Over 170 years ago around this time, the Santals rose in rebellion against the British in the lush Damin-i-Koh region in present-day eastern Jharkhand. In the ‘Hul’ (revolution) of 1855, the Santals stood against the myriad forms of oppression — economic and otherwise — they were subjected to by the British, the upper castes, zamindars and moneylenders.One of the enduring outcomes of the Hul, which some accounts date to the first week of July, was the enactment of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (SPT) Act of 1876 to protect Adivasi communities from land alienation and exploitative moneylending.This isn’t the only law that protects the alienation of tribal lands. The others include the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act and the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA Act).Here’s a look at how these laws provide for protections for tribal lands, and why land remains a contested issue in Jharkhand despite these protections.The SPT ActEnacted by the British, the law prohibits the transfer of Adivasi lands (urban or rural) to non-Adivasis. The land can only be inherited as per the Act, thus protecting the rights of Santals to self-govern their land. The SPT Act covers the present-day Santal Pargana districts: Dumka, Deoghar, Godda, Pakur, Sahibganj and Jamtara.The CNT ActThe SPT was not the only colonial-era land reform that came about as a result of Adivasi resistance. The Chhotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act, enacted by the British in 1908, was a result of the Birsa Munda movement of 1899.It allows land transfers within the same caste and certain geographical areas with the approval of the District Collector. This Act also restricts the sale of Adivasi and Dalit land, while allowing land transfers between Adivasi individuals from the same police station and Dalits in the same district.Story continues below this adThe Act applies to the North Chotanagpur, South Chotanagpur, and Palamau divisions, encompassing major districts such as Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Palamu, Khunti and Gumla. A historic map of Santal ParganasPESA ActThe PESA Act was enacted in 1996 “to provide for the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to the Panchayats to the Scheduled Areas”. It ensures self-governance through Gram Sabhas (village assemblies) for people living in the Scheduled Areas. It recognises the rights of tribal communities over natural resources. PESA has been enacted in ten states — Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana.Despite these protections, researchers say that Jharkhand, one of India’s most mineral-rich states, continues to witness land conflicts owing to legal loopholes, administrative practices and weak enforcement.Mining and resource extractionStory continues below this adOne key criticism is with broader central laws governing mining and resource extraction.Deepti Mary Minj, a consultant at the Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK, said central laws such as the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 often override tribal laws in the name of “public interest”.According to the ‘Handbook on Land Laws (Judicial Academy Jharkhand)’ Section 49 of the CNT Act originally permitted land transfers for religious, educational and charitable activities. A 1996 amendment, however, expanded the provision to include industrial and mining purposes, subject to sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.Also Read | Remembering Birsa Munda’s spirit: From Ulgulan to tribal assertionAkriti Lakra, an independent decolonial researcher from Ranchi, said multiple laws govern mining, with leases issued under mining, environmental, forest and land acquisition laws.Story continues below this adThese laws often overlap with PESA and protections under the Fifth Schedule, creating conflicts about which law prevails in practice. State authorities frequently prioritise mining and industrial policies over local self-governance.Aviral Aind, a lawyer from Ranchi, said the PESA Act is also circumvented in practice. While the Act applies to the extraction of minor minerals such as sand, clay and gravel, companies sometimes obtain permissions under this category while extracting major minerals, he said.Land banks and afforestationAnother factor that contributes to the alienation of tribal fields is land banking — a practice where the government or a public authority acquires land to redistribute or allocate it in the future. However, it often extends to parcels of tribal lands.Tribal communities have common lands that are not actively used for agriculture but are used for cattle grazing, threshing, and storing crops, and also serve as venues for community gatherings or festivals. Minj said that during the 2016 aerial survey for mineral exploration, the government marked some of these common lands as wasteland. These wastelands were used for compensatory afforestation.Story continues below this adCompensatory afforestation is also a practice which is often criticised, Minj said. The conflict points surrounding this include the plantation of non-native plants and failure of young plants to be able to replicate traditional forests. Following plantation, the land is often transferred to the Forest Department, which further denies communities their traditional access to forest lands and resources, she said.Sporadic enforcementSection 71(A) of the CNT Act mandates restoration of illegally transferred tribal land. But enforcement is sporadic.Mafia-backed transfers are often disguised as ‘dan patra’ (gift deeds) or ‘badlanama’ (exchange deeds), bypassing scrutiny and exploiting procedural loopholes, according to a paper by Niranjan Baghwar titled ‘Land, Law and Power: Unraveling the Legal and Criminal Nexus in Jharkhand’s Land Transactions’.Lakra says: “We are not against development, nor are we against giving our land for development purposes. However, our people are often relegated to low-paying and low-skilled jobs, with little representation in positions of authority or decision-making. It only marginalises the community even more.” As a result, tribal communities lose their land without gaining substantial employment opportunities or economic security.