The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling addressing the long-standing tension between environmental conservation and the rights of residents claiming habitation within reserved forest areas in Assam.
The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe while reaffirming the State’s constitutional obligation to protect forests, the Court made it clear that evictions from reserved forest land cannot be carried out arbitrarily and must strictly adhere to principles of fairness, natural justice, and due process.
Background of the Dispute
The batch of civil appeals and writ petitions arose from eviction notices issued by the Assam Forest Department to residents of villages located in several reserved forest areas, including Doyang Reserved Forest, South Nambar Reserved Forest, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest, Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest and Golaghat Forest. The notices required occupants to vacate the land within seven days, terming them unauthorised encroachers.
The affected residents approached the Gauhati High Court, asserting that they and their predecessors had been living in these villages for over 70 years and that their residence had been acknowledged by the State itself through Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other official documents. They contended that the eviction notices were issued without any prior hearing or adjudication of their claimed rights, rendering them arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
State’s Stand: Environmental Crisis Due to Encroachments
The State of Assam defended its actions by placing alarming data on record. It claimed that approximately 3.62 lakh hectares of forest land—nearly 19.92% of the State’s total forest area—was under encroachment, leading to large-scale deforestation and environmental degradation. The State argued that clearing illegal encroachments was essential to fulfil its obligations under Article 48A of the Constitution and to restore forest land through reforestation and conservation measures.
High Court Orders and Appeals to Supreme Court
While a Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court initially granted limited interim relief by extending time to vacate, a Division Bench later directed the State to frame regulations, issue show-cause notices, and provide occupants a limited opportunity to respond before eviction. Several residents challenged these orders, while others directly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking protection against coercive eviction.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe underscored that forests are not merely land banks but complex ecological systems vital for climate regulation, biodiversity, groundwater recharge and carbon sequestration. The Court highlighted that environmental protection is a constitutional mandate, flowing from Article 48A and reinforced by citizens’ duties under Article 51A(g).
However, the Court firmly held that environmental objectives cannot be pursued through arbitrary State action. “The Constitution does not envisage a choice between environmental protection and the rule of law,” the Bench observed, stressing that both must coexist and reinforce each other.
State’s Assured Mechanism for Evictions
Taking note of an additional affidavit filed by the State, the Supreme Court recorded a structured eviction mechanism incorporating procedural safeguards. Under this framework:
- A committee comprising forest and revenue officials will be constituted.
- Alleged unauthorised occupants will be issued notices and given an opportunity to produce documentary evidence supporting their claim.
- Eviction action will be taken only if the land is conclusively found to be within notified reserved forest areas.
- If the land falls outside forest limits and within revenue areas, the matter will be referred to the Revenue Department.
- In cases of unauthorised occupation, a reasoned speaking order will be passed, followed by a 15-day notice period before eviction.
- Residents whose names appear in the Jamabandi Register of forest villages or who have recognised rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 will not be treated as encroachers.
The Court accepted the State’s assurance that this process would be implemented objectively and fairly.
Directions and Outcome
The Supreme Court directed that status quo be maintained in respect of the occupants’ land until speaking orders are passed and the 15-day notice period expires. It clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of individual claims, leaving them to be decided by the committee.
Consequently, the Court modified and substituted the impugned High Court orders and disposed of all appeals and writ petitions, granting liberty to affected persons to pursue remedies available in law. No costs were imposed
Case Details
Case Title: ABDUL KHALEK & OTHERS Versus State of Assam
Case No.: SLP (C) NOS. 23647-23648 OF 2025
Date: 10/02/2026
Read More: GST Follows Suppliers, Customers And Not Goods: AAR
