In a significant ruling balancing environmental protection with due process, the Supreme Court has upheld Assam’s policy to remove alleged encroachments from reserved forest land - but only after giving residents a fair chance to prove their claims.
Hearing a batch of appeals and writ petitions led by Abdul Khalek & Others, the Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe stressed that while forests must be protected, eviction cannot happen through arbitrary action.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from eviction notices issued to residents living inside several reserved forests in Assam, including Doyang, South Nambar, Jamuna Madunga, Barpani, Lutumai and Golaghat forests.
The residents claimed that they and their families had been living there for over 70 years. They pointed out that they possessed Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other identity documents issued by government agencies.
The State Government, however, maintained that these lands were notified as reserved forests as early as 1887 and 1888. According to the State, the occupants had no legal right to remain there and were unauthorized encroachers.
The eviction notices asked residents to vacate within seven days. Challenging this, several petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court, arguing that the notices were arbitrary and issued without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
State’s Stand: Constitutional Duty to Protect Forests
Before the Supreme Court, the State placed alarming figures on record. It said that over 3.62 lakh hectares of forest land - nearly 19.92% of Assam’s forest area - was under encroachment.
The State argued that it had a constitutional obligation under Article 48A (which directs the State to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (which imposes a duty on citizens to safeguard nature) to clear forest encroachments.
During the hearing, the Bench acknowledged the seriousness of environmental degradation. The judgment observed that forests are “not merely repositories of timber or land capable of alternate use, but complex ecological systems indispensable for maintaining environmental balance.”
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Court’s Observation: Environment and Rule of Law Must Go Together
However, the Court made it clear that environmental protection cannot override legal safeguards.
“The Constitution does not envisage a choice between environmental protection and the rule of law,” the Bench observed. Both, it said, must “co-exist and reinforce each other.”
The judges expressed concern that eviction must follow due process. After hearing arguments, the Solicitor General submitted an additional affidavit outlining a detailed mechanism that the State proposed to follow.
The Eviction Mechanism Explained
The Court recorded the State’s policy in detail:
- A committee of forest and revenue officials will be formed.
- Notices will be issued to alleged encroachers.
- Residents will be given an opportunity to produce documents proving lawful occupation.
- If occupation is found to be unauthorized, a “speaking order” - a written order giving reasons - will be passed.
- Fifteen days’ time will be granted to vacate after such order.
- If land falls outside notified forest limits, the matter will be referred to the Revenue Department.
The State also clarified that legally recognized forest villagers whose names appear in the official Jamabandi Register, and those holding rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, would not be treated as unauthorized occupants.
Read also:- PILs Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma Over Alleged Hate Speech Reach SC, CJI Seeks Calm
The Bench noted that this mechanism contained “sufficient procedural safeguards” and conformed to principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Interim Protection for Residents
Importantly, the Court directed that status quo must be maintained regarding the lands in occupation of the appellants until:
- A speaking order is passed by the committee, and
- The 15-day notice period expires.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of individual claims. All contentions were kept open to be raised before the committee.
The Decision
The Supreme Court modified and substituted the Gauhati High Court’s earlier orders and disposed of the appeals and writ petitions.
Read also:- Telangana High Court Rejects Plea to Transfer Medchal Civil Suit, Says Mere Apprehension
It held that in view of the mechanism evolved by the State for removal of unauthorized occupation in reserved forests, no further detailed consideration of the Article 32 writ petitions was necessary.
The Court ended the matter by stating that parties may pursue remedies available under law and made no order as to costs.
Case Title: Abdul Khalek & Others vs The State of Assam & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 23647–23648 of 2025) with connected matters
Decision Date: February 10, 2026
