JUDGMENT A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice: This application has been filed by third party in the pending public interest litigation. On 3rd May, 2013, the Division Bench of this Court issued certain directions to the State Authorities, inter alia, to forthwith remove all the unauthorized dhabas/hotels/catering/food stalls in segment Nos.4 and 5 between Kothi to Rohtang Pass. As a consequence of that order, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu Forest Division issued notice for eviction­cum-removal of encroachment upon the Government forest land, to the applicant, dated 9th May, 2013. The said communication reads thus: “IN THE OFFICE OF DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KULLU HP No 973 Dated, Kullu, the 9.5.2013. To Sh.Dhunger Singh S/o Sh. Udhey Singh R/o Gompa Road, Manali Tehsil Manali & District Kullu HP. Subject:- Notice for removal of encroachment upon the Govt. Forest land. Whereas, the Collector-Cum-DFO (Encroachment), Kullu passed an order to vacate the unauthorized/unlawful possession of Public premises i.e. Government Forest Land comprising Khasra No. Nil, Manali-III, Marhi UPF measuring area 0.0573 hac in Tukta No I & II situated in Phati Palchan, Tehsil Manali District Kullu, HP under Section (1) of 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 vide order dated 24.5.2011 which is now pending adjudication before the Court of Divisional Commissioner Mandi, HP And whereas the Hon ’ble High Court, Court on its own motion V/s State of HP & ors CWPIL No.15/2010 dated 3.5.2013 has held that:- “Since the entire issue concerning the stretch of Kothi to Rohtang Pass is pending before this Court, every action, including the proposed action of removal of unauthorized dhabas/hotels/caterings/food stalls in segment No.IV & V will be made subject matter of challenge only before this Court in the present proceedings. No other forum in the State be it of Commissioner or the Civil Court, should entertain the same. The appeals, if any, shall stand transferred to the Court forthwith.” The Hon ’ble High Court has furhter directed to state authorities to forthwith remove all the unauthorized dhabas/hotels/caterings/food stalls in segment Nos.IV & V between Kothi to Rohtang Pass and report compliance or before 10th June, 2013. The appeals, if any, shall stand transferred to the Court forthwith.” The Hon ’ble High Court has furhter directed to state authorities to forthwith remove all the unauthorized dhabas/hotels/caterings/food stalls in segment Nos.IV & V between Kothi to Rohtang Pass and report compliance or before 10th June, 2013. Now, therefore, in compliance of the Hon ’ble High Court order dated 3.5.2013 and Pr.Secretary Forests to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter No.FFE-B-F(6)3/2009 dated 7.5.2013, I hereby serve upon you notice to you and all concern to vacate the Khokha and store (for running shop/dhaba) by demolishing the structure on or before 16.5.2013, failing which the unauthorized/unlawful structure possession of the land in question shall be taken by the Forest department by removal of the said structure at your expenses forcefully with the help of Police and District Administration.Dated 9.5. 2013 Place Kullu Sd/- Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu Forest Division, Kullu.” 2. This eviction notice has been issued notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi against the order of eviction passed against the applicant on the ground of unauthorized and unlawful possession of public premises i.e. Government forest land comprising Khasra No. nil, Manali-III, Marhi UPF measuring area 0.0573 hac. in Tukta No.I & II situated in Phati Palchan, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. This has been done presumably on the basis of the observations in the order passed by this Court, dated 3rd May, 2013, that the action of removal of unauthorized structures in the specified segment will be made subject matter of challenge only before this Court in the pending writ petition and no other forum in the State should entertain the same. 3. In the present application, the applicant has relied on several documents indicative of applicant’s possession of the disputed land and including that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. It is the applicant’s case that his forefathers were engaged in the trade of cattle, clothing, food supplies etc. They used to travel from Mandi to Lahaul & Spiti, Leh, Ladakh and Pangi. During their transit, they used to take a break at Marhi. It is stated in the application that in due course, they constructed katcha dhara at Marhi for the residential purpose of the family. That was later on converted into a dhaba, which was run in the name and style of Mansarovar Dhaba. During their transit, they used to take a break at Marhi. It is stated in the application that in due course, they constructed katcha dhara at Marhi for the residential purpose of the family. That was later on converted into a dhaba, which was run in the name and style of Mansarovar Dhaba. Even other tribals engaged in similar trade had constructed such dharas. The said dharas were constructed to accommodate the ladies alongwith children and other persons, who visited with the male members to Marhi. The male members of the family used to accompany the mules in connection with their trade in different parts of the State and would return to Marhi in the month of March. It is also asserted that the primary source of earning livelihood of the father of the applicant and the applicant was dhaba, collection of herbs such as Karu, Patish, Dhoop, Pharna, Chura, Panja Chuji etc. These herbs were put up for sale in the dhaba at Marhi, which practice is still continuing. The applicant admits that he did not mention about this fact in the earlier proceeding/application filed by him due to inadvertence. The applicant has also relied on license given by the concerned authority for running of the dhaba and including electricity supply provided to the dhaba. In this backdrop, the applicant has asserted that he cannot be evicted from the disputed land, muchless the dhaba cannot be removed by virtue of the provisions contained in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. 4.It is, however, noticed from the record that the Range Forest Officer, Manali on the basis of spot report dated 20.9.2001, had initiated proceedings against the applicant by issuing show cause notice under Section 4(1) of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, which was registered as case No.15/2004-05 in the court of Collector-cum-DFO (Encroachment), Kullu. In the said case, two issues were considered – firstly, whether the applicant had encroached upon the land in dispute or not and; secondly, whether the eviction order was required to be issued under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1971. The Collector, after considering relevant material on record, concluded that the applicant has encroached upon the forest land and, therefore, ordered eviction, vide order dated 24th May, 2011. The Collector, after considering relevant material on record, concluded that the applicant has encroached upon the forest land and, therefore, ordered eviction, vide order dated 24th May, 2011. The relevant extract of the said order reads, thus: “Final Order Point no.1 Yes. Point No.2 Application allowed. I have perused the record to the case the reason for final order is as under. The applicant has allege in his plaint that respondent is in unauthorized occupation of forest land by encroaching upon forest land in Manali III measuring 0-573 ha by Constructing a stone walled and tin roofed khokha over land measuring 0.007 in tukra No.1 and using as store and also erected a store with stone wall and tin roofed measuring 0.0116 ha in tukra No.II and measuring 0.0387 in Tukra No.III running cold drink shop and dhaba therein. The prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and PW3 examined and confirmed in their statements that the respondent without authority has encroached upon forest land in Manali III at Marhi measuring 0-0573 ha by Constructing a stone walled and tin roofed khokha over land measuring 0.007 in tukra No.I and using as store and also erected a store with stone wall and tin roofed measuring 0.0116 ha in tukra No.II and measuring 0.0387 in Tukra No.III running cold drink shop and dhaba therein. The PWs also confirmed in the statement that the suit land is a forest land, the record prepared by the halqau patwari and same is verified by the field kanungo of the concerned area also the tatima and report is countersigned by the tehsildar Manali. Which is also confirmed by the revenue record entry where the suit land is entered as bila paimud and as per Notification No.282 dated 1st June 1896 the suit land is owned and possessed by the forest department. The respondent is well aware of the fact that he is in unauthorized occupation of forest land. The respondent produce three witness in his favour both could not prove to the satisfaction of the court as alleged by respondent. The respondent is well aware of the fact that he is in unauthorized occupation of forest land. The respondent produce three witness in his favour both could not prove to the satisfaction of the court as alleged by respondent. The petitioner has also made references of honorable supreme court order in C W P No.202 dated 12.12.96, the S.C. order is produced verbatim is as under: The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning this description cover all statutorily recognized forest, whether designated reserved or protected or otherwise for the purpose of section 2(i) of the FCA, 1980. The term “forest land” occurring in section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in government record irrespective of the ownership. Therefore I hold the applicant has proved that the respondent has encroach upon forest Land in Manali III measuring 0-0573 ha by Constructing a stone walled and tin roofed khokha over land measuring 0.007 in tukra No.I and using as store and also erected a store with stone wall and tin roofed measuring 0.0116 ha in tukra No.II and measuring 0.0387 in Tukra No.III running cold during shop and dhaba therein which is located in the heart of forest land. There is no private land adjoining to the suit land. In view of findings the point No.1 is proved to the satisfaction of the Court. The application is allowed and eviction order passed. The case file is consigned to the record room of DFO Kullu after completion.Announced in Open Court.” (emphasis supplied) 5. On the basis of the above said order, the Collector issued eviction order in Form “B” on 24th May, 2011, which reads, thus: “The Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Rules, 1971 FORM “B” Order under sub-section(1) of Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. Whereas, I V.P. Pathania D F O encroachment-cum­collector Kullu is satisfied for the reason recorded below that that Sh.Dhunger Singh S/o Sh. Udhey Singh R/o Gompa Road Manali, Tehsil Manali, Distt.Kullu, H.P. is in the unauthorized occupation of Public Premises specified in the scheduled below. Reason:- Detail order of the case No.14/04-05 decided on 24.05.2011, is attached herewith. Whereas, I V.P. Pathania D F O encroachment-cum­collector Kullu is satisfied for the reason recorded below that that Sh.Dhunger Singh S/o Sh. Udhey Singh R/o Gompa Road Manali, Tehsil Manali, Distt.Kullu, H.P. is in the unauthorized occupation of Public Premises specified in the scheduled below. Reason:- Detail order of the case No.14/04-05 decided on 24.05.2011, is attached herewith. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by sub section 1 of section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Rules, 1971. I hereby order the said that Sh.Dhunger Singh S/o Sh.Udhey Singh, R/o Gompa Road Manali, Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. and all persons who may be in occupation of the said premises or any part thereof to vacate the said premises within 15 days of the publication of this order. It is further ordered that applicant (R.O. Manali) will take over the possession of suit land within 15 days of publication of the order. In the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order with in the period specified above, the said that Sh.Dhunger Singh S/o Sh Udhey Singh R/o Gompa Road, Manali, Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be by the use of such force as may be necessary. SCHEDULE: The applicant has proved to the satisfaction of the court that that Sh.Dhunger Singh S/o Sh Udhey Singh R/o Gompa Road, Manali, Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. is in unauthorized occupation of forest land by encroaching upon forest land in Manali measuring 0-0573 ha by Constructing a stone walled and tin roofed khokha over land measuring 0.007 in tukra No.I and using as store and also erected a store with stone wall and tin roofed measuring 0.0116 ha in tukra No.II and measuring 0.0387 in tukra No.III running cold drink shop and dhaba therein. It is proved to the satisfaction of the Court. The eviction order passed. Date: 24.05.2011 sd/- Signature and seal of the Collector.” 6.Against this decision, the applicant has preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which was stated to be pending when the impugned eviction notice, dated 9th May, 2013 came to be passed, pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 3rd May, 2013. The eviction order passed. Date: 24.05.2011 sd/- Signature and seal of the Collector.” 6.Against this decision, the applicant has preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which was stated to be pending when the impugned eviction notice, dated 9th May, 2013 came to be passed, pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 3rd May, 2013. From the order passed by the Collector, dated 24th May, 2011, it can be discerned that the applicant claims to have erected structure on land, which is, admittedly, a forest land. No valid and subsisting license has been produced by the applicant to dispel the factual position noted in the show cause notice about unauthorized occupation of forest land by the applicant. The revenue record confirms the position that the suit land is owned and possessed by the Forest Department. The applicant was fully aware of that fact. The applicant had produced three witnesses in the proceedings before the Collector, but they could not prove the fact that the applicant was in authorized possession of the land in question. As a result, order of eviction has been passed. 7. Even before this Court, the position is no different except that the applicant has now produced documents, at best, indicative of occupation of the applicant of three khokhas in Class-III forest area, Marhi. The damage report issued in this respect by the Range Forest Officer, Manali, dated 24th July, 1996, at page 987, testifies that the applicant is in unauthorized occupation of those three khokhas in forest area. To get over this position, the applicant has now rested his argument on the “forest rights” recognized by the Act of 2006 and which, according to him, has vested in him guaranteeing protection of his possession in respect of said disputed structure. The fact that the structures in question are in existence for quite some time will be of no avail. That cannot bestow any right on the applicant, muchless guaranteed by the Act of 2006. 8. We may straightway turn to the provisions of the Act of 2006. The preamble of the Act makes it amply clear that it is an Act to recognize and vest the “forest rights” and “occupation in forest land” in “forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers”. In the present case, we are concerned with the applicant, who claims to be scheduled tribe. The preamble of the Act makes it amply clear that it is an Act to recognize and vest the “forest rights” and “occupation in forest land” in “forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers”. In the present case, we are concerned with the applicant, who claims to be scheduled tribe. However, to fulfill the qualification of forest dwelling scheduled tribe, the person must establish the fact that he was primarily residing in forest or the forest land and further that he depends on the forests or forest lands for his bonafide livelihood needs. Thus, merely being a Scheduled Tribe is not enough. This position is reinforced from the definition of expression ‘forest dwelling scheduled tribes’, as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, which reads, thus: “(c) “forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes” means the members or community of the Scheduled Tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forest or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities;” 9.It may be useful to advert to the definition of forest land and forest rights as contained in Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act, respectively, which read, thus: “(d) “forest land” means land of any description falling within any forest area and includes unclassified forest, undemarcated forests, existing or deemed forest, protected forests, reserved forests, Sanctuaries and National Parks; (e) “forest rights” means the forest rights referred to in section 3;” 10. Section 3 of the Act of 2006 spells out the rights of persons covered under the Act in clauses (a) to (m) of sub-section (1) thereof. The applicant has pressed into service clauses (a) and (c) thereof. 11. On a bare reading of clause (a), it is obvious that the person must be primarily residing in the forest land. Further, he would get right to hold that land and live in the forest land for the activities specified in clause (a) for habitation or for self cultivation for livelihood. Constructing a structure for running of a dhaba on a forest land is not covered by this clause at all. It is not the case of the applicant that all three khokhas unauthorizedly constructed on the forest land were for habitation. On the other hand, it is the positive case of the applicant that he was running dhaba from the said premises. 12. It is not the case of the applicant that all three khokhas unauthorizedly constructed on the forest land were for habitation. On the other hand, it is the positive case of the applicant that he was running dhaba from the said premises. 12. Assuming that the applicant has been able to establish the fact that he was primarily residing in the forest or forest land, the only right protected is for his individual occupation for habitation. On the basis of the averments made in the application, which is the case made out for the first time, the applicant has also relied on clause (c) of Section 3(1). That speaks about the right of ownership access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce, which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries. By removing the three unauthorized structures, none of these rights of the applicant, assuming that he has those rights, would be affected. For, his right of access to forests or forest land to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce, which has been traditionally collected, will not be affected. This, once again, is on the assumption that the applicant has been able to establish the fact that he is forest dwelling scheduled tribe. 13. As noted earlier, there is hardly any material on record to suggest that the applicant fulfills the definition of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe. That claim is obviously an argument of desperation. In the present case, the action for unauthorized occupation of the structures was commenced against the applicant on the basis of damage report of the Range Forest Officer, Manali, dated 24th July, 1996 and 20th September, 2001, and the eviction order has been passed under the Act of 1971 by the Collector on 24th May, 2011, on the finding that the applicant was unauthorized occupant in the stated premises. 14.Counsel for the applicant would then rely on sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act to contend that the applicant cannot be evicted or removed from forest land in his possession till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. The said provision cannot be read in isolation. The recognition and verification procedure is in respect of vesting of forest rights in the person. We have already noticed that construction of structure on the forest land for running a dhaba, per se, does not create any forest rights. The said provision cannot be read in isolation. The recognition and verification procedure is in respect of vesting of forest rights in the person. We have already noticed that construction of structure on the forest land for running a dhaba, per se, does not create any forest rights. The forest rights are specified in Section 3(1) of the Act. The recognition and verification procedure is only in relation to those rights and not in respect of unauthorized structures having no causal connection with the rights specified in Section 3(1) of the Act of 2006. For the same reason, reliance placed by the applicant on Section 6 of the Act as to the authority competent to vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe will be of no avail to the applicant. 15. Considering the fact that the applicant has failed to produce any tangible material or license/lease granted to the applicant to occupy the forest land in question or to put up the subject structures thereon, given by the competent authority; and that the said license/lease is a subsisting one, it would necessarily follow that the applicant is unauthorized occupant on the forest land. On this finding, no fault can be found with the order of eviction passed by the Collector which is subject matter of the present application. 16.Accordingly, the said order is upheld, as a result of which the Collector, Kullu and/or Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu Forest Division, Kullu are free to proceed in the matter on the basis of eviction notice, dated 24th May, 2011 or 9th May, 2013, respectively, and take the same to its logical end within four weeks from today. This application is dismissed.