1. Encroachment of forest land — Issuance of eviction notices to occupants — Challenge to administrative notices. (Para 1 , 8 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 719
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand : B.N.Kirpal : V.N.Khare
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 276 of 1995
Date of Decision : 7/29/98
The court emphasized the necessity of detailed data for forest encroachment retrieval, the maintenance of status quo to prevent land-use changes during litigation without staying legal proceedings, and the provision of a reasonable opportunity to show cause before forcible eviction from forest land.
Headnote:(A) Forest Laws - Encroachment of forest land - State directed to furnish district-wise data on the total extent of encroachment for specific periods, namely prior to 1978, in 1988, and up to 1997 - Affidavit to disclose steps taken for retrieval, preventive measures after refusal of regularisation, and the specific non-forestry use of encroached land, particularly plantations. (Para 1)
(B) Forest Land - Maintenance of status quo - Persons occupying forest land restrained from changing the nature of encroachment during the pendency of proceedings - Such directions do not imply a stay on legal proceedings initiated against the encroachers. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Eviction from forest land - Notice to remove encroachment - Applicants granted a limited period to show cause to the concerned forest officer in the interest of justice - State to refrain from forcible dispossession during the granted period to enable the applicants to present their case. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The court observed that there had been widespread encroachment of forest land in a state, but the total extent and timing of such encroachments were not disclosed in the affidavits filed. Concerns were raised regarding large-scale deforestation in a reserve forest despite prohibitory orders. Separately, certain applicants had challenged eviction notices in the High Court, which were dismissed, leading them to seek a window of time to respond to the notices before the forest authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court found it necessary to obtain detailed, district-wise data on encroachments to assess the situation. It appointed a commissioner to report on the current state of a specific reserve forest. To prevent further alteration of forest land, the court ordered a status quo on the nature of the encroachment. Regarding the eviction notices, the court agreed that in the interest of justice, the applicants should be given a short period to show cause before the forest officer.
Issues: Whether the state must provide detailed temporal and spatial data on forest encroachments; whether a status quo order on the nature of encroached land is warranted during proceedings; and whether applicants should be granted time to respond to eviction notices before forcible dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi: Effective management and retrieval of forest land require precise data on the extent and nature of encroachments. To prevent further degradation, the nature of the land must be preserved during litigation, although this does not halt the legal process of eviction. Principles of natural justice require that individuals be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause before being forcibly dispossessed.
Result: Directions issued to the State and IAs disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Applicants seek time to show cause against eviction notices on grounds of socio-economic backwardness. (Para 9 )
3. Petitions challenging eviction notices without first responding to the administrative authority are premature and liable to dismissal. (Para 8 )
4. Judicial intervention against administrative notices is inappropriate where the party has failed to respond to the notice or show cause. (Para 8 )
5. State directed to furnish encroachment data; Commissioner appointed for forest survey; status quo ordered; applicants granted time to show cause. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 9 )
6. Whether a party can approach the court against an eviction notice without responding to the issuing authority?
No, the court held that rushing to the High Court against the issuance of a notice without having given any response to that notice is improper. (Para 8 )
7. Does a direction to maintain status quo on encroached land stay legal proceedings against encroachers?
No, directions to maintain status quo regarding the nature of the encroachment do not imply that legal proceedings initiated against the encroachers have been stayed. (Para 6 )
A.S.ANAND, J.
(1) WE have perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka on 12-5-1998 and 24-7-1998. Whereas both the affidavits reveal that there has been encroachment of the forest land all over the State and that the encroachment has existed prior to 1978 and has continued till 1997, we are unable to find out the total extent of such encroachment, as that has not been disclosed in the affidavits. We, therefore, direct the State of Karnataka to file an affidavit, indicating the total extent of encroachment of the forest land: (1) as was existing prior to 27-4-1978 all over the State; (2) the position of total encroachment as existing in 1988; and (3) the extent of encroachment which has taken place till 1997. The information shall be furnished districtwise. The affidavit shall also disclose the steps taken by the State to retrieve the encroachment and preventive measures taken after the refusal by the Government of India to regularise the encroachment which had occurred after 1978, till date. The State shall also indicate the non-forestry use to which the encroached land has been put by the encroachers and, in particular, where coffee plantation has taken place. The extent of that area, together with the details of the encroachers shall be furnished in that affidavit.
(2) WE notice from the affidavits already filed that a joint survey had been conducted by ADIR, Revenue Department and the Forest Department. The report of joint survey, however, is not placed on the record. The State of Karnataka is directed to furnish a copy of the report.
(3) THE learned amicus curiae has brought to our notice that so far as Thatkola Reserve Forest is concerned, in District Chickmagalur, there has been large-scale deforestation even after the orders of this Court prohibiting the felling of trees were made.
(4) WE appoint Mr R.M.N. Sahai, Conservator of Forests, as the Commissioner of the Court, and direct that Mr Sahai shall immediately go to Thatkola Reserve Forest and give a report about the present state of affairs in that forest. The needful shall be done by him within two weeks. Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka undertakes to apprise Mr Sahai of this order and offer all possible assistance to him to undertake the task assigned by us to enable him to file the status report.
(5) WE consider it appropriate to restrain each and every person occupying any part of the forest land in the State of Karnataka not to change the nature of that "encroachment during the pendency of these proceedings.
(6) THE directions hereinabove given with regard to the maintenance of status quo by the encroachers on the encroached forest land would not imply that legal proceedings initiated against them have been stayed. Those proceedings shall continue. The directions given by us shall be widely publicised by the State for the knowledge of the encroachers.
(7) LET the affidavit be filed by the State within six weeks. IAs Nos. 279-81 and 300
(8) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties in these applications. The applicants were served with a notice dated 13-1-1997 by the Forest Range Officer calling upon them to remove their encroachments within 24 hours of the receipt of the notice, as it was found that they had unlawfully trespassed into the forest land. Instead of showing cause to the Forest Range Officer, the applicants rushed to the High Court of Gujarat through various special civil applications. By an order dated 9-7-1997 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the special civil applications with the observation that they did not find any good ground to entertain those petitions "at this stage". Since the applicants had rushed to the High Court against the issuance of notice by the Forest Range Officer without having given any response to the notice, the High Court rightly dismissed their special civil applications. We find no fault with the
