2026 Supreme(Gau) 1127

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Nekbar Ali Alias Nekbor Ali S/O- Fazar Ali And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam To Be Represented By The Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 1649 of 2026, WP(C) 1694 of 2026, WP(C) 1633 of 2026, WP(C) 1620 of 2026, WP(C) 1708 of 2026, WP(C) 1616 of 2026, WP(C) 1618 of 2026, WP(C) 1628 of 2026, WP(C) 1688 of 2026, WP(C) 1690 of 2026, WP(C) 1615 of 2026
Decided On : 08-06-2026

Forests are held in public trust. Constitutional duties to protect the environment and maintain ecological balance override private, unauthorized claims to inhabit protected forest lands. Occupants failing to establish valid title or documented statutory rights must vacate, as administrative utility documents cannot legitimize illegal occupation within reserved zones.

Headnote:(A) Forest conservation legislation - Provincial Forest Regulations - Statutory provisions regarding reserved forests - Bar on acquisition of rights without government sanction - Constitutional duty to protect natural environment - Right to live in pollution-free environment - Procedure for removal of encroachment established by superior court - Requirement of speaking orders and opportunity to adduce evidence held satisfied - Absence of recorded rights in official registers fatal to claims of occupancy. (Paras 54, 55, 80, 109, 115, 141)

(B) Appellate Review - Standard for determining encroachment - Digital land measurement and survey data based on notified coordinates constitute reliable evidence - Reliance on ancillary documents like electoral identification or public utility connections is insufficient to establish title within protected zones. (Paras 62, 116, 131)

(C) Environmental Rule of Law - Interplay between individual rights and duty to safeguard natural habitats - Precautionary principle and public trust doctrine - Paramountcy of ecological protection over unauthorized habitation. (Paras 141, 153)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged eviction orders issued by forest authorities following the directions of the apex court regarding the removal of unauthorized occupants from reserved forest lands. Petitioners claimed title based on prolonged possession, payment of local revenue, and usage certificates under traditional agricultural systems. Authorities relied on a committee-conducted survey using global positioning technology to delineate boundaries and identify illegal encroachments.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities strictly adhered to the prescribed procedural safeguards, including the issuance of notices and the passing of speaking orders. It concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate valid legal rights to occupy the lands in question, noting that administrative records and utility documents do not confer title over designated forest areas.

Issues: Whether the eviction process complied with mandatory procedural requirements; whether the petitioners could establish legal rights to reside within protected forest areas; and whether private claims to habitation override the constitutional obligation to protect the environment.

Ratio Decidendi: Forest lands are held in a public trust, and the constitutional duty to preserve such areas necessitates the eviction of unauthorized occupants. The absence of specific statutory rights or documented title, coupled with the application of forest conservation laws, renders the occupation illegal, regardless of the duration of stay or the possession of collateral identification documents.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance with supreme court directions regarding forest encroachment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual basis of encroachment claims against reserved forest boundaries. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
3. assessment of evidence and legal validity of occupation within reserved forests. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
4. strict boundary demarcation using scientific survey methods for forest protection. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81)
5. non-accrual of rights in reserved forests without statutory sanction. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137)
6. environmental preservation is a constitutional imperative over private occupation. (Para 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158)
7. final adjudication on eviction from protected forest lands. (Para 159 , 160)

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Laskar, the learned counsel; Ms. S.B. Choudhury, the learned counsel; and Mr. B.M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions.

Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. I. Kalita, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the State of Assam and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Assam.

2. The present batch of writ petitions is a sequel to the litigation that culminated into the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek & Others Vs. State of Assam & Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 184. .

3. This Court in the present batch of writ petitions inter alia called upon to decide if the Respondent Authorities' actions were in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Abdul Khalek (supra). It is under such circumstances; this Court finds it relevant to take note of the observations and directions passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Khalek (supra). Paragraph Nos.11 to 13 of the said judgment are quoted here under:

“11. We had heard learned senior counsel for the appellants/writ Petitioners as well as learned Solicitor General on 16.01.2026, and had expressed our concern to maintain the rule of law while ensuring protection of environment.Thereupon learned Solicitor General sought time to seek instructions and has filed an additional affidavit on 18.01.2026. Paras 3 to 9 of the said additional affidavit read as under: —

"3. That this is the Constitutional obligation of the State Government, more particularly in light of the fact that as per the statistics given by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. As per the data 3,62,082.62 hectares is under encroachment, in other words, a total of 19.92% of the forest area is under unauthorized illegal encroachment. It is Constitutionally imperative that this unauthorized and illegal occupation as well as continuing illegal and non forest activities are immediately removed.

3.1 That the first step for removal is to issue a notice on the alleged unauthorised occupant to enable him to show the evidence of him being in authorised occupation of the forest land.

3.2 That the recipient of the notice comes before a Committee of forest officials as well as revenue officials and produces the evidence, if any, availa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document