Observing that the authorities have indulged in "persistent negligence", the Supreme Court on Monday, January 5, 2026 asked the Uttarakhand government to file a comprehensive report, including the site plan, disclosing approximate details of illegal constructions which have come up on the forest land in the state.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on December 22 expressed serious concern over the alleged large-scale and systematic grabbing of forest land in Uttarakhand and proposed to expand the scope of proceedings suo motu to examine, what it termed, a shocking failure of the state machinery to protect the forest land.
The bench said the state authorities, apparently in collusion with land-grabbers, first allowed the encroachment of government land and then, in the garb of court orders, wanted to come clean.
The CJI said that the state authorities have been persistently and consistently negligent in the case and "it appears to be a case of collusion and connivance with the land grabbers".
"We would like to know the extent of land encroached... It needs to be determined if there has been any tacit support from the authorities," the bench said, adding, "Let a comprehensive affidavit be filed in two weeks and it should include the site plan giving details of approximate details of illegal constructions and the nature of such constructions."
Earlier, the bench had flagged the large-scale encroachment of forest land and proposed to expand the scope of proceedings on its own to examine the shocking failure of the state machinery to protect forest land.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by one Anita Kandwal against the Uttarakhand government and its authorities.
The bench noted that around 2,866 acres of land notified as government forest land appear to have been unlawfully appropriated by private individuals over the years.
According to the details, a portion of this forest land was allegedly leased out to Pashulok Sewa Samiti, a society based in Rishikesh.
The society, in turn, is stated to have allotted parcels of land to its members.
However, disputes subsequently arose between the society and its members, culminating in what the court described as a "rather collusive decree" passed as a compromise between the parties.
The bench noted that the society later went into liquidation and, through a deed of surrender dated October 23, 1984, surrendered 594 acres of land back to the Forest Department.
The bench observed that the surrender and consequent re-vesting of the land in the government had attained finality.
Despite this, the court recorded that some private individuals allegedly took possession of portions of the land in 2001.
Similarly, a private respondent is stated to be claiming ownership and title on the basis of the collusive decree between the society and its alleged members.
"What seems shocking to us," the bench observed, "is that the State of Uttarakhand and its authorities are sitting as silent spectators when the forest land is being systematically grabbed in front of their eyes."
In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the bench had said it proposed to enlarge the scope of the proceedings suo motu and issued notice to the respondents.
The bench had directed the Uttarakhand chief secretary and the principal chief conservator of forests to constitute an enquiry committee to examine all relevant facts and submit a detailed report to the court.
It had asked all private individuals not to alienate the land encumbering it or create any third-party rights.
The court also made it clear that no construction activity would be permitted on the land. Further, the court directed that all vacant land, except existing residential houses, be taken into possession by the Forest Department and the concerned district collector.
A compliance report on these directions was to be submitted by January 5, the bench had said.
