Interim Coercive Action Prohibited Pending Formal Adjudication of Forest Land Rights and Eviction Notices

The petitioners are tribal individuals claiming to reside and conduct agricultural activities on forest land for over 75 years.

They relied on a State Government resolution dated 06.10.1992, which formulated a policy to regularize forest land occupied by families prior to 1980.

According to the petitioners, the Deputy Forest Officer had previously allotted them forest land for agriculture pursuant to this policy.

However, the Forest Officer, Palanpur, issued show-cause notices dated 18.09.2025 and 29.11.2025, asserting that the petitioners were not in lawful possession and directing them to vacate the land or face demolition of unauthorized constructions.

The petitioners challenged these notices under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the respondent authorities are required to adjudicate the petitioners' claims to the land in light of existing government policy and the petitioners' replies before initiating eviction or demolition.

The court applied the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the Rules framed thereunder.

The State Government’s policy resolution dated 06.10.1992 regarding the regularization of forest land occupied prior to 1980.

The decision also rests on the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing and a reasoned decision before coercive action is taken by the State.

The court did not delve into the merits of the petitioners' title but focused on the procedural requirement for the authorities to consider the petitioners' objections.

The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) conceded that the respondent authority would decide the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notices by taking into account the petitioners' replies and the "extant policy of the State Government".

The court reasoned that since the petitioners claimed protection under a specific regularization policy and the Forest Rights Act, the authorities must formally adjudicate these claims "in accordance with law" before any summary eviction takes place.

Consequently, the court found it necessary to stay coercive steps to preserve the status quo until a formal decision is reached.

The court held that the authorities must consider the petitioners' replies and the relevant government policies.

Crucially, the court ordered that the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners until the final disposal of the said proceedings.

Rule was made absolute to this extent.