[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/22 vs The State Of Assam 8 Ors on 20 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/22
GAHC010057652026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1633/2026
MIR HUSSAIN AND 52 ORS
S/O LT. JABED ULLAH VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM NIGAM
DISTRICT-NAGAON, ASSAM
2: MOKTER ALI
S/O - MAYARUF ALI VILLAGE - PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT - NAGAON
ASSAM
3: MD JAINAL ABDIN
S/O - ABDUL KHALIK VILLAGE - PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT -
NAGAON
ASSAM
4: ABDUL LATIB
S/O - HARAFAN ALI ALIAS IRFAN ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON
DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
5: ABDUL HEKIM
S/O - LT TAJMUL ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
6: ANWARA BEGUM
D/O KUTUB ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
7: AKLIMA KHATUN
W/O - ABDUL HEKIM VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
8: SAMIRUN NESSA
D/O - NAZIM UDDIN VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/22
9: AZIR UDDIN
S/O - ABDUL HEKIM VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
10: JABEDA KHATUN
W/O - ABDUR RAHIM VILLAGE SADAR GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
11: SHARIF UDDIN
S/O ABDUL KHALIK VILLAGE KAROIGURI DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
12: MUHIBUR RAHMAN
S/O INTAJ ALI VILLAGE HATIKHALI DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
13: FAYAJ ALI
S/O RASID ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
14: JAHANARA BEGUM
D/O - TUWAKUL ALI VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM NIGAM
DISTRICT HOJAI
ASSAM
15: KULSUMA BEGUM
W/O - ABDUL HANNAN VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
16: RAHMAN ALI
S/O SIRAJ UDDIN VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
17: ALFATUN NESSA
W/O MASADDAR ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
18: ABDUL MALIK
S/O ISMAIL ALI VILLAGE AMBARI DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
19: ISLAM UDDIN
C/O ABDUL HASIM VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT HOJAI
ASSAM
20: ABDUL KUDDUS
S/O ISMAIL ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/22
21: MOINUL HAQUE
S/O LT. ARAPIJ ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
22: GIYAS UDDIN
S/O HUSSAIN AHMED VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
23: JALAL UDDIN
S/O ABDUL RAHIM VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
24: JAMIR UDDIN
S/O MAJAHID ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
25: ALI HUSSAIN
S/O JALAL UDDIN VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
26: CHAMPA BEGUM
W/O LATU MIYAN VILLAGE PASCHIM MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM DISTRICT
NAGAON
ASSAM
27: ALA UDDIN
S/O LT YUSUF ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
28: ABDUL MANNAN
S/O LT. IDRISH ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
29: BADAR UDDIN
S/O ABDUL MANNAN VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
30: ABDUL HASIM
S/O SAFAR ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
31: ABDUL ROUF
S/O MUKSED ALI VILLAGE DAKHIN BHEDEOATI DISTRICT HOJAI
ASSAM
32: MOIN UDDIN
S/O MAKASHED ALI VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM NIGAM
Page No.# 4/22
DISTRICT HOJAI
ASSAM
33: AMIR UDDIN
S/O LT. FACHANDRA ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT
NAGAON
ASSAM
34: MAHAMMAD ABDULLA
S/O ABDUL KARIM VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
35: SIABUR RAHMAN
S/O ATAUR RAHMAN VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
36: ABDUL MANNAN
S/O LT. RAJAB ALI VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM NIGAM
DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
37: ABDUL JALIL
S/O BASIR ALI VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM NIGAM
DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
38: JAKIR HUSSAIN
S/O ALIM UDDIN VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
39: MAIJUL HAQUE
S/O ABBAS ALI VILLAGE SHINGGARI DISTRICT NOWGAON
ASSAM
40: MUSLIMA BEGUM
D/O TUWAKUL ALI VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM NIGAM
DISTRICT HOJAI
ASSAM
41: MOINUL ISLAM
S/O JAFAR ALI VILLAGE PACHIM BAGARI DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
42: JAFAR ALI
S/O SULTAN ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
43: ALI HUSSAIN
Page No.# 5/22
S/O ICHAHAK ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
44: SHARIF UDDIN
S/O ABDUL KARIM VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
45: JAMIR UDDIN
S/O LT. SIRAJ UDDIN VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA KRISHIPAM NIGAM
DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
46: MASKANDAR ALI
C/O ANFAR ALI VILLAGE JAMUNA MOUDANGA DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
47: ALA UDDIN
S/O ABDUL LATIF LASKAR VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT
NAGAON
ASSAM
48: HIFJUR RAHMAN
S/O ABDUL JALIL VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
49: ABDUL JALIL
S/O ABDUL KADER VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
50: LAL MIYAN
S/O KURMAN ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
51: AFIYA BEGUM
W/O MUSABBIR ALI VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
52: ABDUL MANNAN
S/O LT ABDUL KHALIK VILLAGE PUB JAMUNA GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSAM
53: SIRAJ UDDIN
S/O TINU MIYAN VILLAGE SWAPUR GAON DISTRICT NAGAON
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM 8 ORS
Page No.# 6/22
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 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
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
ASSAM
Page No.# 7/22
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, FOREST,SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT DEPT
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
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
Pub 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
Page No.# 8/22
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
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
Page No.# 9/22
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
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
Page No.# 10/22
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
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
Page No.# 11/22
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
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
Page No.# 12/22
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,
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
Page No.# 13/22
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
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
Page No.# 14/22
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
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
Page No.# 15/22
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
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.
Page No.# 16/22
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
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
Page No.# 17/22
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.
(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
Page No.# 18/22
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
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
Page No.# 19/22
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
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.
Page No.# 20/22
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
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
Page No.# 21/22
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
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
Page No.# 22/22
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
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
