The Gauhati High Court has held that long occupation, administrative tolerance, civic documentation, Taungya certificates, annual pattas, panchayat inclusion, internal governmental correspondence, or derivative private arrangements do not create any legally enforceable right to remain on land that forms part of a duly notified Reserve Forest. Once land stands notified as Reserve Forest, any person claiming a continuing right over it must establish that right through a legally recognised source, and neither equitable considerations nor governmental inaction can override the statutory and constitutional obligation of the State to protect forest land.
The Court further held that where the State has followed the fair procedure mandated by the Supreme Court, through scientific joint verification, notice, opportunity to produce documents, and reasoned speaking orders, the eviction process cannot be invalidated merely because the occupants disagree with the conclusion. At the same time, the Court clarified that dismissal of the appellants’ claim to remain in occupation of the Reserved Forest would not prevent the State from extending the benefit of any rehabilitation, relocation or assistance policy, scheme or executive decision to any eligible individual appellant.
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that the verification process complied with the Supreme Court’s directions and was not shown to be arbitrary. It found that the Committees were properly constituted, notices were issued to the appellants individually, representations and documents were accepted, and there was nothing to show that any material document was refused consideration or that the appellants were denied participation. The Bench reiterated that natural justice requires fairness, not a rigid ritual, and concluded that the appellants had a fair opportunity to know the case against them and respond to it.
On the challenge to the speaking orders, the Bench held that the authorities had sufficiently examined the claims, noted the categories of documents relied upon, and recorded reasons why those materials did not establish any legally enforceable right. The Bench also upheld the State’s reliance on scientific methods, including digitised maps, georeferencing, orthorectified satellite imagery, Survey of India toposheets, and DGPS/DGNSS-based field verification. It observed that the GIS map did not create or alter boundaries, but only represented already notified boundaries in a modern format to facilitate accurate identification on the ground. Since the findings rested not only on digitised maps but also on gazette notifications, boundary schedules, Survey of India records and field verification, and since the appellants produced no convincing alternative survey or technical material, the challenge to this methodology was rejected.
The Bench then drew a clear distinction between proof of occupation and proof of legal entitlement. It accepted that the appellants had produced many documents showing identity, residence and long association with the areas, but held that such materials did not create or recognise any right in law to continue in occupation of land admittedly falling within notified Reserve Forests. The Bench found that Taungya arrangements were only temporary administrative measures meant to facilitate plantation activity and limited rehabilitation, and did not create permanent, heritable or transferable rights. It further held that derivative claims based on purchase, inheritance, gift or private arrangements from original Taungya settlers could not improve the legal position, especially where the underlying documents were informal or unregistered.
Likewise, internal governmental communications, Aadhaar cards, voter cards, electoral rolls, ration cards, electricity connections, panchayat certificates, annual pattas and revenue receipts were held insufficient to confer title or occupancy rights over reserve forest land. The Bench also rejected the pleas based on Gaon Panchayat inclusion, the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the Forest Rights Act, 2006, long possession, legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, holding that none of these could override the statutory regime protecting reserved forests or compel the State to act contrary to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Also Read Patently Incorrect Answer Keys Are Open to Judicial Review: Delhi High Court
Briefly, the intra-court appeals arose from a common judgment dated by the Single Judge dismissing a batch of petitions that had challenged speaking orders issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon Division. By those speaking orders, the authorities held that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation of land forming part of various notified Reserve Forests and directed consequential action in accordance with law. The appellants claimed that they and their predecessors had been living for decades in areas within or adjoining Barapani, Lutumai, Kaki and other Reserve Forests, and that after eviction operations in 1970, some displaced families had been allowed cultivation and temporary residence under the Taungya system. They relied on Taungya certificates, departmental communications, electoral rolls, panchayat certificates, annual pattas, land revenue receipts and similar records to argue that the State had recognised their occupation and that they therefore had either a legal right or at least a legitimate expectation against eviction.
The dispute had a long litigation history. After eviction notices were issued in 2025, affected persons approached the High Court, and later the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek vs. State of Assam & Ors. [2026 SCC OnLine SC 184], directed the State to carry out a scientific and coordinated verification, give the occupants an opportunity to produce documents, examine whether they had any legally recognisable right or protection under applicable law, and then pass reasoned orders before taking further action. Pursuant to those directions, the Government of Assam constituted Committees of Forest and Revenue officers, issued notices individually, invited representations, carried out joint verification, and passed speaking orders recording that the occupied land fell within notified Reserve Forests and that no legally cognizable document conferring any right, title or authority had been produced.
