Overview In Yadamane village of Sagar taluk, Shivamogga , the Forest Department has served eviction notices to several families who have cultivated the land for decades. The notices, issued on 14 February 2026 , cite an order by the Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) of the Kargal Wildlife Division under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act . The move has sparked political backlash, farmer protests, and a debate on forest rights versus conservation mandates. Key Developments Development 1: The forest department filed cases against alleged encroachment as early as 1998 . An eviction order was passed in January 2013 by the ACF, but enforcement was delayed. Development 2: After a 13‑year gap, the Range Forest Officer (RFO) of the Sharavathi Wildlife Range served fresh notices in 2026, demanding families vacate the cultivated plots of areca, paddy and other crops. Development 3: Political leaders from both the Congress and BJP , including former minister Hartal Halappa , visited the families, condemning the action and pledging support. Farmer bodies such as the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha announced protests. Important Facts Fact 1: The affected families are small and marginal farmers, each owning less than three acres of land, and had originally relocated to Yadamane in the 1960s after surrendering land for the Linganmakki Dam project. Fact 2: The department claims no forcible eviction; however, it acknowledges that families receive no compensation for crop losses caused by wildlife, and many are willing to leave due to lack of basic facilities. UPSC Relevance This case intersects with multiple strands of the UPSC syllabus. In GS Paper II, it touches upon forest governance, environmental law, and the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act . GS Paper III relates to rural livelihoods, agricultural distress, and the impact of large‑scale infrastructure projects on marginal farmers . Optional subjects such as Geography (human‑environment interaction) , Public Administration (policy implementation and grievance redressal) , and Law (Karnataka Forest Act, Section 64A) can draw directly from this scenario. Potential exam questions may ask candidates to evaluate the balance between forest conservation and the rights of forest‑dependent communities. Way Forward Policymakers should consider a multi‑pronged approach : (i) Re‑examining the 2013 eviction order in light of the families' historical displacement and current socio‑economic vulnerability; (ii) Providing compensation or alternative livelihood schemes under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) or similar programs; (iii) Strengthening community‑based forest management to involve locals in conservation, thereby reducing conflict. Transparent grievance mechanisms and timely judicial review can also ensure that forest law enforcement does not undermine constitutional rights.