01Facts
The appellants claim to be residents of villages within or near notified Reserve Forests (Barapani, Lutumai, Kaki, etc.) in Nagaon, Assam.
p. 47They assert that their occupation originated from the 1970s "Taungya" system, where displaced families were permitted to settle for plantation activities.
p. 47Following eviction notices in 2025 and subsequent litigation reaching the Supreme Court (2026 SCC Online SC 184), the State was directed to conduct a scientific verification of the land and pass reasoned orders.
p. 48Joint Committees of Forest and Revenue Officials conducted this exercise and issued "Speaking Orders" concluding that the appellants were unauthorized encroachers on notified forest land without legally cognizable titles.
p. 49The appellants challenged these orders before a Single Judge, who dismissed their writ petitions on 08.06.2026.
p. 46, 5102Issues
i.1. Whether the State complied with the procedural safeguards and verification process mandated by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek v. State of Assam.
p. 52 / para. 30ii.2. Whether the appellants established a legally enforceable right to remain within the notified Reserve Forests based on Taungya certificates, long possession, or civic documents.
p. 51 / para. 25iii.3. Whether the inclusion of forest areas within Gaon Panchayats or the issuance of annual pattas by revenue authorities confers a right against eviction.
p. 61 / para. 70, 7403Law Applied
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which prohibits the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without Central Government approval.
p. 50, 61Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, regarding the sanctity of notified Reserve Forests.
p. 51Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, noting that rights thereunder must be established through the specific statutory process.
p. 62Documents like Aadhaar, Voter IDs, and Ration Cards are proof of identity but do not constitute "instruments of title".
p. 60Supreme Court’s directions in Abdul Khalek v. State of Assam (2026 SCC Online SC 184) regarding procedural fairness in forest evictions.
p. 48, 52Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 Section 5
04Reasoning
The court found that the State scrupulously followed the Supreme Court's mandate by forming joint committees and using scientific methods like GIS mapping and DGPS (Differential Global Navigation Satellite System) to identify boundaries.
p. 54The court rejected the argument that GIS maps lack statutory finality, holding they are scientific aids to visualize original Gazette notifications.
p. 55The court held that "Taungya" arrangements were temporary administrative measures for plantation operations and did not create heritable or transferable property rights.
pp. 58-59Possession, however long, cannot override the statutory prohibition of the 1980 Act or provide a "Legitimate Expectation" against the law.
p. 64The court clarified that Revenue Authorities lack jurisdiction to issue annual pattas within forest land; thus, such documents are legally void.
p. 63Regarding the Panchayat Act, the court reasoned that the administrative inclusion of a village in a Gaon Panchayat does not equate to the "de-reservation" of forest land.
p. 6105Holding
The court answered the issues in the negative for the appellants and dismissed all appeals.
p. 66The court affirmed the Single Judge's judgment dated 08.06.2026 and upheld the Speaking Orders issued by the Forest Department.
p. 66The court granted an extension of 45 days for eviction due to the monsoon season.
p. 67The court further directed that while the legal claim is dismissed, the State may consider eligible appellants under existing rehabilitation or relocation policies.
p. 67Original Court PDF
Abu Bakkar And 19 Ors.vsThe State Of Assam And 13 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
