The Supreme Court has upheld the State of Assam’s policy to remove unauthorised encroachments from reserved forests, while directing that eviction action must strictly follow procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and due process.
The ruling came in a batch of civil appeals and writ petitions where residents of several villages situated within reserved forest areas challenged eviction notices issued by the State authorities. The appellants claimed that they and their predecessors had been residing in the forest villages for over seventy years, and their presence had been acknowledged through Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and other identity documents. The State, however, submitted that the lands were notified as reserved forests as far back as 1887–1888 and that the occupants had no legal right over the forest land.
Placing environmental concerns at the forefront, the State informed the Court that approximately 3,62,082 hectares, nearly 19.92% of forest land in Assam, were under encroachment, leading to significant ecological degradation.
The Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice P.S. Narasimha underscored that while the Constitution places a clear obligation on the State under Article 48A to protect and improve forests, and casts a corresponding duty on citizens under Article 51A(g) to safeguard the natural environment, environmental protection cannot be pursued through arbitrary means.
After seeking clarifications, the Court recorded an additional affidavit filed by the State outlining a structured mechanism for eviction. The policy includes issuance of notice to alleged unauthorised occupants, an opportunity to produce evidence before a committee of forest and revenue officials, and passing of a speaking order granting 15 days’ time to vacate in cases where encroachment is established.
The Court held that the mechanism “contains sufficient procedural safeguards” and conforms to principles of fairness and reasonableness. It directed that the status quo be maintained with respect to the land occupied by the appellants until a speaking order is passed and the 15-day notice period expires.
All contentions were left open to be raised before the designated committee. The judgment substitutes and modifies earlier orders of the Gauhati High Court and disposes of the writ petitions filed under Article 32, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail remedies as permissible in law.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Manish Goswami, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anasuya Choudhury, AOR Mr. Boidurjyamani Deka, Adv. Mr. Shameen Yaser, Adv. Mr. Mridunil M Kashyp, Adv. Ms. Sudha Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, AOR Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Adv. Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Gias Uddin, Adv. Mr. Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Adv. Mr. Ali Rahim, Adv. Ms. Katyayani Suhurd, Adv. Mr. Nekib Zaman Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Arif Mir, Adv. Mr. Nasim Akram, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Mr. Nesim Akram Barbhuyan, Adv. Mr. Ratnadeep Shravasti, Adv. Mr. Nekibur Zaman Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Aamir Hussain, Adv. Mr. Ratnadeep Shraswati, Adv. Mr. Nasim Akram Mazarbhuiya, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Ms. Bidya Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Aamir Hussain, Adv. Ms. Shehnaz Laskar, Adv. Mr. Azizul Hoque, Adv. Mr. Aamir Husain, Adv. Mr. Ratnadeep Shrawasti, Adv. Mr. Md Ghouse Muddin Khan, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kalaiyarasan, Adv. Ms. Farha Naaz, Adv. Ms. Taqdees Fatima, Adv.
Respondent- Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Chinmoy Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Diksha Rai, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Ms. Medha Pushkarna, Adv.
