the bench and amicus curiae K Parameswaran said that a sanctuary was different from a national park, where no habitation is allowed. In a sanctuary, forest dwellers’ rights remain protected, the amicus said. | ||
| + | |||
| + |
Parameswaran accused Jharkhand govt of attempting to shield mining activities by seeking exemption of 60 sqkm. Sibal protested and said there was no mining activity in thatarea.
The bench said exempting 60 sqkm from the proposed sanctuary would disturb the contiguity of forest. However, it agreed to consider the entire issue, including rights of forest dwellers, on Oct 27. It also asked state govt to give details of mining activities in the 60 sqkm area. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:India|SSARANDA | ||
| + | SARANDA]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Places|SSARANDA | ||
| + | SARANDA]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:10, 25 November 2025
Contents |
[edit] Saranda, 1908
This article has been extracted from THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908. OXFORD, AT THE CLARENDON PRESS. |
Note: National, provincial and district boundaries have changed considerably since 1908. Typically, old states, ‘divisions’ and districts have been broken into smaller units, and many tahsils upgraded to districts. Some units have since been renamed. Therefore, this article is being posted mainly for its historical value.
Hill range in the extreme south-west corner of Singh-
bhum District, Bengal, lying between 22 i' and 22 28' N. and 85 o'
and 85 26' E., bordering on the Gangpur State. It consists of a mass
of mountains, rising to the height of 3,500 feet. The population
inhabiting this region is scattered over a few poor hamlets nestling
in deep valleys, and belongs for the most part to the Ho and other
aboriginal tribes.
[edit] 21st century
[edit] Saranda game reserve> sanctuary
[edit] The issues in 2025
Oct 18, 2025: The Times of India
New Delhi : After agreeing to declare 310 sqkm of pristine Sal tree forest in Saranda game reserve as a sanctuary and risking contempt proceedings, Jharkhand govt told Supreme Court it was ready to notify 250 sqkm and sought exemption of 60 sqkm on the grounds that they were inhabited by a huge tribal population.
Appearing for the state, senior advocate Kapil Sibal presented Google Maps to demonstrate that 250 sqkm were substantially free of habitation and placed before a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran a draft notification for the area. SC has already exempted the mines operated by Steel Authority of India within the limits of Saranda forest.
Senior advocate Gaurav Sharma, appearing for tribals, said declaring the entire 310 sqkm as a sanctuary would severely impact the livelihood of the approximately 91,000-strong tribal population, which resided in 99 villages within the proposed sanctuary limits. He said the forest rights of the tribal people should be settled prior to declaring the forest as a sanctuary. Both the bench and amicus curiae K Parameswaran said that a sanctuary was different from a national park, where no habitation is allowed. In a sanctuary, forest dwellers’ rights remain protected, the amicus said.
Parameswaran accused Jharkhand govt of attempting to shield mining activities by seeking exemption of 60 sqkm. Sibal protested and said there was no mining activity in thatarea. The bench said exempting 60 sqkm from the proposed sanctuary would disturb the contiguity of forest. However, it agreed to consider the entire issue, including rights of forest dwellers, on Oct 27. It also asked state govt to give details of mining activities in the 60 sqkm area.
