The Supreme Court on Monday took a strong view of large-scale forest encroachments in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, directing the state government to submit a comprehensive account of all persons occupying forest land in the city. The apex court expressed serious concern over the scale of private occupation, indicating that such encroachments could not have persisted for decades without the collusion or connivance of state authorities and political patronage.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the situation as “shocking,” questioning how thousands of acres of forest land remained under private occupation despite the original allotments being withdrawn more than 40 years ago. The court highlighted the apparent negligence of successive officials and suggested that some occupiers may have enjoyed protection from authorities tasked with safeguarding the land.

“It seems to us that each and every person holding executive position was accountable for consistent and persistent negligence in the matter, even as it appears to be a case of collusion and connivance with landgrabbers,” the bench observed. The court made it clear that it intended to scrutinize whether encroachers enjoyed any protection from the authorities, and warned that personal accountability would be pursued for officers responsible for inaction.

Background of the Encroachments

The case stems from approximately 2,866 acres of forest land in Rishikesh, originally leased in 1950 to the Pashulok Seva Samiti for allotment to landless families. However, in 1984, the forest department of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh government withdrew the allotment, and the land was formally returned to the state through a surrender deed. Despite this legal reversal, private occupation continued for decades, often in defiance of government ownership.

The Supreme Court’s recent directions followed an interim report submitted by the Uttarakhand governmentpursuant to the court’s December 22 order. The December order had initiated suo motu proceedings over the encroachments and restrained private parties from creating third-party rights over the land. It also instructed the forest department to take immediate possession of vacant parcels while maintaining status quo on existing residential constructions.

The matter gained urgency after a petition was filed by a woman challenging eviction proceedings against her for occupying a residential unit on forest land. The case had been adjudicated by the Uttarakhand High Court in November 2025, which upheld the eviction, noting that the petitioner had acquired possession of the land in 2001 and had “no right” to remain there, as the land had legally reverted to the state decades earlier. Eviction orders issued by the sub-divisional magistrate, with police assistance, were affirmed by the sessions court.

Court’s Observations and Directions

The Supreme Court was critical of the Uttarakhand government’s handling of the matter. It questioned why the state had waited decades to take action, asking:

“Why did you need the court order to retrieve your own land? What have you done since 2000 when your state came into existence?”

The bench also highlighted that although notices against encroachers were issued only in 2023, the process stalled once the High Court granted interim protection, after which authorities reportedly “again went into a slumber.”

The court directed the Uttarakhand government to submit a detailed affidavit within two weeks, including:

• The identity of all occupiers of the encroached forest land
• Site plans and maps of the encroached areas
• Details of the nature and duration of occupation

The Supreme Court warned that it would “haul up” every officer concerned to determine accountability, remarking that “God knows who were the encroachers…the political influence and the protection they received from the state authorities”.

Implications of Political Patronage

The court’s observations strongly hinted at systemic failures and political interference over decades. Encroachments spanning thousands of acres could not have persisted without the tacit or active involvement of officials and political actors, it suggested. The bench emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in reclaiming the forest land and expressed skepticism over the state’s capacity to act without judicial oversight.

The case underscores broader issues of forest governance and land management in Uttarakhand, where rapid urbanization and tourism pressures have often led to illegal occupation of government land. Experts say that Rishikesh, being a major religious and tourist hub, has witnessed unregulated expansion of residential and commercial structures on forest land, compounding the challenge of enforcement.

Historical Context

The Rishikesh forest land originally allocated to Pashulok Seva Samiti was meant to benefit landless families and provide them with legal plots. However, after the withdrawal of the allotment in 1984, the land reverted to government ownership. Despite the legal status, multiple encroachments persisted, raising questions about administrative efficiency and enforcement over several decades.

The High Court had noted that the petitioner’s possession began in 2001, highlighting that individual encroachments occurred long after the legal reversal, which further implicates the authorities in failing to safeguard public land.

Next Steps

With the Supreme Court now demanding comprehensive disclosure of occupiers, the Uttarakhand government faces pressure to act decisively. The court’s insistence on maps, site plans, and detailed occupant records signals its intent to ensure systematic reclaiming of forest land and prevent further unauthorized occupation.

Legal experts suggest that the case could serve as a precedent for holding state authorities personally accountable for negligence in forest land management. It may also trigger broader investigations into political patronage and administrative complicity in land encroachments across the state.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny emphasizes the importance of good governance and accountability in the management of forest resources, particularly in ecologically sensitive regions such as Rishikesh. The case also highlights the challenge of balancing human settlement needs with environmental protection, a persistent issue in fast-growing urban centers across India.

As the Uttarakhand government prepares to submit the detailed report, the Supreme Court is likely to closely monitor compliance, ensuring that decades of neglect do not continue unchecked and that forest land is restored to its rightful status under state ownership.