By Arun Pratap Singh
Garhwal Post Bureau
New Delhi, 5 Jan: The Supreme Court today came down heavily on the Uttarakhand government over large-scale encroachment on forest land in the state. During the hearing, the Court observed that the action taken against those who had systematically occupied forest land was merely cosmetic and that there has been a shocking failure on part of the government machinery to safeguard the public and forest land. Seeking a detailed response, the Court directed the state government to file a comprehensive affidavit furnishing complete particulars, including site plans, details of constructions raised on the land and the nature of such constructions.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Referring to an interim report submitted by an inquiry committee, the Bench observed that it clearly reveals a startling failure of the state machinery in protecting government and forest land. The Court noted that it appears that the land had been systematically encroached upon over several years and that in 2023, some notices were issued only as a pretence of action against the encroachers. Thereafter, certain interim stays were granted by the High Court and the authorities once again went into slumber. The Bench remarked that it appears that every person holding an executive position in the state is responsible for continued negligence in the matter.
The CJI further observed that the case prima facie appears to involve collusion and conspiracy with the land grabbers. The Court said it wants to know the total extent of land involved and the number of persons who had encroached upon it. It warned that if required, it would order a deeper probe to identify the encroachers and to ascertain whether they were receiving protection and support from officials who were duty-bound to safeguard government property.
The Bench directed the state government to file a detailed affidavit within two weeks, along with site plans and complete information regarding the constructions raised and the nature of such constructions, and said that its interim directions would continue till further orders.
During the hearing, the CJI also questioned the state government’s counsel on whether the authorities had begun to act only because of court orders. In response, the counsel stated that the land in question was undoubtedly government and forest land and that action had been taken by the state in 1990 and again in 2023, drawing the Court’s attention to a chart in this regard. The CJI however, asked whether the state was merely engaging in occasional and formalistic action. The Bench made it clear that it is not interested in examining the chart and directed the counsel to place on record a proper affidavit detailing the action taken by the state.
The government counsel submitted that the interim report had highlighted two aspects, including the need for documents dating back to 1950, and informed the Court that the Uttarakhand government had written to the Uttar Pradesh government seeking certain documents. The Chief Justice then asked the counsel to explain the conduct of the state, what action it had taken and what steps had been initiated after the state came into existence in the year 2000. The CJI observed that the Court would hold every official accountable, questioning how the state allowed people to build houses, permitted generations to reside there and then suddenly sought to shield itself behind court orders. He observed that such conduct was unacceptable.
The state counsel informed the Court that eviction notices have been issued, following which around 750 people approached the High Court and obtained interim stays. The Bench then asked when the eviction notices were issued and was informed that they were issued in 2023. Reacting sharply, the Bench observed that it had taken the state 23 years since 2000 to realise that its land had been encroached upon.
It may be recalled that the SC was hearing a petition filed by Anita Kandwal concerning alleged illegal encroachment over a large tract of forest land in Uttarakhand. Earlier, on 22 December, a special vacation Bench headed by the Chief Justice, in an order, had observed that the facts of the case prima facie demonstrated how private people had systematically encroached upon thousands of acres of forest land. The Court noted that approximately 2,866 acres had been notified as government forest land, a portion of which was reportedly leased to a Rishikesh-based society, Pashulok Seva Samiti. The society had claimed that it had allotted parts of the land to its members.
Taking suo motu cognisance of the issue of large-scale encroachment on forest land in Uttarakhand, the Court observed that disputes had arisen between the society and its members, apparently leading to a compromise or collusive decision. Subsequently, the society went into liquidation and, through a surrender deed dated October 23, 1984, surrendered 594 acres of land to the Forest Department.
The Bench further noted in its earlier order that the surrender of land or reversion of forest land to the government had attained finality. Despite this, some private persons allegedly encroached upon the land in 2001. Expressing shock, the Bench remarked that the state of Uttarakhand and its officials have remained silent spectators while forest land was being systematically encroached upon before their very eyes. In view of this, the Court proposed to widen the scope of proceedings.
The Supreme Court directed the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) to constitute an inquiry committee to examine all facts and submit a report to the Court. In the meantime, all private individuals were restrained from selling the land or creating any third-party rights. The Court made it clear that no construction activity would be permitted and directed that vacant land, excluding residential houses, be taken over by the Forest Department and the concerned district collectors. The state government has also been directed to submit a compliance report on the next date of hearing.
