The judgment is not a victory for
either side. It is a victory for the rule of law. The Supreme Court has neither
directed mass evictions nor granted blanket immunity to encroachers. Instead,
it has mandated a fair, transparent, and evidence-based procedure that must be
followed before a single family is displaced from land they have occupied for
decades. In doing so, the Court has transformed an adversarial confrontation
into a structured administrative process.
I. The Genesis: Reserved Forests, Ancient
Notifications, and Impending Eviction
The dispute traces its origins to
forest notifications issued as far back as 1887 and 1888, when the colonial
administration declared vast tracts of land in Assam as reserved forests under
the forest laws then in force. These included the Doyang Reserved Forest, South
Nambar Reserved Forests, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest, Barpani Reserved
Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest, and Gola Ghat Forest.
Over a century later, the
descendants of families who had settled in these forests—many claiming
residence for over seventy years—received eviction notices from the Forest
Department of the Government of Assam. The notices were stark: vacate the land
within seven days. No prior hearing. No opportunity to produce documents. No
adjudication of their claimed rights. Just a peremptory command to leave
ancestral homes.
The affected residents approached
the Gauhati High Court, challenging the eviction notices as arbitrary,
violative of natural justice, and issued without any adjudication of their
rights. The State defended its action on compelling environmental grounds:
a. Approximately 3,62,082
hectares of forest land was under encroachment.
b. Nearly 19.92% of the total
forest area in Assam was affected.
c. Large-scale clearing of forest
land for residential, agricultural, and other non-forest purposes had caused serious
environmental degradation.
d. The State had taken a policy
decision to remove all unauthorized encroachments and restore the land through
reforestation and conservation measures.
The High Court, while not staying
the eviction drive, directed the State to issue show cause notices granting 15
days to submit an explanation and a further 15 days to vacate if the
explanation was rejected. Aggrieved by the lack of a more robust adjudicatory
mechanism, the residents approached the Supreme Court.
II. The Constitutional Framework: Environment
and Due Process
The Supreme Court began its
analysis by situating the dispute within the constitutional architecture
governing environmental protection.
I. Article 48A: The State’s Directive Duty
Article 48A of the Constitution,
forming part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates:
“The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.”
While Directive Principles are
not enforceable by courts, they are fundamental in the governance of the
country. They must guide the State in the formulation and implementation of
policy. The Court recognized that the State’s decision to clear encroachments
from reserved forests is a direct discharge of its constitutional obligation
under Article 48A.
II. Article 51A(g): The Citizen’s Fundamental
Duty
Article 51A(g) imposes a
corresponding duty upon every citizen:
“to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures.”
The Court observed that these
constitutional provisions reflect a collective responsibility—on the part of
both the State and the citizen—to prevent, regulate, and remedy environmental
harm.
III. The Rule of Law: No Arbitrary State
Action
However, the Court firmly
rejected any suggestion that the constitutional mandate to protect forests
authorizes arbitrary or lawless action by the State. It held:
“The mandate to clear the
encroachments from the forest land does not authorise an arbitrary action. The
Constitution does not envisage a choice between the environmental protection
and the rule of law, rather, it insists that both co-exist and reinforce each
other.”
This was the critical fulcrum of
the judgment. The State cannot, in the name of protecting the environment,
become a lawless actor itself. Every action taken in discharge of a
constitutional duty must itself be constitutionally compliant. Procedure cannot
be sacrificed at the altar of perceived urgency.
III. The State’s Undertaking: A Procedure Is
Born
Faced with the Supreme Court’s
pointed query on the absence of a fair procedure, the Solicitor General,
appearing for the State of Assam, sought time to obtain instructions. On 18th
January, 2026, an additional affidavit was filed, detailing a comprehensive
mechanism for the removal of unauthorized encroachments from reserved forests.
The Supreme Court extracted paras
3 to 9 of this affidavit verbatim in its judgment, effectively elevating an
executive undertaking to a judicially mandated procedure. The mechanism, as
recorded by the Court, comprises the following key elements:
| Step | Procedure |
| 1. Joint Committee |
Constitution of a committee comprising forest officials and revenue officials.
|
| 2. Notice | Issuance of notice
to the alleged unauthorized occupant. |
| 3. Opportunity to Adduce
Evidence | The noticee must be given an opportunity to produce evidence showing
right to occupy the land. |
| 4. Determination of
Jurisdiction | If the land is found to be within revenue limits (outside
notified forest area), the matter is referred to the Revenue Department for
appropriate action. |
| 5. Speaking Order | If
unauthorized occupation in reserved forest is established, a speaking order
must be passed after scrutiny of documents. |
| 6. Notice Period | The speaking
order must grant 15 days’ notice to vacate the unauthorized occupation. |
| 7. Eviction Only Thereafter |
Action to remove encroachment shall be taken only after expiry of the notice
period. |
| 8. Authorized Occupation |
Persons whose names appear in the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest
Department for forest villages, or who hold rights under the Forest Rights Act,
2006, are not unauthorized occupants and are not liable for eviction. Such
rights are inheritable but not alienable or transferable. |
| 9. Gaon Panchayats in Forest
Areas | The existence of a Gaon Panchayat within a forest area is permissible
under Section 5 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. However, residence in such a
Panchayat does not automatically confer legitimacy; documentary proof of
authorized occupation is required. |
IV. The Supreme Court’s Analysis: A Procedure
That Passes Constitutional Muster
The Supreme Court examined the
mechanism proposed by the State and found it to be constitutionally adequate
and procedurally fair. The Court held:
“In our opinion, the course of
action to be adopted by the State Government while removing the encroachment
from the reserved forest contains sufficient procedural safeguards. The process
sought to be adopted by the State Government for removal of encroachment
conforms to the principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process.”
This finding is significant. It
is an implicit rejection of the argument—often advanced by encroachers—that any
eviction from forest land without a full-fledged civil suit is per se
unconstitutional. The Court recognized that the State can, through an administrative
mechanism that is fair, transparent, and evidence-based, determine the legality
of occupation and order eviction where no legal right is established.
At the same time, the Court
rejected the State’s initial position that seven days’ notice with no prior
adjudication was sufficient. The mechanism now mandated ensures:
a. Bipartite Adjudication:
The Committee comprises both forest and revenue officials, ensuring that
questions of forest boundary and revenue record are addressed together.
b. Opportunity to Prove Title:
The alleged encroacher is not merely told to leave; he is given a genuine
opportunity to produce documents and establish his right.
c. Reasoned Decision: The
order of eviction must be a speaking order, disclosing the reasons why the
documents produced were found insufficient.
d. Adequate Time: Fifteen
days’ notice to vacate is a reasonable period, far removed from the draconian
seven-day ultimatum originally issued.
e. Protection of Recognized
Rights: Persons holding rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, or whose
names appear in the Jamabandi Register, are expressly excluded from the
eviction drive.
V. The Forest Rights Act, 2006: A Parallel
Regime
The judgment implicitly, but
significantly, recognizes the primacy of the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in
determining rights over forest land. The State’s affidavit explicitly states:
“Additionally, the title holders
under Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 are also legally authorised to occupy the forest land
and are not liable for eviction.”
This is a crucial concession. The
Forest Rights Act, 2006, was enacted precisely to undo the historical injustice
caused to forest-dwelling communities whose presence in forests was never
recognized during the colonial and post-colonial reservation of forests. The
Act provides for the recognition and vesting of forest rights in such
communities.
By unequivocally stating that
those holding rights under the 2006 Act are not unauthorized occupants, the
State has aligned its eviction policy with the mandate of Parliament. The
Supreme Court has, in effect, constitutionally validated this alignment.
VI. The Gaon Panchayat Conundrum: Forest
Villages and Revenue Limits
One of the most contentious
issues in the case was the existence of Gaon Panchayats within reserved forest
areas. The appellants argued that the very existence of a Panchayat—a unit of
local self-government—within a forest area must mean that the land is not
forest land, or that occupation therein is impliedly authorized.
The State clarified, and the
Court accepted, that:
1.Section 5 of the Assam
Panchayat Act, 1994, expressly permits the establishment of a Gaon Panchayat in
a forest village.
2.A person entitled to stay in a
forest village finds his name mentioned in the Jamabandi Register, a statutory
register maintained by the Forest Department.
3.Such occupation is inheritable
but non-transferable.
4.However, unauthorized occupants
residing inside reserved forest areas—even if such areas fall within the
geographical limits of a Gaon Panchayat—are liable to be evicted following the
prescribed procedure.
Thus, the existence of a
Panchayat is not a magic wand that converts forest land into revenue land or
confers legitimacy upon every occupant. It merely reflects the administrative
reality that some forest villages, recognized as such under the Forest
Department’s own records, have been granted Panchayat status for local
governance purposes. The touchstone of legitimacy remains the Jamabandi
Register or the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
VII. The Directions Issued: A Blueprint for
Fair Eviction
The Supreme Court disposed of the
batch of appeals and writ petitions with the following directions:
1.Status Quo: The parties
are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land in occupation of the
appellants/writ petitioners until a speaking order is passed and until the
expiry of the 15-day notice period.
2.Application of the
Mechanism: The mechanism evolved by the State, as recorded in the judgment,
shall be objectively and fairly complied with in every case.
3.Substitution of High Court
Orders: The judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench, and the
several orders passed by learned Single Judges of the Gauhati High Court, were substituted
and modified to the extent they were inconsistent with the procedure now
mandated.
4.Disposal of Article 32
Petitions: In view of the mechanism evolved, it was not necessary to
consider the writ petitions filed under Article 32 in detail. They were
disposed of in terms of the judgment.
5.No Order as to Costs:
The Court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
VIII. The Unresolved Questions: What
Remains to Be Determined
While the judgment lays down the procedure,
it does not—and cannot—decide the substance of each individual claim. Several
questions remain to be determined by the Joint Committee in each case:
a.Is the land in question within
the notified boundaries of a reserved forest? This requires mapping and
demarcation, often a contested issue.
b.Does the occupant’s name appear
in the Jamabandi Register? If yes, the occupation is authorized and
inheritable.
c. Does the occupant hold any
recognized right under the Forest Rights Act, 2006? If yes, he is not liable
for eviction.
d. If the land is outside the
reserved forest but within revenue limits, has the Revenue Department
recognized the occupant’s rights? The matter must be referred to the Revenue
Department for appropriate action.
e. If the occupant has no
document of title, is he nevertheless entitled to any relief on grounds of long
possession? The judgment does not address this; it merely provides an
opportunity to produce evidence.
These questions will now be
decided by the Committee on a case-by-case basis. The Supreme Court has not
prejudged any claim. It has only ensured that every claim is heard and decided,
not ignored and overridden.
IX. Key Takeaways: The Law After Abdul
Khalek
1.Environment Protection Must
Be Through Law: The State’s constitutional duty to protect forests under
Article 48A does not authorize extra-legal or arbitrary action. Every eviction
must follow a fair procedure established by law.
2.Due Process is
Non-Negotiable: Even in cases of alleged large-scale encroachment, the
affected persons must be noticed, heard, and given a reasoned order. Seven-day
eviction notices with no prior adjudication are per se arbitrary.
3.Joint Committees Ensure
Fairness: The constitution of a joint committee of forest and revenue
officials ensures that both the forest boundary and the revenue records are
examined together, minimizing jurisdictional disputes.
4.Forest Rights Act, 2006, is
Paramount: Persons holding rights under the Forest Rights Act are not
encroachers. Their rights are statutorily recognized and must be respected.
5.Forest Villages are a
Distinct Category: Occupation in a forest village recognized in the Jamabandi
Register is lawful, inheritable, but non-transferable. Such occupants cannot be
evicted.
6.Gaon Panchayat Status is Not
Dispositive: The existence of a Panchayat within a forest area does not
automatically convert forest land into revenue land or legitimize unauthorized
occupation. Documentary proof of authorized occupation is essential.
7.Speaking Orders are
Mandatory: Every order of eviction must be a speaking order, disclosing the
reasons why the documents produced were found insufficient and why the occupant
is held to be unauthorized.
8.Sufficient Time Must Be
Granted: Fifteen days’ notice to vacate is the minimum reasonable period.
Shorter periods are liable to be struck down.
X. Conclusion: Environment and Equity,
Reconciled
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Abdul
Khalek v. State of Assam is a masterclass in constitutional adjudication. It
refuses to treat environmental protection and procedural fairness as
antagonistic values. Instead, it holds that the Constitution mandates both, and
that the State must pursue its environmental goals through the very rule of law
that the Constitution establishes.
The 3.62 lakh hectares of
encroached forest land in Assam cannot be reclaimed overnight. But they also
cannot be reclaimed through executive fiat that denies the affected families
even the semblance of a hearing. The Court has steered a middle path—one that
acknowledges the urgency of environmental degradation while refusing to
sacrifice the rights of individuals on the altar of that urgency.
The mechanism now in place is not
perfect. It places a heavy burden on the Joint Committees to examine documents,
verify records, and pass speaking orders in a time-bound manner. It assumes
that the Forest Department and the Revenue Department will cooperate, not
compete. It trusts that the State will implement its own affidavit in letter
and spirit.
But it is a constitutionally
compliant mechanism. It gives every alleged encroacher his day before the
committee. It gives him the opportunity to prove his right. It tells him, in a
reasoned order, why he must leave. And it gives him fifteen days to pack his
belongings and go.
That is not injustice. That is
the rule of law.
Judgment Name: Abdul
Khalek & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. arising out
of SLP (C) Nos. 23647-23648 of 2025 with connected matters), Supreme Court of
India, decided on February 10, 2026.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
0 Comments