‘Possession, Documents Not Enough’: Gauhati High Court Upholds Assam Forest Evictions
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a plea by residents claiming rights over notified reserve forest land in Assam, ruling that long occupation, voter IDs, ration cards, or civic amenities do not create legal rights over protected forests. The court upheld eviction orders but allowed eligible occupants to seek rehabilitation under government policies.
The bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury was dealing with petitions filed by residents who challenged the eviction process after being declared unauthorised occupants of reserve forest land.
“Coming to the great reliance that has been placed on Aadhar Cards, Voter Identity Cards, Electoral Rolls, Ration Cards, Electricity Connections, Panchayat Certificates and similar documents, we are of the opinion that such cards may establish identity, facilitate participation in the electoral process, serve the public distribution system, facilitate supply of power, certifies residence or administrative particulars, however, none of these documents is intended to operate as an instrument of title or confirmed proprietary rights over immovable properties,” the court said on June 25.
The order added that the coordinates of boundary pillars and encroachments were physically verified and integrated into the final Geographic Information System (GIS) map. It noted that the use of modern technology to identify and verify pre-existing notified boundaries cannot be faulted merely because the original notifications predate such technology.
The bench highlighted that once an area is notified as a reserve forest in accordance with the law, the legal incidence flowing from such notification necessarily attaches to the land. “Rights inconsistent with such notification cannot thereafter be assumed or inferred merely from prolonged occupation or administrative inaction. Any person asserting a continuing right over such land must establish the same by reference to a legally recognised source,” it observed.
The petitioners challenged a single judge order of June 8, where the court dismissed a plea against the order of the divisional forest officer, Nagaon. That order concluded that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation of lands forming part of various notified reserve forests and directed action.
The appellants claim to be residents of different villages situated within or adjoining the Barapani, Lutumai, Kaki, and other reserve forests in Assam’s Nagaon district. They say they have resided in these areas for decades, including their ancestors, and have established permanent dwellings, cultivated lands, and developed sources of livelihood. Their claim is based on the Taungya system, under which displaced families were allegedly permitted by the forest department to undertake cultivation and temporary residence after eviction operations in 1970.
The appellants argue that original Taungya settlers were allotted land for plantation activities and habitation, and many present occupants derive their position either as descendants of such settlers or through transfer, inheritance, or long uninterrupted occupation. They rely on Taungya certificates, communications between governmental authorities, departmental letters, telegrams, electoral rolls, and panchayat certificates. However, the court found that these documents do not confer legal title.
The judgment underscores the principle that documents such as voter IDs and ration cards are not substitutes for land titles, especially in protected forest areas where notification establishes the government's ownership. The court maintained that the eviction process, based on modern technology and physical verification, was valid.
