The Himachal Pradesh High Court, acting on its own motion under public interest litigation, has reaffirmed its firm stance against illegal occupation of forest and government lands by ordering the removal of fruit-bearing apple trees and orchards planted on such lands across the state. The bench led by Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin Chander Negi expressed deep concern over recurring encroachments and emphasized that the forest ecosystem must be restored uncompromisingly, regardless of whether the land is currently under cultivation or in reoccupation.
This judicial intervention originated from PILs filed years ago, highlighting the spread of apple orchards across forest lands in Shimla district’s Kotkhai tehsil and other regions. Evidence had shown repeated efforts by encroachers to protect mature orchards using hail nets and resistant measures against eviction. During court proceedings, officials informed the bench about the removal of thousands of apple trees in key divisions, yet enforcement had remained limited to patchy areas. The court, pointing out a lack of uniform compliance, clarified that its directive was not restricted to select regions, but applied to all encroached lands statewide. It stressed that parcels identified post‑eviction ought to be cleared of all fruit trees, and compliance reports submitted systematically.
To ensure transparency and effective action, the bench ordered the Forest Department to submit detailed status reports that include the total number of trees removed from each village or forest division. The reports are to highlight any convictions of encroachers, quantify the land revenue arrears recoverable from them for the cost of tree removal and stump clearing, and record instances where officials faced obstruction. In areas where encroachers remain resistant, the court permitted issuing bail warrants to compel cooperation, demonstrating how seriously the judiciary takes obstruction of forest protection.
The judgment also underscored constitutional principles such as equality before law under Article 14, asserting that remaining tolerant of scattered violations would undermine legal sanctity and encourage further encroachments. The court stressed that enforcement efforts remain meaningless if violators can plant fresh orchards immediately after eviction—compliance must be accompanied with ecological restoration. Towards this, it directed replanting with native forest species either by the Forest Department or with the assistance of NGOs to ensure environmental restoration. It also mandated a pan-state operation to address all known encroachment hotspots equally.
The court took note of political concerns raised by local residents, especially small landholders, regarding the felling of fruit-laden trees during the monsoon and the impact on their livelihoods. Yet it asserted that long-term ecological balance and protection of forestland must prevail, while encouraging officials to consider humane treatment wherever smaller farmers are affected. The compelling tide of judicial direction compelled the state to comply fully.
In closing, the High Court reiterated that forest conservation is not negotiable. It emphasized that preserving biodiversity, preventing soil erosion, and maintaining watershed health are intimately linked to the integrity of Himachal Pradesh’s forest regions. By ordering the removal of encroachments and initiating ecological restoration, the High Court reinforced its role as a guardian of public interest and environmental stewardship. It made clear that neither political pressure nor economic arguments can override constitutional and statutory duties to preserve forest ecosystems for future generations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.