A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed serious concern over what it termed a “shocking failure” of the state machinery to prevent large-scale and organised grabbing of forest land in Uttarakhand. The court observed that authorities appeared to have colluded with land grabbers by first allowing encroachments and then attempting to shield their actions behind judicial decrees.
“It appears to be a case of collusion and connivance with the land grabbers,” the Chief Justice remarked, as the bench expanded the scope of the case on its own motion (suo motu). The court said it would examine whether there was “tacit support” from government officials in the encroachments.
The order came during the hearing of a plea filed by Anita Kandwal challenging alleged encroachments on forest land. The bench noted that approximately 2,866 acres of notified forest land had been unlawfully occupied by private individuals. Some of this land was leased decades ago to a Rishikesh-based society—Pashulok Sewa Samiti—which in turn allotted plots to its members. The court found that disputes between the society and its members led to what it called a “collusive decree” legitimising these allotments.
The Samiti had gone into liquidation and formally surrendered 594 acres of forest land to the government in 1984. However, despite the surrender attaining finality, the court was informed that some private individuals occupied parts of this land in 2001 and continue to assert ownership based on the disputed decree.
“What seems shocking to us,” the bench said, “is that the State of Uttarakhand and its authorities are sitting as silent spectators when the forest land is being systematically grabbed in front of their eyes.”
The court ordered the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to constitute an enquiry committee and submit a comprehensive report within two weeks. This report must include a site plan and details of all illegal structures, their nature, and extent.
In the meantime, the court barred private individuals from transferring or altering the status of the encroached land. It also directed that all vacant land, barring existing residential houses, be taken into possession by the Forest Department and the respective district collectors. A compliance report on this was to be submitted by January 5.
The bench’s strong words and suo motu expansion of the case signal a potential crackdown on illegal occupation of forest lands in the state and scrutiny of administrative inaction or complicity.
