Person Cannot Be Held Liable For Encroachment U/S 33 Of Indian Forest Act Without Notification Of Reserved Forest: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a chargesheet does not mention any notification to specify that the encroachment land was a reserved forest, a person cannot be held liable under the Indian Forest Act.

Relying on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh high court in State of H.P. V/s Ami Chand, 1992, held that A person cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in the absence of any notification and its due publication.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “The charge sheet does not mention that any notification was issued that the forest where the encroachment was made was a reserved forest”. 

For reference: “Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, deal with the management and protection of forests. Section 32 empowers the State Government to make rules for protected forests, covering aspects like resource utilization, hunting, and forest protection. Section 33 outlines penalties for violating rules made under Section 32”

The petitioner was accused under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code for trespass and sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act for encroachment of forest land.

The trial court remarked that an FIR can be registered only against a person who has encroached more than 10 bighas of government land not less than that. Thus, the trial court discharged the accused and held that no notice of accusation could be framed against the accused.

The state then approached the High Court, contending that the magistrate was duty-bound to take cognisance, and the court made an error in discharging the accused.

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision that an FIR could not be lodged against a person with encroachment of less than 10 bighas.

The High Court further noted that the complaint did not specify the essential ingredients of trespass, that the encroachment was made with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession.

Further noting that the charge sheet did not mention any notification which stated that the forest of encroachment was a reserved forest.

Thus, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no notice of accusation could have been issued.

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ghambo Devi

Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 255 of 2015

Date of Decision: 21.08.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondents: None

Click Here To Read/Download Order