‘Order was pan-Himachal': HC frowns upon selective clearing of illegal apple orchards
A division bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin Singh Negi directed the state government to clarify 'why the eviction operations were being carried out only in select regions such as Chaithla village, Rohru and Kotgarh, while similar action was conspicuously absent in other parts of the state'.
The bench issued the directions Tuesday. A copy of the order was made available Wednesday.
Hearing a set of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed on rampant encroachment on forest land across the state, particularly for commercial horticultural use, the bench expressed concern over the absence of a 'pan-Himachal' approach, despite earlier judicial orders and clear directions from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF) to initiate uniform eviction of illegal orchards.
Meanwhile, in compliance with previous orders, the Forest Department, through the office of Advocate General, submitted a status report stating that 'as many as 3,659 apple and other fruit-bearing trees had been felled on encroached forest land till July 15. Of these, 2,456 trees were aggregated from the encroached forest land in Chaithla village, 713 trees were removed from the Rohru Forest Division and 490 trees from Kotgarh.
The bench, however, observed, 'There is no update on similar action being taken in other forest divisions, raising concerns over partial implementation of the eviction order.'
The court again emphasised that 'encroachments and their removal cannot be limited to a few regions, and must be enforced uniformly' across Himachal. 'It has again been clarified, as also in earlier orders, that encroachment from government/forest land, including the removal of fruit-bearing trees, has to be undertaken pan-Himachal Pradesh and not limited only to the areas referred to in the instructions,' the bench said.
'It appears the action for removal of encroachment/orchards from the forest land is being undertaken only in the Rohru and the Kotgarh Forest Divisions, including Chaithla village, but in these instructions there is no information with respect to removal of encroachment/orchards in other areas of the State of Himachal,' it added.
The bench granted the state one week to file a comprehensive status report detailing eviction and enforcement action across the state. The matter will next be heard on July 29.
Meanwhile, the high court's January 8 judgment, particularly paragraph 35, also came under scrutiny.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Jiya Lal Bhardwaj pointed out that 'relevant compliance affidavits have not yet been filed by the authorities'.
To this, the court directed that the affidavit(s) in compliance must be submitted before the next hearing, and any pending objections to filings must be resolved.
Under paragraph 35 of the January 8 order, instruction was issued to forest/revenue/officials of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to not allow any further encroachment by the encroachers. The paragraph also asks to compile a record of fresh encroachments and the status of earlier encroachments.
During the hearing, replies from several individuals named in the case — Sohan Lal, Madan Lal, Dinesh Tajta, Kamla Devi, Lila Tajta, Sheela, Daya Chauhan, Mira, Rita, Sanjay, Sandeep, Vikrant, and Raj Kumar — were recorded, while a request for ten days for Mast Ram's reply was granted due to his medical condition.
Senior Advocate VS Chauhan, appearing for one of the petitioners, informed the court, 'Sohan Lal, aged 78, is suffering from multiple age-related ailments and sought exemption from personal appearance in future hearings.'
The bench accepted the request, exempting him from appearing in court unless specifically directed.
Meanwhile, in a separate application, the court allowed an exemption to Mast Ram, who is undergoing cancer treatment, from attending the proceedings on medical grounds.
The PILs at the centre of the case have been ongoing since 2014 and 2015, reflecting the long-drawn legal battle over the politically sensitive issue of forest land encroachment, especially for apple cultivation, a key economic driver in many parts of the hill state.
Despite multiple orders from the HC, enforcement has often been sporadic, delayed or met with local resistance, given the livelihoods tied to these orchards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
CM Yogi orders swift action on land ownership rights for families displaced from East Pakistan
LUCKNOW: chief minister directed concrete action towards granting legal land ownership rights to the families displaced from East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) and settled in various districts of the state in a high-level meeting, a release said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The chief minister stated that this is not just a matter of land transfer, but an opportunity to honour the life struggles of thousands of families who took refuge in India from across the country's borders and have been waiting for rehabilitation for decades. Describing the issue as more than just a matter of land transfer, the chief minister said, "This is an opportunity to honour the decades-long struggle of thousands of families who took refuge in India and have waited for rightful rehabilitation. These families must be treated with both sensitivity and dignity; it is the moral responsibility of the government." Officials reported that between 1960 and 1975, following the Partition, thousands of displaced families from East Pakistan were resettled in the districts of Pilibhit, Lakhimpur Kheri, Bijnor, and Rampur. Initially settled through transit camps and provided agricultural land, most of these families have still not received legal ownership due to discrepancies in records and administrative delays, the release stated. The chief minister was informed that although land has been allotted in several villages, various legal and administrative hurdles, including land being recorded under the Forest Department, incomplete transfer procedures, and a lack of physical possession, have prevented many families from receiving formal land rights. In some areas, families from other states have also been resettled but continue to remain without legal ownership. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Current assessments reveal that in many villages, displaced families have been cultivating land for years and have even constructed permanent homes. Yet, their names are still missing from official land records. In contrast, some of the original allottees no longer reside in those areas. Additionally, in certain areas, individuals have taken possession of land without completing the necessary legal formalities, leading to further complications, it added. Addressing these challenges, the chief minister emphasised the need to explore alternative legal mechanisms in light of the repeal of the Government Grant Act in 2018. He instructed officials to explore new provisions within the existing legal framework to resolve these long-standing issues. "This is not just a policy decision; it is a sensitive and historic step toward delivering justice to those displaced families who have lived in uncertainty for decades," CM Yogi said. "This effort must be viewed through the lens of social justice, humanity, and national responsibility. It is a chance to restore dignity to lives long overlooked."
News18
8 hours ago
- News18
CM Yogi Directs Officials To Grant Land Ownership Rights To Bangladesh Refugees
Last Updated: Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath directed officials to grant legal land ownership to Bangladesh refugees, emphasizing moral responsibility and historic significance. In a significant move, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Monday directed state officials to take swift action in granting legal land ownership rights to around 10,000 families displaced from Bangladesh who have been resettled across various districts in the state. Calling it a moral responsibility of the government, Chief Minister Adityanath said, 'This is an opportunity to honour the decades-long struggle of thousands of families who took refuge in India and have waited for rightful rehabilitation. These families must be treated with both sensitivity and dignity." 'This is not just a policy decision; it is a sensitive and historic step toward delivering justice to those displaced families who have lived in uncertainty for decades," CM Yogi said. 'This effort must be viewed through the lens of social justice, humanity, and national responsibility. It is a chance to restore dignity to lives long overlooked," added. Officials reported, post partition, between 1960 and 1975, thousands of displaced families from East Pakistan resettled in Pilibhit, Lakhimpur Kheri, Bijnor, and Rampur districts. Initially settled through transit camps and provided agricultural land, most of these families have still not received legal ownership due to discrepancies in records and administrative delays. The CM was informed that although land has been allotted in several villages, various issues, including land being recorded under the Forest Department, incomplete transfer procedures, and a lack of physical possession, have acted as a hindrance in the process to grant them formal land rights. In some areas, families from other states have also been resettled but continue to remain without legal ownership. Recent assessments revealed that in many villages, those families have been cultivating land for years and have even constructed permanent homes still their names are missing from official land records. It has also come to light that some of the original allottees no longer live in those areas. Further, in some areas, people have taken possession of land without even completing the legal formalities which has further complicated the matter. In the wake of persistent challenges, CM Adityanath stressed on the need to explore alternative legal mechanisms in light of the repeal of the Government Grant Act in 2018. He has directed the officials to explore new provisions within the existing legal framework to resolve these issues. view comments First Published: July 21, 2025, 15:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Decode Politics: Why a court order has upset Congress govt's applecart in Himachal
In an unusual expression of helplessness Thursday, Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu said the state High Court 'does not listen to my government' and said he may approach the Supreme Court. Sukhu's complaint was regarding the felling of fruit-laden trees across approximately 3,000 bighas — about 243 hectares — of 'encroached' forest land. On July 2, the High Court had directed state-wide removal of all apple trees and orchards that had come up on forest land. The Himachal government tried arguing that the court order put at risk livelihoods, especially in a state that relies heavily on fruit production. Himachal Pradesh's forest cover spans from the Shivalik foothills to the Pir Panjal ranges, totalling 37,033 sq km. As per an affidavit submitted to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in February 2025 Himachal's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the IFS officer Sameer Rastogi, there were 18,374 cases of encroachment on 5,689 hectares of forest land across the state. The affidavit, which did not talk about the nature of the encroachments, said 9,903 – or nearly half – of the encroachments had been removed, reclaiming 3,097 hectares. However, action against removal of encroachments has been sporadic at best, and runs into resistance by local communities which have been profiting by using the land to cultivate fruit. The ongoing clearing of encroached land stems from two complaints, filed back in 2014 and 2015 and later converted into Public Interest Litigations (PILs). On July 2, a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin C Negi ruled that 'fruit-bearing trees are not forest species' and directed the Forest Department to plant native forest species like deodar, chir, and kail after clearing the encroached areas. The Division Bench further said, 'The needful be done at a war footing. The ongoing monsoon is a conducive period to plant forest species. The cost of removal — cutting, removal of stumps and plantation of forest species — can be recovered from the encroachers.' Many of the felled trees were three to four decades old, farmers have pointed out, with the yields now destroyed just before harvesting. 'These trees were at their peak bearing stage. It takes 7 to 10 years for a new orchard to reach this maturity,' says a Chaithla-based orchardist, who saw trees over two bighas flattened. Noted horticulturist Deepak Singha, who has hailed the High Court decision to evict the encroached forest land, cautioned that small farmers could bear the brunt of the drive. 'Big farmers who have encroached hundreds of bighas of forest land have become rich, but the small apple growers live hand to mouth. The government should come up with a policy for these growers,' Singha said. Environment activist Guman Singh said he was 'not in favour of cutting down any kind of tree, be it forest species or fruit species'. Himachal's economy rests on apple farming to a large extent, with the fruit accounting for 49% of the total area under fruit crops. Apples make up 85% of the state's fruit economy, which is valued at around Rs 4,000 crore. With harvest season only weeks away, the tree-felling and the damage to their yields have left apple farmers distressed. According to state government data, available in an affidavit submitted to the High Court, '3,659 apple and other fruit-bearing trees had been felled on encroached forest land till July 15'. This included land in Chaithla (2,456 trees felled), Rohru (713) and Kotgarh (490) – the three towns which constitute the main region for apple cultivation in Himachal. As the Sukhu government tries to assess the overall impact of the drive on production this season, the CPI(M) is mobilising the smaller farmers, who own less than five bighas and whose land is among that cleared, in protest. Rakesh Singha, a senior CPI (M) leader and former MLA from Theog, has led multiple meetings under various farmer fronts. While refraining from commenting directly on the High Court order, the CPI (M) has accused the state government of not having a policy to protect the interests of small fruit growers. BJP MLA from Chopal (Shimla) and party spokesperson Balbir Singh Verma has said Sukhu's claim of going to the Supreme Court is 'merely political'. He pointed out that in January 2025, the High Court had offered the state the option to take possession of the fruit trees growing on encroached land. At the time, the government, through the Advocate General, expressed its inability to do so, claiming that its Forest and Revenue Departments were not in a position to manage or harvest fruit from such land. This, Verma argued, effectively paved the way for court-ordered felling. The BJP leader said the Congress government will have to pay a heavy price. The state is due to see panchayat elections next year.
