‘Voter IDs, power bills don’t grant land rights’: Court clears Assam reserve forest evictions

7 min readNew DelhiJul 1, 2026 12:48 PM IST

The appellants claimed that Taungya settlers were allotted the land for plantation and habitation, and the present occupants are their descendants or obtained the land via transfer. (AI-generated image)

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a plea by residents claiming rights over notified reserve forest land in Assam, holding that long occupation, voter IDs, ration cards or civic amenities do not create legal rights over protected forests. It 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 a batch of 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 the 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.

Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that a grievance was raised regarding the method adopted to identify if the occupied lands fall within the reserve forest.

Taungya settlement

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. In that order, the divisional forest officer concluded that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation of lands forming part of various notified reserve forests and directed action.

On the other hand, the appellants claim to be residents of different villages situated within or adjoining the areas comprising the Barapani, Lutumai, Kaki, and other reserve forests in Assam’s Nagaon district. They claim to have resided in these areas for decades, including their ancestors, and said they have established permanent dwellings, cultivated lands, and developed sources of livelihood at the locations.

Story continues below this ad

The foundation of their claim is that, following earlier eviction operations undertaken in 1970, certain displaced families were permitted by the forest department to undertake cultivation and temporary residence under the Taungya system.

Settlers claim state recognition

According to the appellants, original Taungya settlers were allotted land for plantation activities and habitation, and many of the present occupants derive their position either as descendants of such settlers or through transfer, inheritance, or long uninterrupted occupation.

To substantiate this assertion, reliance has been placed upon Taungya certificates, communications exchanged between governmental authorities, departmental letters, telegrams, electoral rolls, certificates issued by panchayat authorities, annual pattas, land revenue receipts, and similar documents. It was contended that these materials demonstrate recognition of their occupation by the state and establish either an accrued legal right or at least a legitimate expectation that their possession would not be disturbed.

The appellants further submitted that over the years, public infrastructure has developed in the concerned areas, including school buildings and roads; that local administrative authorities have recognised the settlements for several purposes and that governmental conduct over an extended period evidences acceptance of their occupation. They, therefore, contend that the action of the forest authorities is arbitrary, contrary to past governmental conduct, and violative of principles of fairness. The controversy has a long, protracted history of litigation.

Story continues below this ad

Upon the issuance of eviction notices in 2025, several persons moved the court through writ petitions. In some of these proceedings, the petitioners were granted liberty to submit representations to the competent authorities, together with documents in support of their claims.

SC ordered fresh verification

In subsequent proceedings, the high court directed that the claim of the occupants be verified afresh and that an opportunity be afforded to them to produce all relevant materials before any final decision affecting their occupation was taken. Orders passed eventually came under consideration before the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek v State of Assam and Others.

In that order, the Supreme Court directed the state to undertake a scientific and coordinated verification of the land under occupation through an appropriate mechanism, to afford the affected persons an opportunity to produce documents and raise their claim, to examine whether they possess any legally recognisable right or protection under the applicable law, and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

Digitised maps don’t alter boundaries: Order

A verification exercise was carried out to ensure that the determinations were based on a coordinated exercise involving technical and revenue authorities. It aimed to determine the exact location of the occupied lands, verify if it fell within the boundaries of the reserve forest, examine the documents produced by the occupants, and enable the authority to pass a reasoned order.

Notices were issued to the appellants individually, requiring them to place their objections and supporting materials before the competent authority. A main grievance they raised was regarding the authorities’ method adopted to identify if the lands under occupation fall within the reserve forest. They also argued that the GIS-based map relied on by the authorities has no statutory backing.

Records reveal that the legal basis for identifying a reserve forest is the original gazette notification. The digitised map does not alter those boundaries, it merely represents them in a modern format to facilitate identification.

While administrative orders affecting people must state sufficient reasons, they are not required to contain lengthy or judgment-like discussions, the court stated.

The principles of natural justice do not insist on any rigid formula, but only require that a person gets a fair opportunity to know the case being made against him and is given an opportunity to respond.

In this case, the appellants were aware of the allegations against them, were informed that authorities considered their occupation illegal, were invited to produce documents supporting their claims, and they also availed themselves of the opportunity.

Final order

Dismissing all appeals, the high court upheld the single judge’s judgment ordering eviction and the speaking orders declaring the appellants unauthorised occupants of reserve forest land. It extended the time for compliance to 45 days due to the monsoon, while clarifying that eligible occupants may seek rehabilitation under any applicable government policy. No costs were awarded.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives.

Expertise

Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties.

Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience.

Academic Foundations:

Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute.

Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More

Tags:

Assam

encroachment

forest

Gauhati High Court