State must adjudicate Forest Rights Act claims before evicting occupants from reserved forest land.

The petitioners are a group of allegedly landless individuals residing in hutments constructed on forest land (Mahamaya Pahad/Dabripani under RF-2582) in the Sarguja District for approximately 40 to 50 years.

On January 17, 2025, the Forest Department issued initial eviction notices, followed by a final impugned notice on March 17, 2026, directing the petitioners to remove their encroachments within seven days or face forced removal by police administration.

The petitioners challenged these notices via writ petitions, asserting their status as poor, landless persons with no alternative shelter and requesting either the quashing of the notices or a direction to the State to provide alternative government land.

1. Whether the summary eviction of long-term forest dwellers is permissible without adhering to the statutory settlement procedures established under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

2. Whether the State, as a "welfare state," has a constitutional obligation to protect the right to shelter of landless encroachers while enforcing forest conservation laws.

The court relied on the constitutional right to life under Article 21, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, which mandates the State’s duty to provide adequate facilities for shelter to make the right to life meaningful.

It further applied principles from Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. and In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, establishing that the "right to shelter" includes adequate living space and decent surroundings.

Statutorily, the court invoked the The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the corresponding 2007 Rules, which provide a multi-tiered administrative process (Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, and District Level Committee) for the recognition and settlement of forest rights.

The court acknowledged that the petitioners are technically encroachers on reserved forest land and possess no inherent right to erect illegal structures.

However, it reasoned that because the petitioners have occupied the land for decades, the State—acting as a welfare entity—must balance enforcement with the constitutional right to shelter.

The court found that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, provides a specific statutory remedy for individuals in the petitioners' position to seek formal recognition of their settlement.

Consequently, the court determined that the petitioners should have utilized this administrative machinery rather than approaching the High Court directly.

The court emphasized that while a "blanket liberty" to reside on encroached land cannot be granted, the process of law must be adhered to in a pragmatic manner that considers the petitioners' socio-economic vulnerability.

The Court directed the petitioners to approach the competent authorities under the Forest Rights Rules, 2007, within 30 days for the settlement of their claims.

The authorities were ordered to decide these claims in accordance with the law after providing a fair hearing.

Crucially, the Court directed the respondents not to take any "coercive steps" (eviction) against the petitioners until the conclusion of the statutory proceedings, provided the petitioners cooperate with the authorities.