18-07-2025
‘Order was pan-Himachal': HC frowns upon selective clearing of illegal apple orchards
Pulling up the Himachal Pradesh government over its 'selective' clearing of apple orchards on encroached forest land, the high court has asked why drive was not being carried out across the state, as was ordered.
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.
