No Protection For Encroachers On Forest/Govt Land, Regardless Of Faith: Gauhati High Court Disposes PIL Concerning Assam's Indigenous Muslims

A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita was essentially dealing with the PIL plea by All Asom Goriya Yuva Chatra Parisad, which claimed that the State authorities had illegally demolished houses of Assam's Indigenous Muslims in the Rengma Reserve Forest area under the Uriamghat Regional Forest Office.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the petitioner association contended that the State Government targeted members of the indigenous Assamese Muslim community by issuing them 7 days notice for eviction from the Rengma Reserve Forest area.

It added that this action was taken despite the fact that the state's Chief Minister had given a statement that unauthorised occupation of public land by indigenous people would not be treated as encroachment.

It was further submitted that the houses of similarly placed persons, who belong to other religious groups and who have also encroached upon the Rengma Reserve Forest area, have not been touched by the State Government

It was argued that the eviction drive violated the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of Structures 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884, wherein it was directed that a 15-day notice containing details of alleged violations, along with a personal hearing, has to be given before any demolition could be carried out.

The Petitioner association's Counsel also relied on the Gauhati High Court's last month order in Abdul Khalek and 58 others v. State of Assam, which had directed that settlers inside reserve forests should be given 15 days to explain their circumstances and a further 15 days to vacate.

Our readers may note that Gauhati HC's order in the Abdul Khalek case was challenged in the Supreme Court, and the top court ordered status quo with respect to eviction and demolition actions initiated in Uriamghat and adjoining villages of Golaghat District, Assam. The HC had rejected the petitioners' writ appeals and upheld the eviction action initiated by the respondent-authorities.]

State's Stand

The Advocate General of Assam opposed the petition as he submitted that the petitioner association was unregistered and, therefore, not entitled to file a PIL.

He contended that the members of the petitioner's association were encroachers engaged in non-forest activities in violation of Regulations 24 and 25 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, and were liable to prosecution.

He further clarified that there was no discrimination based on religion, and evictions from forest and government lands had affected persons of all communities.

Importantly, he categorically submitted that the CM had not made any statement that unauthorized occupation of public land by indigenous people of a particular religion would not be considered as encroachment.

Lastly, he said that persons whose houses have been demolished always have a right to move the Civil Court for damages if they feel they have been evicted illegally.

Order

The Bench rejected the plea that encroachment by indigenous people could be overlooked, holding that the law must be applied equally.

"We are of the view that there can be no protection given to a person encroaching upon forest/Government land, be it a person professing any faith. The law has to be applied equally to everybody and in the event a member of the petitioner association is found to be encroaching upon forest land in violation of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, the eviction of such encroacher would be justified", the Court observed.

At the same time, the Court noted that the issue was not comparable to the Supreme Court's ruling in In Re: Direction (supra), as that case concerned demolition of properties of persons accused of criminal offences, whereas the present case involved forest land encroachment.

The Bench also pointed out that the petitioner association was unregistered, and therefore the PIL was not maintainable.

However, the Court opined, the individual members could still approach appropriate forums if they felt their rights were violated.

Thus, while finding the plea to be non-maintainable, the bench referred to its earlier directions in the Abdul Khalek case (supra) and directed thus:

"…(the) unauthorized settlers/encroachers, who are to be driven out from reserved forest areas…(be) given a show-cause-notice of 15(fifteen) days, to enable them to explain the circumstances under which they have set up their residences inside the reserved forest area and whether any non-forest activities or their presence attracts penal offences under the applicable laws".

In terms of this direction, the plea was disposed of.