‘You took 23 years to wake up?’: Supreme Court slams Uttarakhand over forest land encroachments

Dealing with a plea by some private individuals regarding title over some of the encroached land, the apex court on December 22 questioned the government’s ‘silence’ on alleged encroachment.

“What seems shocking to us is that the State of Uttarakhand and its authorities are sitting as silent spectator when the forest land is being systematically grabbed in front of their eyes,” the bench said then.

Enlarging the scope of the proceedings suo motu, it then directed the chief secretary of Uttarakhand and the principal chief conservator of forests to constitute an inquiry committee to examine all the facts and submit an interim report. On Monday, the state’s counsel informed the bench that the interim report had been submitted.

But the CJI said, “Your reply shows your helplessness as a state government.”

The counsel said that action was taken in 1993, and in 2023, eviction notices were issued, but the Uttarakhand High Court stayed them.

‘Ceremonial’ action, says Supreme Court

“So once in a while, you have been taking action. Ceremonial. Please file a proper affidavit on record as to what you have done as a state,” said CJI Kant.

The state’s counsel said the interim report states that since documentation of 1950 was required, they have also written to Uttar Pradesh to furnish some documents. Uttarakhand was carved out from the northwestern part of Uttar Pradesh.

“First, you explain your conduct. You came into existence in 2000. What have you done after that? Otherwise, we are going to ask the accountability of each one of you. If you allow the people to construct their houses, you allow their generation to live there and suddenly, only because of the court order, you want to take shelter behind that, now that the court is asking,” the bench said.

To the submission that the state had issued eviction notices to the alleged encroachers, the CJI said, “So from 2000, you took 23 years to wake up and find out that your land has been encroached.’”

The state said it will file an affidavit explaining what has happened so far.

“We will hold each and every one in your executive accountable. God knows who the encroachers are, with which politician or which authority or who are the influential persons who are hobnobbing,” said the CJI.

In its order, the court said, “We have gone through the interim report filed by the inquiry committee. … the report indicates a shocking… failure of the state machinery in protecting the government/forest land for decades. What it seems to be is that the land which was systematically encroached upon for years, a ritual of taking action against the encroachers was approved in 2023 by issuing certain notices whereupon the high court granted interim stay and the authorities again went into slumber.”

It added, “It seems to us that each and every person holding executive position in the state is accountable for the consistent and perceived negligence though it appears to be a case of collusion and connivance with the land grabbers.”

The bench said, “We would like to know the details of the total land and how many persons are statedly occupying the same. If need be, a deeper probe will be ordered to find out the whereabouts and identification of the occupiers of the lands to determine whether they have been enjoying the tacit protection and support of the authorities who were expected to look after the public properties.”

Ban on construction activity to continue

On December 22, the court also “restrained…all private individuals…from alienating the” allegedly encroached “land, encumber it or create any third-party rights”. It had also directed that no construction activity be permitted on the land in question.

On Monday, the bench said that these directions will continue to operate.

The state submitted that it had begun action against encroachments, and the drive will continue. It added that the authorities could not access some areas during the drive due to significant violence.

The CJI, however, said, “We do not want to say anything what you will do…We will see what your conduct has been in the past. Today, under the garb of the Supreme Court order, you want to undo everything. What have you been doing earlier in the past?”