Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 152

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Abdul Khalek and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1464-1465 of 2026 [SLP (C) Nos. 23647-23648 of 2025], Civil Appeal Nos. 1466 of 2026 [SLP (C) No. 32624 of 2025], Civil Appeal Nos. 1467 of 2026 [SLP (C) No. 32296 of 2025], Civil Appeal Nos. 1468 of 2026 [SLP (C) No. 32993 of 2025], Civil Appeal Nos. 1469 of 2026 [SLP (C) No. 34412 of 2025], Civil Appeal Nos. 1470 of 2026 [SLP (C) No. 34556 of 2025], W.P. (C) No. 1046 of 2025, W.P. (C) No. 65 of 2026
Decided On : 10-02-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : 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.
For the Respondent(s): 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.

The State must protect reserved forests while ensuring procedural fairness in evictions, balancing environmental obligations with residents' rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 48A and 51A(g) - Protection of reserved forests - The State has a constitutional obligation to protect reserved forests and provide procedural safeguards against eviction of long-standing inhabitants - A balance must be struck between environmental protection and rule of law. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 12)

(B) Eviction process - The eviction of unauthorized occupants must follow due process, allowing for evidence presentation and a notice period before eviction. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellants claim long-standing residency in various reserved forests, challenged eviction notices issued by the State as arbitrary and without due process. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
The State's policy for removing unauthorized encroachment conforms to principles of fairness and due process; status quo to be maintained until after notice period. (Paras 13-14)

Issues: The main issues revolve around the legality of eviction notices and the constitutional obligations of the state regarding forest protection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the state's obligation to protect the environment while upholding the rule of law, requiring procedural fairness in eviction.

Result: Appeals and Writ Petitions disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a constitutional and environmental dispute concerning the obligation of the State to protect reserved forests, particularly when long-standing human habitation is claimed within forest land (!) (!) .
The appellants and writ petitioners are residents of various villages within designated forest areas in Assam, claiming to have resided there for over seventy years, with their existence acknowledged by official documents such as Aadhar and ration cards (!) .
The State contends that the land occupied by the appellants is within reserved forests, which were notified in the late 19th century, and asserts that the occupants have no legal rights to such land, having been issued eviction notices for unauthorized occupation (!) .
The appellants challenged these eviction notices in the High Court, arguing they were arbitrary and issued without proper opportunity or adjudication of their rights (!) .
The State highlighted large-scale encroachments causing environmental degradation and emphasized its policy to remove unauthorized occupants to fulfill constitutional and environmental duties (!) .
The High Court issued interim and subsequent orders, directing the State to consider representations from occupants, formulate regulations to prevent encroachments, and provide opportunities for hearing before eviction (!) .
Some appellants approached the Court directly through Special Leave Petitions, and others through writ petitions under Article 32, seeking to prevent eviction actions (!) .
The Court underscored the importance of forests for ecological balance and the constitutional mandate to protect the environment, emphasizing that environmental protection must be pursued lawfully and with respect for the rule of law (!) (!) .
The Court reviewed the procedural safeguards adopted by the State, including the issuance of notices, opportunities for evidence, and a structured process for eviction, which aim to ensure fairness and reasonableness (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It was clarified that rights of individuals residing in forest villages or holding rights under the Forest Rights Act are recognized and that such rights are inheritable but non-transferable, distinguishing authorized from unauthorized occupants (!) (!) (!) .
The Court approved the procedural mechanism established by the State for eviction, emphasizing that it conforms to principles of fairness and due process, and directed parties to maintain status quo until the issuance of speaking orders and the expiry of notice periods (!) .
The judgments and orders of the High Court were modified to align with the procedural safeguards and mechanisms outlined by the Court (!) .
The Court disposed of the appeals and writ petitions, noting that petitioners can pursue remedies available under law, and ordered that there be no costs (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal guidance based on this document.

Table of Content
1. state's obligation to protect reserved forests. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. challenge to eviction notices based on procedural fairness. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. environmental protection must comply with the rule of law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. legal process for determining rights of occupancy. (Para 14 , 15)
5. disposal of appeals and writ petitions. (Para 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals and the Writ Petitions raise before this Court a question of considerable, constitutional and environmental significance, namely the State’s obligation to protect reserved forest in discharge of its constitutional mandate and the manner in which such obligation must be fulfilled, when long standing human habitation is asserted within the forest land.

3. The appellants and the writ petitioners before this Court are residents of several villages which are situate in Doyang reserved forest, South Nambar Reserved Forests, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest, Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest and Gola Ghat Forest in the State of Assam. According to the appellants/writ petitioners, they and their predecessors have been residing in the villages for more than seventy years. The appellants/writ petitioners contend that their existence and residence have been acknowledged by issuing Aadhar Cards, ration cards and other identity documents by the state agencies.

4. On the other hand, the State Government asserts that the land in occupation of the appellants/writ petitioners is within reserved forest and appellants/writ petitioners have no legal right to occupy the land comprised in the reserved forest. It is the case of respondents that the forest areas were notified as reserved forests in the year 1887 and 1888 under the forest laws, then in force. The forest department of Government of Assam issued eviction notices to the appellants/writ petitioners, on the ground that they were unauthorized occupants of reserved forest land and directed them to vacate the said lands within a period of seven days from the date of the receipt of the notices.

5. The issuance of eviction notices, particularly the short time granted for vacating the land, prompted the appellants before us to approach the Gauhati High Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The validity of eviction notices was challenged, inter alia on the ground that the same were arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and issued without affording any prior opportunity of hearing or adjudication of their claimed rights over the land.

6. The State resisted the writ petitions by contending that the large scale and systematic encroachments have taken place within the reserved forest area across the State of Assam. It was asserted that unauthorized occupants have cleared the forest land and diverted it for residential, agriculture and other non forest purposes, causing serious environmental degradation. The State in support of its claim placed statistical data on record to indicate that approximately 3,62,082 hectares of forest land was under encroachment and nearly 19.92% of the forest area in the State is affected. The State further submitted that in order to discharge its constitutional and environmental obligations, it has taken a policy decision to remove all unauthorised encroachments from the reserved forest and to restore such lands through reforestation and conservation measures.

7. The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 29.07.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4257 of 2025, extended the time to vacate the land in question till 07.08.2025. The aforesaid order was challenged in an appeal namely, W.A. No. 251 of 2025. The Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated 18.08.2025, directed the State Government to frame necessary regulations to prevent unauthorised encroachment of reserved forests land and further directed the respondents to issue show cause notices to the appellants, granting t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 152

The State must protect reserved forests while ensuring procedural fairness in evictions, balancing environmental obligations with residents' rights.

Related Judgments

Abdul Khalek VS State of Assam - 2026 Supreme(SC) 152

Gauri Kanta Basumatary S/O. Lt. Durga Charan Basumatary vs State Of Assam Rep. By The Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Forest Deptt., Dispur - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7065

Meenu Srivastava VS Government of NCT of Delhi - 2022 Supreme(Del) 506

S. Prabakaran VS District Collector, Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1616

Sandukpara Nityabazar Jame Maszid, Represented By Its Secretary Mazibar Rahman vs State Of Assam, Represented By The Principal Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam - 2026 Supreme(Gau) 331

Moinul Hoque Son Of Late Kuti Miyan vs State Of Assam - 2026 Supreme(Gau) 544

Abdul Kadir And Ors. S/o Ain Uddin vs Union Of India - 2026 Supreme(Gau) 516

Abul Kasem And Ors. S/o Asim Uddin vs Union Of India - 2026 Supreme(Gau) 527

Dasari Nagaiah Mahabubnagar Dist vs Dist Collector Mbngr. - 2025 Supreme(Telangana) 548

Akkas Ali And Ors. C/o Muslim Uddin vs Union Of India - 2026 Supreme(Gau) 553