Consider the following statements : 1. As per recent amendment to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, forest dwellers have the right to fell the bamboos grown on forest areas. 2. As per the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, bamboo is a minor forest produce. 3. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 allows ownership of minor forest produce to forest dwellers. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

States that under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, bamboo is classified as a 'minor forest produce' and the Act allows ownership of minor forest produce to forest dwellers.

A student could use this to argue that if FRA 2006 already recognises ownership of bamboo as minor forest produce, any amendment to the Indian Forest Act would need to be understood in relation to FRA's pre-existing rights.

Explains the Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides restitution of individual and community forest rights, including community rights over common property resources.

One could check whether rights to fell bamboo would be encompassed under 'community rights' and compare which law (FRA 2006 vs Indian Forest Act 1927) governs such rights.

Details who the Forest Rights Act applies to and that it prevents eviction of forest-dwelling STs/communities until recognition/verification is completed.

A student might infer that any change allowing felling of bamboo would interact with FRA processes and protections for dwellers, so one should verify whether the amendment overrides, complements, or conflicts with FRA provisions.

Describes historical Forest Acts (1865, 1878, 1927) and notes that earlier laws created 'reserved forests' from which villagers could not take anything.

Use this historical pattern to consider that the 1927 Act traditionally restricted local rights, so an amendment claiming to grant new rights would be a notable departure requiring explicit text or policy change.

Explains the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 centralised control to stop clearing and required strict control of rights to use forest land.

A student could treat this as a reminder that central statutes often limit local extraction rights; thus one should check whether the purported amendment conflicts with other central forest-conservation controls.

This snippet records an exam question that explicitly states (as a proposition) that the Act treats bamboo as a minor forest produce — showing the claim exists in secondary sources and exam practice.

A student could treat this as an example of the claim to be checked and then seek the Act's definitions or official lists to verify or refute it.

Summarises the Forest Rights Act as providing recognition of individual and community rights and community rights over common property resources (which typically include non-timber forest produce).

Combine this with the standard definition that 'minor forest produce' = non-timber forest products to test whether bamboo would fall under rights conferred by the Act.

States the Act applies to traditional forest-dwelling communities and emphasises livelihood dependence on forests — implying the Act covers resources used for livelihood (often classified as minor forest produce).

Use this pattern to infer that if bamboo is a livelihood resource for forest dwellers (see other snippets), it is plausibly treated as a minor forest produce under the Act's scope.

Describes forest-dwelling communities gathering roots, tubers, fruits and manufacturing ropes from wild creepers — giving an operational example of 'minor forest produce' collection by tribes.

A student could extend this example to ask whether bamboo, used similarly by communities (for ropes, mats, construction), fits the same category of collected forest produce.

Notes bamboo is a common tree in certain forest types, establishing bamboo as a widespread forest resource (not just timber), which is relevant to whether it is treated as a non-timber/minor forest produce.

Combine this ecological fact with the Act's focus on livelihood resources to judge plausibility that bamboo could be included among minor forest produce covered by the Act — then check the Act/texts for an explicit definition.