Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 140
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NOS. 23647-23648 OF 2025)
ABDUL KHALEK & OTHERS ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
WITH
W.P. (C) NO. 1046 OF 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 32624 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 32296 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 32993 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 34412 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 34556 OF 2025)
AND
W.P. (C) NO. 65 OF 2026
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.10
17:50:05 IST
Reason:
1
2. These appeals and the Writ Petitions raise before this
Court a question of considerable, constitutional and
environmental significance, namely the State’s
obligation to protect reserved forest in discharge of
its constitutional mandate and the manner in which
such obligation must be fulfilled, when long standing
human habitation is asserted within the forest land.
3. The appellants and the writ petitioners before this
Court are residents of several villages which are
situate in Doyang reserved forest, South Nambar
Reserved Forests, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest,
Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest
and Gola Ghat Forest in the State of Assam.
According to the appellants/writ petitioners, they
and their predecessors have been residing in the
villages for more than seventy years. The
appellants/writ petitioners contend that their
2
existence and residence have been acknowledged by
issuing Aadhar Cards, ration cards and other
identity documents by the state agencies.
4. On the other hand, the State Government asserts
that the land in occupation of the appellants/writ
petitioners is within reserved forest and
appellants/writ petitioners have no legal right to
occupy the land comprised in the reserved forest. It
is the case of respondents that the forest areas were
notified as reserved forests in the year 1887 and
1888 under the forest laws, then in force. The forest
department of Government of Assam issued eviction
notices to the appellants/writ petitioners, on the
ground that they were unauthorized occupants of
reserved forest land and directed them to vacate the
said lands within a period of seven days from the
date of the receipt of the notices.
3
5. The issuance of eviction notices, particularly the
short time granted for vacating the land, prompted
the appellants before us to approach the Gauhati
High Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The validity of eviction
notices was challenged, inter alia on the ground that
the same were arbitrary, violative of principles of
natural justice and issued without affording any
prior opportunity of hearing or adjudication of their
claimed rights over the land.
6. The State resisted the writ petitions by contending
that the large scale and systematic encroachments
have taken place within the reserved forest area
across the State of Assam. It was asserted that
unauthorized occupants have cleared the forest land
and diverted it for residential, agriculture and other
non forest purposes, causing serious environmental
4
degradation. The State in support of its claim placed
statistical data on record to indicate that
approximately 3,62,082 hectares of forest land was
under encroachment and nearly 19.92% of the forest
area in the State is affected. The State further
submitted that in order to discharge its
constitutional and environmental obligations, it has
taken a policy decision to remove all unauthorised
encroachments from the reserved forest and to
restore such lands through reforestation and
conservation measures.
7. The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated
29.07.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4257 of 2025,
extended the time to vacate the land in question till
07.08.2025. The aforesaid order was challenged in
an appeal namely, W.A. No. 251 of 2025. The
Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated
5
18.08.2025, directed the State Government to frame
necessary regulations to prevent unauthorised
encroachment of reserved forests land and further
directed the respondents to issue show cause notices
to the appellants, granting them 15 days time to
submit an explanation and a further period of 15
days to vacate the same in case they are asked to do
so. The aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench
is under challenge in the appeal @ S.L.P. No. 32624
of 2025.
8. The writ petitions preferred by the other appellants
in remaining appeals were disposed of by learned
Single Judge with liberty to the appellants to submit
the representations and the respondents were
directed to consider the representations. The
appellants in other appeals have approached this
Court directly by filing Special Leave Petitions
6
without filing the writ appeals before the Division
Bench of the High Court. The writ petitioners have
also directly approached this Court by filing writ
petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
inter alia praying for restraining the respondents
from carrying on any eviction or coercive action
against the writ petitioners. In the aforesaid factual
background, the appeals and the Writ Petitions arise
for our consideration.
9. Forests constitute one of the most vital natural
resources of the nation. They are not merely
repositories of timber or land capable of alternate
use, but complex ecological systems indispensable
for maintaining environmental balance. Forests
regulate climate, preserve biodiversity, recharge
groundwater, prevent soil erosion, and act as natural
carbon sinks mitigating the adverse effects of climate
7
change. In a country as ecologically diverse and
climatically vulnerable as India, the role of forests
assumes even greater significance. Encroachment
upon forest land has emerged as one of the gravest
challenges confronting environmental governance in
the country. The Constitution casts a clear and
unequivocal obligation upon the state to protect
forest and the environment. Article 48A, forming part
of Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates that
the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild
life of the country. Though, Directive Principles are
not enforceable by Courts, they are fundamental in
governance of the country and must guide the State
in formulation and implementation of policy. Article
51A(g) of the Constitution imposes a fundamental
duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the
natural environment, including forests. These
8
constitutional provision reflect a collective
responsibility on the part of citizen as well as the
State to prevent, regulate and remedy the
environmental harm.
10. At the same time, constitutional governance
demands that environmental protection be pursued
through lawful means. 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.
11. We had heard learned senior counsel for the
appellants/writ petitioners as well as learned
Solicitor General on 16.01.2026, and had expressed
our concern to maintain the rule of law while
ensuring protection of environment. Thereupon
9
learned Solicitor General sought time to seek
instructions and has filed an additional affidavit on
18.01.2026. Paras 3 to 9 of the said additional
affidavit read as under:-
“3 .That this is the Constitutional obligation of
the State Government, more particularly in light of
the fact that as per the statistics given by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, Government of India. As per the data
3,62,082.62 hectares is under encroachment, in
other words, a total of 19.92% of forest area is
under unauthorised illegal encroachment. It is
Constitutionally imperative that this unauthorized
and illegal occupation as well as continuing illegal
and unauthorised non forest activities are
immediately removed.
3.1 That the first step for removal is to issue a
notice on the alleged unauthorised occupant to
enable him to show the evidence of him being in
authorised occupation of the forest land.
3.2 That the recipient of the notice comes before
a Committee of forest officials as well as revenue
officials and produces the evidence, if any,
available with him which can according to the
notice, entitle him to stay in the Reserved Forest
areas.
4. That the actions are taken for removal of
encroachment areas only, if it is found that there
is an illegal and unauthorised encroachment in
the Reserved Forest area. If the land of the
10
noticee is found to be within revenue limits,
outside the notified forest area, the details are
sent to the Revenue Department and the present
drive which is confined only to evicting the
Reserved Forest area has nothing to do with what
the Revenue Department may or may not do
thereafter.
5. That if the notice is found to be in unauthorised
occupation of a Reserved Forest area, after
scrutinising the documents placed by him, a
Speaking Order is passed and served upon him
giving him 15 days notice to vacate the
unauthorised occupation. It is only thereafter
that the actions are taken to remove the
unauthorised occupants.
6. That so far as the controversy concerning
existence of some Gaon Panchayat is concerned,
it is submitted that there can be a Gaon
Panchayat in a forest area. This is provided for in
Section 5 in Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
“5. Establishment of Gaon Panchayat – (1)
The State Government may, by notification,
declare any local area comprising a revenue
village or a group of revenue village or a
Forest villager or Tea Garden area or
hamlets forming part of revenue village or
Forest village or Tea Garden area or other
such administrative unit or part thereof to
be a Gaon Panchayat with population of its
territory not less that six thousand and
more that ten thousand;….”
7. That the concept of a Forest Village is a unique
concept in Assam. A person entitled to stay in
forest village finds his name mentioned in the
11
statutory register called ‘Jamabandi Register’
maintained by the Forest Department for the
forest village and the person holds a document
for the land under possession. 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. The rights mentioned above are
inheritable but not alienable or transferable.
8. That individual whose name is mentioned in this
register or hold rights under Forest Rights Act,
2006 are not unauthorised occupants. However,
there are several unauthorised inhabitants who
have encroached upon lands outside the Gaon
Panchayat limits and in some cases inside the
Gaon Panchayat limits which fall within the
boundaries of Reserved Forests.
9. That it may be pointed out that a right to reside
in Reserved Forest areas falling within a Gaon
Panchayat is inheritable but non-transferable.
There would be a separate set of documentary
evidence showing authorised occupation within
Reserved Forest areas which are falling under a
Gaon Panchayat. Any unauthorised occupant
residing inside Reserved Forest areas albeit
falling under a Gaon Panchayat is liable to be
evicted following the same procedure as pointed
out above.”
12
12. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid additional affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondents, the following
policy decision to remove unauthorised occupation
from the reserved forest has been taken:
(i) The respondents shall constitute a committee
comprising forest officials and the revenue officials.
(ii) The said committee shall issue notice to the
alleged unauthorised occupants and shall give them
an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that they
have the right to occupy the land which is in their
possession.
(iii) The action for removal of encroachment shall be
taken, only if it is found that there is an
encroachment in the reserved forest area.
(iv) In case the noticee is found to be within the
revenue limits, outside the notified forest area, the
details of the noticee shall be sent to the revenue
13
department. In such cases, revenue department
shall decide the future course of action.
(v) The action is being taken by the State to remove
encroachment from the reserved forest areas and has
nothing to do in respect of the matters which may be
referred to the revenue department.
(vi) If an unauthorised occupation is found in a
reserved forest area, after scrutiny of the documents,
a speaking order shall be passed and shall be served
on the concerned person giving him 15 days notice
to vacate the unauthorized occupation and only after
expiry of the period of notice, the action shall be
taken to remove the unauthorised occupants.
(vii) Occupation of a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is
permissible if there is a sufficient proof as per the
Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest
14
Department or as provided under the Forest Rights
Act.
13. 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. Learned
Solicitor General has assured us that the mechanism
evolved by the State shall be complied with
objectively and with fairness while taking action for
removal of unauthorised occupation in the reserved
forests. The parties are directed to maintain status
quo in respect of land in occupation of the
appellants/writ petitioners till speaking order is
passed and till expiry of notice period of 15 days. All
15
contentions are kept open to be agitated before the
committee. It is clarified that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the
parties, as the same has to be examined by the
committee.
14. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed
by the Division Bench and orders dated 03.11.2025,
06.11.2025, 12.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 passed in
W.P. (C) Nos. 6191/2025, 6192/2025, 6418/2025
and W.P. (C) No.6167/2025 respectively, by learned
Single Judge, of the High Court, are substituted and
modified.
15. In view of the mechanism evolved by the State for
taking action for removal of unauthorised occupation
in reserved forests, as recorded in our order, it is not
necessary to consider the writ petitions filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India in detail. The
16
writ petitioners will be entitled to avail such
remedies as may be permissible in law.
16. Accordingly, the appeals as well as Writ Petitions
are disposed of.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.……………………………….….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 10, 2026.
17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 140
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NOS. 23647-23648 OF 2025)
ABDUL KHALEK & OTHERS ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
WITH
W.P. (C) NO. 1046 OF 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 32624 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 32296 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 32993 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 34412 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 34556 OF 2025)
AND
W.P. (C) NO. 65 OF 2026
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.10
17:50:05 IST
Reason:
1
2. These appeals and the Writ Petitions raise before this
Court a question of considerable, constitutional and
environmental significance, namely the State’s
obligation to protect reserved forest in discharge of
its constitutional mandate and the manner in which
such obligation must be fulfilled, when long standing
human habitation is asserted within the forest land.
3. The appellants and the writ petitioners before this
Court are residents of several villages which are
situate in Doyang reserved forest, South Nambar
Reserved Forests, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest,
Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest
and Gola Ghat Forest in the State of Assam.
According to the appellants/writ petitioners, they
and their predecessors have been residing in the
villages for more than seventy years. The
appellants/writ petitioners contend that their
2
existence and residence have been acknowledged by
issuing Aadhar Cards, ration cards and other
identity documents by the state agencies.
4. On the other hand, the State Government asserts
that the land in occupation of the appellants/writ
petitioners is within reserved forest and
appellants/writ petitioners have no legal right to
occupy the land comprised in the reserved forest. It
is the case of respondents that the forest areas were
notified as reserved forests in the year 1887 and
1888 under the forest laws, then in force. The forest
department of Government of Assam issued eviction
notices to the appellants/writ petitioners, on the
ground that they were unauthorized occupants of
reserved forest land and directed them to vacate the
said lands within a period of seven days from the
date of the receipt of the notices.
3
5. The issuance of eviction notices, particularly the
short time granted for vacating the land, prompted
the appellants before us to approach the Gauhati
High Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The validity of eviction
notices was challenged, inter alia on the ground that
the same were arbitrary, violative of principles of
natural justice and issued without affording any
prior opportunity of hearing or adjudication of their
claimed rights over the land.
6. The State resisted the writ petitions by contending
that the large scale and systematic encroachments
have taken place within the reserved forest area
across the State of Assam. It was asserted that
unauthorized occupants have cleared the forest land
and diverted it for residential, agriculture and other
non forest purposes, causing serious environmental
4
degradation. The State in support of its claim placed
statistical data on record to indicate that
approximately 3,62,082 hectares of forest land was
under encroachment and nearly 19.92% of the forest
area in the State is affected. The State further
submitted that in order to discharge its
constitutional and environmental obligations, it has
taken a policy decision to remove all unauthorised
encroachments from the reserved forest and to
restore such lands through reforestation and
conservation measures.
7. The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated
29.07.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4257 of 2025,
extended the time to vacate the land in question till
07.08.2025. The aforesaid order was challenged in
an appeal namely, W.A. No. 251 of 2025. The
Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated
5
18.08.2025, directed the State Government to frame
necessary regulations to prevent unauthorised
encroachment of reserved forests land and further
directed the respondents to issue show cause notices
to the appellants, granting them 15 days time to
submit an explanation and a further period of 15
days to vacate the same in case they are asked to do
so. The aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench
is under challenge in the appeal @ S.L.P. No. 32624
of 2025.
8. The writ petitions preferred by the other appellants
in remaining appeals were disposed of by learned
Single Judge with liberty to the appellants to submit
the representations and the respondents were
directed to consider the representations. The
appellants in other appeals have approached this
Court directly by filing Special Leave Petitions
6
without filing the writ appeals before the Division
Bench of the High Court. The writ petitioners have
also directly approached this Court by filing writ
petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
inter alia praying for restraining the respondents
from carrying on any eviction or coercive action
against the writ petitioners. In the aforesaid factual
background, the appeals and the Writ Petitions arise
for our consideration.
9. Forests constitute one of the most vital natural
resources of the nation. They are not merely
repositories of timber or land capable of alternate
use, but complex ecological systems indispensable
for maintaining environmental balance. Forests
regulate climate, preserve biodiversity, recharge
groundwater, prevent soil erosion, and act as natural
carbon sinks mitigating the adverse effects of climate
7
change. In a country as ecologically diverse and
climatically vulnerable as India, the role of forests
assumes even greater significance. Encroachment
upon forest land has emerged as one of the gravest
challenges confronting environmental governance in
the country. The Constitution casts a clear and
unequivocal obligation upon the state to protect
forest and the environment. Article 48A, forming part
of Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates that
the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild
life of the country. Though, Directive Principles are
not enforceable by Courts, they are fundamental in
governance of the country and must guide the State
in formulation and implementation of policy. Article
51A(g) of the Constitution imposes a fundamental
duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the
natural environment, including forests. These
8
constitutional provision reflect a collective
responsibility on the part of citizen as well as the
State to prevent, regulate and remedy the
environmental harm.
10. At the same time, constitutional governance
demands that environmental protection be pursued
through lawful means. 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.
11. We had heard learned senior counsel for the
appellants/writ petitioners as well as learned
Solicitor General on 16.01.2026, and had expressed
our concern to maintain the rule of law while
ensuring protection of environment. Thereupon
9
learned Solicitor General sought time to seek
instructions and has filed an additional affidavit on
18.01.2026. Paras 3 to 9 of the said additional
affidavit read as under:-
“3 .That this is the Constitutional obligation of
the State Government, more particularly in light of
the fact that as per the statistics given by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, Government of India. As per the data
3,62,082.62 hectares is under encroachment, in
other words, a total of 19.92% of forest area is
under unauthorised illegal encroachment. It is
Constitutionally imperative that this unauthorized
and illegal occupation as well as continuing illegal
and unauthorised non forest activities are
immediately removed.
3.1 That the first step for removal is to issue a
notice on the alleged unauthorised occupant to
enable him to show the evidence of him being in
authorised occupation of the forest land.
3.2 That the recipient of the notice comes before
a Committee of forest officials as well as revenue
officials and produces the evidence, if any,
available with him which can according to the
notice, entitle him to stay in the Reserved Forest
areas.
4. That the actions are taken for removal of
encroachment areas only, if it is found that there
is an illegal and unauthorised encroachment in
the Reserved Forest area. If the land of the
10
noticee is found to be within revenue limits,
outside the notified forest area, the details are
sent to the Revenue Department and the present
drive which is confined only to evicting the
Reserved Forest area has nothing to do with what
the Revenue Department may or may not do
thereafter.
5. That if the notice is found to be in unauthorised
occupation of a Reserved Forest area, after
scrutinising the documents placed by him, a
Speaking Order is passed and served upon him
giving him 15 days notice to vacate the
unauthorised occupation. It is only thereafter
that the actions are taken to remove the
unauthorised occupants.
6. That so far as the controversy concerning
existence of some Gaon Panchayat is concerned,
it is submitted that there can be a Gaon
Panchayat in a forest area. This is provided for in
Section 5 in Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
“5. Establishment of Gaon Panchayat – (1)
The State Government may, by notification,
declare any local area comprising a revenue
village or a group of revenue village or a
Forest villager or Tea Garden area or
hamlets forming part of revenue village or
Forest village or Tea Garden area or other
such administrative unit or part thereof to
be a Gaon Panchayat with population of its
territory not less that six thousand and
more that ten thousand;….”
7. That the concept of a Forest Village is a unique
concept in Assam. A person entitled to stay in
forest village finds his name mentioned in the
11
statutory register called ‘Jamabandi Register’
maintained by the Forest Department for the
forest village and the person holds a document
for the land under possession. 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. The rights mentioned above are
inheritable but not alienable or transferable.
8. That individual whose name is mentioned in this
register or hold rights under Forest Rights Act,
2006 are not unauthorised occupants. However,
there are several unauthorised inhabitants who
have encroached upon lands outside the Gaon
Panchayat limits and in some cases inside the
Gaon Panchayat limits which fall within the
boundaries of Reserved Forests.
9. That it may be pointed out that a right to reside
in Reserved Forest areas falling within a Gaon
Panchayat is inheritable but non-transferable.
There would be a separate set of documentary
evidence showing authorised occupation within
Reserved Forest areas which are falling under a
Gaon Panchayat. Any unauthorised occupant
residing inside Reserved Forest areas albeit
falling under a Gaon Panchayat is liable to be
evicted following the same procedure as pointed
out above.”
12
12. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid additional affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondents, the following
policy decision to remove unauthorised occupation
from the reserved forest has been taken:
(i) The respondents shall constitute a committee
comprising forest officials and the revenue officials.
(ii) The said committee shall issue notice to the
alleged unauthorised occupants and shall give them
an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that they
have the right to occupy the land which is in their
possession.
(iii) The action for removal of encroachment shall be
taken, only if it is found that there is an
encroachment in the reserved forest area.
(iv) In case the noticee is found to be within the
revenue limits, outside the notified forest area, the
details of the noticee shall be sent to the revenue
13
department. In such cases, revenue department
shall decide the future course of action.
(v) The action is being taken by the State to remove
encroachment from the reserved forest areas and has
nothing to do in respect of the matters which may be
referred to the revenue department.
(vi) If an unauthorised occupation is found in a
reserved forest area, after scrutiny of the documents,
a speaking order shall be passed and shall be served
on the concerned person giving him 15 days notice
to vacate the unauthorized occupation and only after
expiry of the period of notice, the action shall be
taken to remove the unauthorised occupants.
(vii) Occupation of a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is
permissible if there is a sufficient proof as per the
Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest
14
Department or as provided under the Forest Rights
Act.
13. 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. Learned
Solicitor General has assured us that the mechanism
evolved by the State shall be complied with
objectively and with fairness while taking action for
removal of unauthorised occupation in the reserved
forests. The parties are directed to maintain status
quo in respect of land in occupation of the
appellants/writ petitioners till speaking order is
passed and till expiry of notice period of 15 days. All
15
contentions are kept open to be agitated before the
committee. It is clarified that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the
parties, as the same has to be examined by the
committee.
14. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed
by the Division Bench and orders dated 03.11.2025,
06.11.2025, 12.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 passed in
W.P. (C) Nos. 6191/2025, 6192/2025, 6418/2025
and W.P. (C) No.6167/2025 respectively, by learned
Single Judge, of the High Court, are substituted and
modified.
15. In view of the mechanism evolved by the State for
taking action for removal of unauthorised occupation
in reserved forests, as recorded in our order, it is not
necessary to consider the writ petitions filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India in detail. The
16
writ petitioners will be entitled to avail such
remedies as may be permissible in law.
16. Accordingly, the appeals as well as Writ Petitions
are disposed of.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.……………………………….….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 10, 2026.
17