Reserved-forest evictions must comply with prescribed due-process safeguards and speaking-order requirements.

The 15 petitioners challenged notices dated 24 July 2025 issued by the Forest Department alleging that they had entered the South Nambar Reserved Forest under the Naojan Range Forest Office and directing them to vacate the area

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 184, prescribed a procedure for removal of alleged encroachments from reserved forests, including notice, opportunity to produce evidence, verification by forest and revenue officials, a speaking order, and a 15-day period to vacate before eviction

The State thereafter undertook proceedings in coordination with revenue authorities and passed speaking orders in respect of the concerned reserved forests

Whether the notices dated 24 July 2025 issued against the petitioners could remain operative after the Supreme Court prescribed a fresh, fair and structured procedure for removal of encroachments from reserved forests

Whether any proposed action against the petitioners was required to comply with the procedure and safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek

Whether fresh proceedings were necessary where action had already been taken against the petitioners in conformity with the Abdul Khalek directions during the pendency of the writ petition

The Court applied the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 184.

Under that mechanism, forest and revenue officials must constitute a committee, issue notice to alleged occupants, provide an opportunity to produce evidence of their right to occupy the land, determine whether the occupation falls within a reserved forest, and refer cases falling outside the notified forest area to the revenue authorities

If unauthorised occupation within a reserved forest is established, the authorities must pass and serve a speaking order granting 15 days to vacate before taking eviction action; the Supreme Court also directed maintenance of status quo until the speaking order and expiry of the notice period

The High Court further relied on the subsequent decisions upholding the speaking orders and dismissing challenges thereto

The Court held that the original notices had to be viewed in light of the subsequent Supreme Court directions, which replaced the earlier eviction process with a procedurally fair mechanism.

Accordingly, any action against the petitioners could be taken only after verification by the competent forest and revenue authorities, consideration of their evidence, and issuance of a speaking order followed by the prescribed 15-day period

Since the legality of the petitioners’ occupation had to be determined through that mechanism, the earlier notices no longer served an independent legal purpose and had become redundant

However, where the authorities had already completed proceedings in conformity with Abdul Khalek during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court found no requirement to initiate the process afresh

The notices dated 24 July 2025 were held to have become redundant.

The Forest Department and other authorities were directed that any further action against the petitioners must strictly follow the procedure prescribed in Abdul Khalek .

If compliant proceedings had already been undertaken during the pendency of the writ petition, no further proceedings under that judgment were required