42 Uttarkashi Villages Seek Relief from Govind Wildlife Sanctuary Restrictions
Residents of 42 villages in Uttarkashi's Mori block say restrictions tied to the Govind Wildlife Sanctuary have stalled road, water and mobile connectivity projects for decades.
Current Summary
Residents of 42 villages across five remote pattis in the Mori development block of Uttarkashi district have renewed their demand for relief from restrictions linked to the Govind Wildlife Sanctuary, saying the curbs have affected their traditional forest rights and held up essential infrastructure. Villagers say road connectivity, drinking water facilities and mobile communication in the area remain inadequate, and that restrictions have made it difficult to access forest produce and timber traditionally used for house construction. The dispute traces back to 1955, when 957.96 hectares of land in the region were brought within the boundaries of the Govind Wildlife Sanctuary. Residents say the protected-area status has continued to restrict their customary hak-hakook (forest rights) and hinder development activity despite decades passing since the sanctuary's creation.
What We Know
- 42 villages across five pattis in Uttarkashi's Mori block are affected.
- The Govind Wildlife Sanctuary was created in 1955, bringing 957.96 hectares under protected status.
- Residents say restrictions have delayed road, drinking water and mobile network projects.
- Villagers say access to forest produce and timber for house construction has also been curtailed.
What Is Still Unclear
- Whether the state government or forest department has committed to any specific relief measures or timeline.
- Which agency (state or central) has authority to modify sanctuary restrictions in this case.
What Changed
- 4 Nov, 03:40 amSignal detected: 42 Uttarkashi Villages Seek Relief from Govind Wildlife Sanctuary Restrictions
Background
The Govind Wildlife Sanctuary in Uttarkashi was notified in 1955. Villages within and around protected areas in Uttarakhand have long raised concerns that forest and wildlife protections restrict traditional rights and slow infrastructure development in remote border and hill regions.