Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction from Reserve Forests

Court Decision on Eviction Appeals

Guwahati, June 27: The Gauhati High Court's division bench has rejected multiple appeals from settlers in three reserve forests located in Nagaon, affirming an eviction order issued by the authorities. The court emphasized that 'genuine hardship does not automatically confer a legal right to occupy reserve forest land.'

The appeals were initiated following a ruling from a single judge, which dismissed writ petitions that contested the speaking orders from the Divisional Forest Officer of Nagaon Division.

In these orders, the Nagaon DFO determined that the appellants were unlawfully occupying lands within the designated reserve forests of Barapani, Lutumai, and Kaki, and mandated appropriate legal actions.

Senior counsel AR Bhuyan, representing the petitioners, argued that many families have lived in these areas for generations. He suggested that a balance should be struck between environmental protection and the rights of settled communities to avoid displacement, especially when their presence is claimed to be based on governmental arrangements.

In response, additional advocate general PN Goswami asserted that the lands in question are clearly part of officially designated Reserve Forests, and no legal rights have been established for the appellants or their ancestors.

Goswami further explained that the Taungya arrangements cited by the appellants were merely temporary administrative measures aimed at supporting plantation efforts.

After reviewing the case, the division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, concluded that while some settlements have existed for extended periods and civic amenities have been gradually introduced, genuine hardship alone cannot establish a legal claim over reserved forest land.

The bench stated, 'Courts are tasked with adjudicating rights recognized by law and cannot grant property rights in reserved forest land based solely on equitable considerations.'

While endorsing the single judge's rehabilitation plan, the bench clarified that dismissing the appellants' claims does not prevent the State from offering rehabilitation benefits to eligible individuals.

To ensure justice, especially with the approaching monsoon season, the court extended the deadline set by the single judge for the settlers to vacate the reserve forests to 45 days.