Page No.# 1/19 vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2521 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/19 vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 20 March, 2026

                                                                  Page No.# 1/19

GAHC010056932026




                                                            undefined

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1616/2026

         ABU BAKKAR AND 19 ORS
         C/O- NAJIR UDDIN VILL- 74 PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

         2: MAHARAM ALI
          C/O- ABDUL BARI VILL- 72 PACHIM JAMUNA GAON ROAD DIST- HOJAI

         3: ABDUL MATLIB
          C/O- RAMICH UDDIN VILL- 99 PACHIM JAMUNA ROAD DIST- HOJAI

         4: DULAL AHMED
          C/O- HAZRAT ALI VILL-PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

         5: SAMJID ALI
          C/O- MUDARIS ALI VILL- PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

         6: KAMAR UDDIN
          C/O- ALI RAJA VILL- 044 UDMARI GAON ROAD DIST- HOJAI

         7: ISMAIL ALI
          C/O- JONAB ALI VILL- 02 PUB JAMUNA GAON ROAD DIST- HOJAI

         8: ABDUL KHALIK
          C/O- MAKLIS ALI VILL-PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

         9: HUSSAIN AHMED
          C/O- MAKBUL ALI VILL-PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

         10: BATAI MIYA
          C/O- MOIAR ALI VILL- GHUNIRPAR DIST- HOJAI

         11: NASIR UDDIN
          C/O- ABDUL MANNAF VILL- UDMARI DIST- HOJAI

         12: MOHAMMAD HASON AHMED
                                                         Page No.# 2/19

C/O- YASIN ALI VILL-PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

13: ASAB UDDIN
 C/O- ALI RAJA VILL- 043 UDMARI GAON ROAD DIST- HOJAI

14: JAMAL UDDIN
 C/O- FAIJUR ALIAS FOIJUR RAHMAN VILL- PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST-
HOJAI

15: TAJ UDDIN
 C/O- MAHMAD ALI VILL- 65 PACHIM JAMUNA GAON ROAD DIST- HOJAI

16: MD ALAUR ALIAS ALAUR RAHMAN
 C/O- LATE ABDUR RAHMAN VILL- UDMARI DIST- HOJAI

17: KACHIM ALI LASKAR
 C/O- WAZID ALI LASKAR VILL-PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

18: KHAIRUL ISLAM LASKAR
 C/O- WAZID ALI LASKAR VILL-PACHIM JAMUNA GAON DIST- HOJAI

19: SAHARBAN BIBI
 C/O- MATIUR RAHMAN VILL-PACHIM JAMUNA GAON ROAD DIST- HOJAI

20: ALIM UDDIN
 C/O- KUTUB ALIAS KUUTUB ALI VILL- 114 PACHIM JAMUNA GAON
ROAD DIST- HOJA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI- 781006

2:SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
 ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT
 JANATA BHAWAN (ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX)
 DISPUR
 GUWAHATI- 781006

3:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
 REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
 JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX
 DISPUR
 GUWAHATI- 781006

4:PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST
                                                                         Page No.# 3/19

            FORCE AND WILDLIFE
            O/O THE PCCF HOFF
            ASSAM
            ARANYA BHAWAN
            PANJABARI
            GUWAHATI- 781037.

            5:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

             NAGAON SOUTH DIVISION
             HOJAI
             ASSAM

            6:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

             . HOJAI
             ASSAM

            7:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

             HOJAI
             ASSAM

            8:CIRCLE OFFICER
             DOBOKA REVENUE CIRCLE
             HOJAI ASSAM

            9:OFFICER IN CHARGE
             MURAJHAR POLICE STATION
             HOJAI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A R BHUYAN, S LASKAR,MR N A MAZARBHUIYA,MR N
Z CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,SC, FOREST




                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

                                        ORDER

Date : 20-03-2026

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also Page No.# 4/19

heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition is being filed challenging the order dated 07-03-2026,

issued in respect of each of the writ petitioners, by the Divisional Forest Officer, South

Nagaon Division-cum-Member Secretary, District Level Committee, Hojai for Removal of

Forest Encroachment, directing each of the petitioners to vacate the plot of land under

their unauthorized occupation in the reserve forest involved.

3. The petitioners in the present writ petition have projected that they are residing in

Pachim Jamuna Gaon village in the district of Hojai for a substantial period of time. The

petitioners were issued with show-cause notices dated 21-07-2025 and 24-07-2025

directing them to vacate the land in their possession within 07 (seven) days. Being

aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ

petition.

4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court upon noticing the issue arising in the writ

petition, while issuing notice, proceeded vide order dated 29-07-2025 to direct that the

time period given to the petitioner to vacate the land in question be extended till 07-08-

2025 and till such time no forceful eviction be carried out. It was further clarified that

after 07-08-2025, the State would be within its bound to take steps for eviction and

conservation of the forest land.

5. Being aggrieved the petitioners had assailed the order dated 29-07-2025, before

the Division Bench of this Court by way of instituting a writ appeal being W.A. No.

251/2025. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18-08-2025, gave a final Page No.# 5/19

consideration to the said writ appeal and upon considering the issue arising in the matter

proceeded to dispose of the said writ appeal by observing that an extended period of time

having been granted to the appellants to make their good their exit from the forest area,

if the appellants do not leave the forest area within a period of 07 days to be counted

from the date of order, the State would proceed against them for eviction.

6. Being aggrieved the petitioners, herein, had approached the Hon'ble Supreme

Court by way of instituting SLP being SLP No. 23647-23648/2025 Abdul Khalek &

Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upon considering the

said SLP along with the other SLPs instituted in the matter and also writ petition instituted

before it under Article 32 of the Constitution of India proceeded vide order dated 10-02-

2026 to dispose of the said proceeding by directing that the process of eviction be carried

out complying with the procedure laid down by the Government under the policy adopted

in the matter.

7. In terms of the policy noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its said order dated

10-02-2026, the respondent authorities in the Department of Environment, Forest and

Climate Change, proceeded to constitute a Joint Committee of Revenue and Forest

officials at the district level for examining the claims of the petitioners in the present writ

petition. The terms of reference of the said Committee was also set out in the said

notification dated 17-02-2026.

8. The said Committee, thereafter, on drawing a prima facie conclusion that the

petitioners in the present writ petition were occupying land within a notified Reserve

Forest, proceeded to issue notice to each of the petitioners involved in the present writ Page No.# 6/19

petition, affording them an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their claim of

being in authorized occupation in a notified forest area. The course of action the

Committee would undertake after receipt of the evidences from each of the petitioners

was also set out in the said notice.

9. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted their individual representations before the

District Level Committee as constituted vide order dated 17-02-2026 and also brought on

record justifications with regard to their claim of being in authorized possession of the

plot of land under their occupation. Petitioners also enclosed to their representations,

documents relied upon in support of this their such claims. The Committee, thereafter, on

examination and verification of the claims made by the petitioners in the light of the

documents produced by them before it arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were

occupying land within the notified area of Jamuna Mondanga Reserve Forest. Accordingly,

the claim of the petitioners of being in authorized possession of the plot of land under

their occupation was not found to have been established. Accordingly, the decision was

arrived at by the District Level Committee to require the petitioners to vacate their

unauthorized occupation of land in Jamuna Mondanga Reserve Forest within 15 days of

issuance of the speaking order in this connection. The decision of the said District Level

Committee was communicated to each of the petitioners in the present writ petition by

the Divisional Forest Officer, South Nagaon Division-cum-Member Secretary, District Level

Committee, Hojai for removal of the forest encroachment vide orders dated 07-03-2026,

requiring the petitioners, herein, to vacate their unauthorized occupation of land in the

Jamuna Mondanga Reserve Forest within 15 days from the date of issuance of the Page No.# 7/19

speaking order, with further stipulation that failing which actions shall be taken to remove

the noticee from their unauthorized encroachment within the Jamuna Mondanga Reserve

Forest.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Abdul Khalek (Supra) had mandated a procedure for examining

the claim of the petitioners in the matters and had required the respondents to constitute

a Committee for the purpose consisting of Forest officials and Revenue officials. He

submits that while the said procedure was laid down, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

clarified that it had kept all the contentions raised before it open to be agitated before the

Committee and further that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the claim of the

parties as the same has to be now examined by the Committee. He submits that the

District Level Committee, in its notice dated 22-02-2026, issued to each of the writ

petitioners had projected that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of land in a

reserve forest area and had required the petitioners to adduce evidence to demonstrate

that they were in fact in authorized occupation of the forest land. The learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that such a projection was made by the said Committee without

first disclosing in the notice the exact area constituting the reserve forest in question and

the exact site, wherein, the petitioners, herein, were found to be so occupying lands

within the notified boundary of the Reserve Forest in question. He submits that the final

notification towards notifying Jamuna Mondanga Reserve Forest in question was also not

enclosed to the said notice. Mr. Bhuyan submits that it is for the State to first establish the

foundational facts before leveling allegation against the petitioners that they were found Page No.# 8/19

to have occupied land within the notified forest area.

11. The learned counsel further submits that from the documents produced before the

said Committee by each of the petitioners, it would be apparent that the respondent

authorities had recognized that the petitioners were not occupying land within the forest

area and accordingly, benefits flowing under various schemes of Government of India,

including financial support for construction of houses over the plot of lands occupied by

the petitioners, were extended to them. Further Mr. Bhuyan submits that Electoral Identity

Cards, Ration Cards, electricity connection, Job Cards were also issued in favour of each

of the petitioners, herein. He submits that the governmental authorities competent to do

so, having extended the said benefit to the petitioners, the contention of the respondent

authorities that the petitioners were occupying lands within a reserve forest area would

not be maintainable.

12. Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that the villages wherein the petitioners were so

occupying lands were brought within the purview of a Panchayat and due notification in

this connection, notifying the inclusion of the villages of the petitioners within a particular

Panchayat was issued by the respondent authorities. One such notification was

demonstrated to have been issued on 15-10-2024. He submits that the village of the

petitioners having been now included within a Panchayat, the same villages of the

petitioners, not being demonstrated to be Forest village, the only conclusion permissible

to be arrived at in the matter was that the petitioners were occupying revenue lands and

not Forest lands. Accordingly, he submits that the projection made in the notices issued to

the petitioners as well as the conclusion reached by the District Level Committee, Page No.# 9/19

contained in the order dated 07-03-2026, would clearly be not sustainable. Mr. Bhuyan in

support of his submission has submitted that the notification of villages to be included in

a Panchayat flows from the provisions of Article 243 and accordingly, he submits that the

issuance of notice to them requiring to place on record evidences justifying their

authorized occupation of land in forest area as well as the direction issue to them vide

order dated 07-03-2026 on the ground that they were occupying land in reserve forest

area would clearly be not sustainable.

13. On a query made by this Court as to whether the petitioners were in authorized

occupation of the land, in question, either under the revenue authority or under the forest

authority. Mr. Bhuyan has fairly submitted that the petitioners are in unauthorized

occupation, but the said occupations have continued for substantial period of time. Mr.

Bhuyan further clarified that the land occupied by the petitioners being revenue land, the

forest authorities would have no jurisdiction to carry out any process of eviction from the

said land. Mr. Bhuyan by drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated

07-03-2026 has submitted that the District Level Committee had not carried out the

requisite verification of the claims of the petitioners and had proceeded in the matter by

holding that the onus was on the petitioners to establish that they were not in

unauthorized occupation of land within the forest area. He submits that the District Level

Committee had not carried out a process of demarcation of the area of the reserve forest

in question prior to arriving at its conclusions that the petitioners were in fact occupying

lands within the said reserve forest area. He submits that the conclusions having been

drawn in the matter without a process of demarcation of the area of the reserve forest Page No.# 10/19

being carried out, has caused prejudice to the interest of the petitioners, herein and they

have now been projected to be occupying land within the reserve forest area without

there being any determination made of the said fact.

14. Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that the contention raised by the petitioners in their

representation admittedly has not been given its due consideration by the Committee.

15. In the above premises, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the speaking order dated 07-03-

2026 would mandate to be stayed by this Court pending disposal of the present writ

petition.

16. Per contra, Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the Forest

Department has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of

Abdul Khalek (Supra) had required the constituted committee to issue notice to the

alleged unauthorized occupants and give them an opportunity to adduce evidence to

show that they have the right to occupy the land which is in their possession. He submits

that the petitioners in the present proceeding has sought to reverse the onus of

establishing the fact that the petitioners were occupying lands in a reserve forest and

seeks to place the onus on the State, which he submits is clearly impermissible. Mr.

Goswami submits that in terms of the Regulation 17 of the Assam State Forest

Regulation, 1891, the coordinates of the boundary of the reserve forest are clearly set

out. He submits that after declaration of a reserve forest no non-forestry activity is

permissible to be so carried out in the area declared as reserve forest. He submits that

the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the villages, wherein, the

petitioners have occupied Government land to have been declared to be falling under a Page No.# 11/19

Panchayat area would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, the area, wherein, the

petitioners were found to have unauthorizedly occupied land, was found to be falling

within the notified area of the reserve forest. Accordingly, he submits that the constituted

committed both in issuing notices to the petitioners as well as in the speaking order had

not committed any error in holding that the petitioners were infact occupying lands within

the forest area unauthorisedly.

17. By referring to the impugned order dated 07-03-2026, Mr. Goswami has submitted

that the documents submitted by the petitioners in support of their claims to be in

authorized possession of the land so occupied by them, were duly verified by the District

Level Committee and it was concluded from the said documents that the possessory right

of the petitioners over the land in question was not evident. Mr. Goswami has further

submitted that upon the representation from the petitioners being received the committee

had carried out a field verification on 01-03-2026 and by referring to the declared

boundary of the reserve forest in question, it was found that the petitioners admittedly

were occupying land within the reserve forest. Mr. Goswami has submitted that the said

field verification was carried out by using ground survey and GPS coordinates and the

same was compared with the declared coordinates of the boundary of the reserve forest

which established the fact that the petitioners were occupying land within the notified

area of the reserve forest. Mr. Goswami has submitted that the petitioners have not

brought on record any material to demonstrate that they are occupying land outside the

notified limits of the reserve forest in question. Mr. Goswami by referring to the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek (Supra), submits that the Page No.# 12/19

procedure as mandated for examining the claims of the petitioner, was duly complied with

by the District Level Committee. He submits that the procedure as mandated having been

complied with, this Court would not proceed to interfere with the speaking order dated

07-03-2026.

Issue notice returnable on 30-03-2026.

Since Mr. P.N. Goswami has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5

and Mr. N. Das, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam has accepted notice on behalf of

respondent Nos. 6 to 11, no formal notice is required to be sent in this case.

However, extra copies of the writ petition, requisite in numbers, be furnished to the

learned counsel for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for an interim order staying the

effect and operation of the speaking order dated 07-03-2026.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interim prayer.

18. As noticed hereinabove, the earlier notices issued to the petitioners for vacation of

the plots of land occupied by them, identified to be so situated within the reserve forest in

question, had led to institution of a writ petition before this Court. The Coordinate Bench

of this Court on consideration of the matter had directed in the interim for extension of

time to the petitioners for vacation of the land in question. Being aggrieved the

petitioners had assailed the said order before the Division Bench of this Court. The

Division Bench on appreciating the contentions urged before it by the appellants, in the

light of the materials coming on record found that no good ground was urged for Page No.# 13/19

interference with the directions passed by the learned Single Judge. However, 07 days

further period was granted to petitioner to vacate the land occupied by them in the forest

area. The Division Bench further granted liberty to the State to proceed for eviction, in the

event the appellants, therein, do not vacate the land within the further period of 07 days

from the date of the order.

19. The appellants, thereafter, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of

instituting a SLP. The said SLP along with other analogous matters including a writ

petition filed invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India were taken up for

consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court analogously and came to be disposed of vide

order dated 10-02-2026. The lead case being the case of Abdul Khalek (Supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court upon duly examining the policy of the Government of Assam

brought on record before them, pertaining to the procedure to be adopted for evicting

unauthorized occupants from the Reserve Forest, had in its order set out procedure as

found in the said policy. The procedure mandated to be followed, as notified by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court being relevant, the same is extracted, hereinbelow:

"(i) The respondents shall constitute a committee comprising forest officials and the revenue officials.

(ii) The said committee shall issue notice to the alleged unauthorised occupants and shall give them an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that they have the right to occupy the land which is in their possession.

(iii) The action for removal of encroachment shall be taken, only if it is found that there is an encroachment in the reserved forest area.

(iv) In case the noticee is found to be within the revenue limits, outside the notified forest area, the details of the noticee shall be sent to the revenue department. In such cases, revenue department shall decide the future course of action.

Page No.# 14/19

(v) The action is being taken by the State to remove encroachment from the reserved forest areas and has nothing to do in respect of the matters which may be referred to the revenue department.

(vi) If an unauthorised occupation is found in a reserved forest area, after scrutiny of the documents, a speaking order shall be passed and shall be served on the concerned person giving him 15 days notice to vacate the unauthorized occupation and only after expiry of the period of notice, the action shall be taken to remove the unauthorised occupants.

(vii) Occupation of a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is permissible if there is a sufficient proof as per the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest Department or as provided under the Forest Rights Act."

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also on examining the policy brought on record for

removal of encroachment from the Reserve Forest found that the same contains sufficient

procedural safeguards. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also found that the process sought to

be adopted by the State Government for removal of encroachment conforms to the

principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process.

21. As noticed, hereinabove, after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Abdul Khalek (Supra), the respondent authorities had vide a notification dated

17-02-2026 constituted a District Level Committee (DLC) under the chairmanship of the

jurisdictional District Commissioner and included therein officials from both the Revenue

as well as the Forest department. The terms of the reference of the said Committee was

also set out in the said notification. The said Committee, thereafter, on arriving on a,

prima facie, satisfaction to the effect that the petitioners, herein, were occupying lands

unauthorisedly in the notified forest area, proceeded to issue notice all dated 22-02-2026,

to each of the writ petitioners involved in the present proceeding. The petitioners were

required to adduce evidence in support of their claim on being in authorized occupation in Page No.# 15/19

a notified forest area. It is to be noted that the procedure the Committee would follow

upon receipt of the documents from the petitioners was also set out in the said notice.

22. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted individual representations before the said

Committee and had also enclosed to such representations documents in support of their

claims made in the representations so submitted.

23. Thereafter, the Committee had proceeded to consider the claims made by the

petitioners in the light of the documents brought on record in support of such claims. The

Committee on a due consideration of the documents so submitted arrived at a conclusion

that from the documents so submitted by each of the petitioners, it was not evident that

they were in permissible possession of forest land. Having drawn the said conclusion the

Committee proceeded to carry out a joint field verification on 01-03-2026 to ascertain as

to whether the land possessed by each of the petitioners, herein, was so possessed within

the notified area of Reserve Forest in question. On such ground survey being made with

reference to the notified limits of the Reserve Forest, in question, using GPS coordinates

and comparing the same with the coordinates of the notified Reserve Forest, the

Committee came to a conclusion that the petitioners were, in fact, occupying land within

the notified boundary of the Reserve Forest, in question. The Committee also arrived at a

conclusion on the basis of the materials available on record that the names of the

petitioners were not found to be recorded as residents of any forest village within the

notified Reserve Forest. Basing on the said conclusion, the Committee came to be a

conclusion that the petitioners were found to be unauthorized occupants/ encroachers

within the notified Reserve Forest. With regard to the documents produced by the Page No.# 16/19

petitioners like Aadhar Card, Voter Identity Card, Ration Card, entries in the Electoral Roll,

electricity bill, PMAY certificate, Job Card etc., the learned Committee arrived at a

conclusion that the said documents could not constituted to have conferred title and/ or

authority to the petitioners to occupy land within a notified forest area. It held that the

said documents were in relation to the identity of the person concerned and/ or

documents pertaining to extension to the petitioners benefits of various welfare schemes

introduced from time to time by the Government. It held that the said documents cannot

be held to be evidence towards establishing the right of the petitioners to occupy land

within the notified Reserve Forest.

24. The conclusion drawn by the learned Committee was communicated to each of the

petitioners vide speaking order dated 07-03-2026. The petitioners were directed to vacate

their unauthorized occupation of land in the notified Reserve Forest within 15 days of

issue of the speaking order with the further stipulation that failing such vacation of land

by them, action would be taken to remove the petitioners from such unauthorized

occupation/ encroachment within the notified forest area.

25. This Court has perused the conclusions reached by the District Level Committee as

set out in the speaking order dated 07-03-2026 in the light of the procedure set out by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Abdul Khalek (Supra). This

Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had required the petitioners, herein, to be

issued with a notice giving them an opportunity to adduced evidence to show that they

have the right to occupy the land which is in their possession. Accordingly, this Court is of

the considered view that the onus was on the petitioners to bring on record relevant Page No.# 17/19

documents to establish their right to occupy land within the notified forest area. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court had, thereafter, proceed that action for removal for encroachment

would be taken only if it is found that the petitioners were encroachers in a Reserve

Forest area. The Reserve Forest, in question, being a notified Reserve Forest, it is settled

position that the same is so notified with definite boundaries. The said aspect of the

matter is also noticed in the speaking order dated 07-03-2026. This Court finds that the

District Level Committee after examining the documents brought on record by the

petitioners, herein, in their respective representations had proceeded to carry out a

ground survey by using GPS coordinates, it is found that on such survey being carried out

by using GPS coordinates and comparing the coordinates of the land found to be under

possession of the petitioners, it was found that the petitioners were occupying land within

the notified boundary of Reserve Forest. This conclusion reached by the District Level

Committee has not been disputed by the petitioners by bringing on record in the present

proceeding cogent and reliable documents. This Court finds that the petitioners have only

urged that on account of being extended of benefits under various Government schemes

and also being issued with documents like, Aadhar Card, Ration Card, Job Card etc. and

further being extended with electricity connection, the petitioners are to be deemed to be

occupying a Revenue land. This Court basing on the said documents would not proceed to

disturb the findings of the District Level Committee which finding is based on a ground

survey, wherein, it was revealed that the petitioners were, in fact, occupying land within

the notified forest area. This Court on perusal of the speaking order dated 07-03-2026

and the conclusions drawn therein finds that the same, prima facie, to have been so Page No.# 18/19

passed after following the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its

decision in the case of Abdul Khalek (Supra).

26. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have

not made out a, prima facie, case for staying the effect and operation of the speaking

order dated 07-03-2026. This Court having noticed that the petitioners were found to be

in occupation of land within the notified limits of a Reserve Forest, the said occupation

being not authorized by the concerned authorities, the same being impermissible and

considering the need for maintaining environmental balance, the balance of convenience

in staying the impugned notification dated 22-02-2026 is also not found in favour of the

petitioners, herein. The petitioners having been found to be unauthorized occupants of

forest land and under no circumstances, it being permissible to permit the petitioners to

occupy the forest land, this Court is of the, prima facie, view that the eviction of the

petitioners would not result any irreparable injury being caused to them, inasmuch as,

non-eviction of the petitioners from the land unauthorisedly occupied by them in a

notified forest area would result in further degradation of the forest, which is not in the

larger public interest.

27. For the reasons stated, hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the

interim direction prayed for by the petitioners in the present proceeding would not be

mandated to be granted. Accordingly, the prayer for keeping the speaking order dated 07-

03-2026, in abeyance stands rejected.

28. This Court further provides that the conclusions drawn, hereinabove, by this Court

having been so drawn only for the purpose of considering the prayer for interim direction Page No.# 19/19

made by the petitioners in the present proceeding, the same be treated to be tentative

conclusions and would not be binding at the time to final consideration of the present writ

petition.

29. Registry to list this matter again on 30-03-2026.

30. The respondents shall bring on record their stand by way of filing an affidavit on/

or before 27-03-2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant