Back
Eviction from Reserved Forests Requires 's :
The has reinforced the principle that any eviction from a reserved forest must strictly adhere to the procedure laid down by the , rendering earlier eviction notices against 15 petitioners redundant.
Justice Devashis Baruah, presiding over a single bench, disposed of a filed by 15 individuals from Golaghat district challenging notices issued on . The notices alleged the petitioners had encroached upon the South Nambar Reserved Forest and directed them to vacate.
Case Background and the 's Blueprint
During the pendency of the petition, the in Abdul Khalek & Ors v. State of Assam (2026 SCC Online SC 184) evolved a detailed mechanism for removing from reserved forests. This mechanism required the constitution of a joint committee of forest and revenue officials, issuance of notices with an , and the passing of before any eviction. Crucially, it also mandated a to vacate after the speaking order.
The took note of subsequent events where the , in compliance with the 's directions, had already passed for four reserved forests, including the South Nambar Reserved Forest. These were upheld by the High Court in Nekbar Ali @ Nekbor Ali and 88 Ors v. State of Assam (2026:GAU-AS:8021) and subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench and even the .
Key Observations from the Judgment
Justice Baruah emphasized the binding nature of the 's directive:
“...taking into account the directions, which were passed by the in Abdul Khalek (supra) , whereby there was a specific manner in which the were directed to be carried out, it is the opinion of this Court that in the case of the petitioners, if such, steps were not taken, it shall be the requirement of law that in the case of the petitioners such steps in terms with the directions passed by the in Abdul Khalek (supra) should be taken.”
The court further clarified the fate of the :
“The , which are enclosed as Annexure 1 to the have become redundant in view of the directions passed by the in the case of Abdul Khalek (supra) .”
Court's Decision and Implications
The High Court disposed of the petition with clear directions. It declared that any future action by the against the petitioners must strictly follow the procedure set out by the . If steps had already been taken in accordance with that procedure during the pendency of the petition, no further action was required.
The judgment serves as a significant reminder that the executive cannot bypass , even in matters of forest conservation. It reinforces the need for fairness, reasonableness, and a structured inquiry before depriving any person of their claimed right to occupy land, particularly when such land falls within a notified reserved forest. The decision effectively nullifies any notices and mandates that the engage in a transparent, .
