SUMAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:3702-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
TH
14 MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 322 OF 2026
Suman & others …...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr.
S.M.S. Mehta, learned Standing
Counsel.
JUDGMENT : ( per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ
of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the
petitioners to grow fodder crops for their cattle as they
were being permitted in the past in Jurka Area, Tarai
Western Forest Division, District Udhamsingh Nagar, and
not to disturb the dwelling of the petitioners in the
periphery of Jurka, Tarai Western Forest Division,
Udhamsingh Nagar till the claims of the petitioners under
the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short
hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are decided and to
comply with Section 4(5) of the Act, and thereby permit the
petitioners to continue dwelling in the area and cultivating
1

2026:UHC:3702-DB
the land for growing fodder.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to
Jatav Community, a Scheduled Caste, and are residing since
more than three generations in Jurka No.2, Post
Kundeshwari, Kashipur, District Udhamsingh Nagar. They
are engaged in animal husbandry for their livelihood as a
conventional profession. The land, in question falls under
category 14(3) Kha. In Khatauni of 1406 fasli , despite the
area being forest area, human settlement is recorded over
it as Jot Abadi . The petitioners claim that they have been
issued Voter ID Cards, Ration Cards and Aadhaar Cards
showing them to be residents of the same forest and
adjoining area. The petitioners like Van Gujjars , are also
traditional dwellers of the forest. They assert that the land,
afore-said, has vested in them under the provisions of the
Act. It is also their contention that under the provisions of
the Act, the rights in land have not been created for the
first time, but are vested rights which are only to be
recognized after holding the inquiry as per the provisions of
the Act and Rules. It is the duty of the State to carry out
the said exercise, however, without undertaking the said
exercise, the State and its functionaries, in an arbitrary
manner, are restraining the petitioners from cultivating the
land where the petitioners grow their fodder crops thereby
2

2026:UHC:3702-DB
seriously impacting their only source of livelihood.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on a judgment of this Court, dated 16.06.2025, in
Writ Petition (M/B) No.350 of 2025, “Mohammad Baseer
vs. State of Uttarakhand & others” , and other
connected writ petitions, where in similar facts and
circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had issued the
following directions:-
“7. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the instant writ petitions can be
disposed of by restraining the respondents from attempting
to evict the petitioner till consideration and disposal of his
application, as mandated under the Act. It is made clear
that the restraining the respondents not to evict the
petitioner from the land in question, will not enable the
Petitioner to carry out any commercial activities, except self
cultivation of the lands in question.
8. Writ petitions stand ordered accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have already submitted their claims for
recognition of their rights under the Act, but without
deciding their applications, the respondents are threatening
to dispossess them.

6. On 30.04.2026, the following order was passed:-
“1. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. J.N.Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the
3

2026:UHC:3702-DB
State.
3. Learned Standing Counsel seeks time to ascertain
whether any exercise for identification and vesting of rights
of the petitioners and others forest dwellers has been
conducted by the authorities in the area as mandated
under the provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition and Forest rights
Act, 2006).
4. List on 14.05.2026.”

7. Learned State Counsel has placed on record the
instructions received from the Divisional Forest Officer,
dated 13.05.2026.

8. We have gone through the written instructions
and we find that therein the specific query made by the
Court as to whether the exercise for identification and
vesting the rights has been conducted by the authorities,
has not been answered. The only stand taken therein is
that the claims of the petitioners have been forwarded to
the Sub-Divisional Level Committee for decision and
assurance has been given that the claim(s) would be
decided expeditiously.

9. In Mohammad Baseer (supra), the scheme of
the Act has been duly considered and, thereafter, the
directions, as extracted above, were issued.

10. As the claims of the petitioners are yet to be
considered and decide, therefore, we are of the opinion that
4

2026:UHC:3702-DB
in the meantime, the respondents should not evict the
petitioner, nor create any impediment in their cultivating
the land.

11. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant writ
petition in terms of the directions issued in Mohammad
Baseer (supra).

12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.


SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
th
Dated: 14 May, 2026
NISHANT
NISHANT
KUMAR
Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690560 487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.05.15 12:15:59 +05'30'
5