The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the Uttarakhand government for its inaction regarding the extensive encroachment on forest land within the state. The Court observed that the state authorities were acting as "silent spectators" while private entities systematically grabbed thousands of acres of forest land.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi addressed the matter on Monday, taking suo motu cognizance of the issue. The Court enlarged the scope of the case to further investigate the matter. The Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to form an enquiry committee to investigate the situation and submit a comprehensive report.
The Supreme Court has issued an interim order that prevents private individuals from alienating the land, encumbering it, or creating any third-party rights. Construction activity is also prohibited on the subject land. The Forest Department has been directed to take possession of all vacant land, excluding residential houses.
The case originated from a petition filed by Anita Kandwal, which alleged illegal occupation of a large area of forest land in Uttarakhand. The issue dates back four decades, when approximately 2,866 acres of land were designated as government forest land. A portion of this land was allegedly leased to Pashu Lok Seva Samiti, a Rishikesh-based society. The society purportedly allocated parcels of the land to its members. Disputes arose between the society and its members, which led to a compromise decree. The society was later liquidated, surrendering 594 acres of land to the forest department in 1984. Following this surrender, the land was re-vested as forest with the government. However, in 2001, private individuals began claiming ownership of the re-vested land, based on the "collusive decree" reached in the earlier dispute between the society and its members.
The Supreme Court expressed its concern over the apparent lack of response from state officials responsible for protecting forest land, emphasizing the need for judicial intervention. The Court has tasked the fact-finding committee with assessing the extent of the encroachment and examining the state machinery's handling of the issue. The restrictions imposed by the Court aim to prevent further deterioration of the situation. The matter is scheduled for further hearing after the Court's vacation.
