In Assam’s Rengma Reserve Forest, located in the Golaghat district, the state government recently launched one of its largest forest eviction drives in years.
Share
In Assam’s Rengma Reserve Forest, located in the Golaghat district, the state government recently launched one of its largest forest eviction drives in years. Beginning on July 29, 2025, this operation targeted over 11,000 bighas (approximately 3,300 acres) of what authorities claimed were illegally encroached lands used for large-scale commercial betel-nut cultivation. Over 700 security personnel, including police and CRPF forces, were deployed. The drive led to the demolition of more than 270 houses, betel-nut processing units, and plantation structures. Government officials stated that nearly 70 percent of affected families vacated voluntarily, but local residents offered a different story. Many claimed they had been living there for decades, and during that time had received electricity connections, drinking water, schools, and even voter registration—indicators of tacit government acknowledgment.
A similar scene recently unfolded in Himachal Pradesh, where a High Court order mandated the removal of fruit-bearing apple orchards planted on forest land allegedly encroached by farmers over the past few decades. The order drew fierce opposition from apple growers and civil society groups, who pointed to the devastating economic consequences and ecological risks of felling thousands of mature trees, especially during the fragile monsoon season. The Supreme Court intervened on July 29, issuing a stay on the felling of trees and permitting the auction of fruit harvests while allowing the land to be treated as encroached pending further hearing. The apex court raised concerns over the humanitarian and environmental cost of the order and emphasised the need for a balanced approach. Following this, the Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister assured that apple trees would not be cut and promised to formulate a policy that would balance forest conservation with the livelihoods of farmers.
These episodes expose a common thread: the failure of governance in managing land encroachment transparently and proactively. The Forest Rights Act, 2006, provides legal protection for traditional forest dwellers, including Scheduled Tribes, recognising their rights to land and forest produce if they can prove continuous occupation prior to December 2005. In Assam, many of those evicted are believed to be members of the Rengma Naga community and other tribal groups. If their claims under the Forest Rights Act were not processed or fairly assessed through the mandated gram sabha procedure, the eviction may not only be unethical—it could be unlawful.
Courts have long held that even unauthorised settlers must be treated with dignity under the Indian Constitution. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21. Residents and cultivators who have invested decades into planting betel-nut or apples often do so with the belief—sometimes encouraged by the state’s own actions—that they will not be uprooted without reason or remedy. The principle of legitimate expectation must apply where the state has allowed occupation and development for years, even if on technically unauthorised land.
A blanket eviction drive after decades of passive tolerance or active administrative support represents not the enforcement of law but the failure of early governance. If eviction was legally warranted, it should have been enforced at the first sign of encroachment, not after fruit trees and livelihoods had flourished. The idea that state silence for years can suddenly convert into bulldozers is deeply unsettling in a constitutional democracy.
Going forward, governments must be guided by principles of early detection, fair adjudication, and humane treatment. Where land has been encroached in good faith and used for sustainable cultivation, especially by forest dwellers or marginalized communities, the first duty of the state should be to explore regularization, rehabilitation, or compensation—not summary demolition. Forest protection is essential, but it cannot be pursued in isolation from the realities of those who depend on the land. Restoration of forest land must also be based on ecological planning, not political expediency.
The recent intervention by the Supreme Court in the Himachal case serves as a timely reminder that environmental conservation and social justice must go hand in hand. In both Assam and Himachal, the courts, the state, and civil society must work together to ensure that the axe does not fall blindly—not on orchards, not on homes, and certainly not on the hopes of those who built their lives on the land while the system looked away.
Mathew Rongmei
(The writer can be contacted at mrongmei@yahoo.co.in)