SC slams Uttarakhand Govt over grabbing of forest land

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Uttarakhand Government over the grabbing of forest land, observing that the State Government and its authorities were sitting like “mute spectators”, and initiated a suo motu case. A vacation bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the chief secretary of Uttarakhand to form an inquiry committee and submit a report.

“What is shocking to us is that the State of Uttarakhand and authorities are sitting like mute spectators when forest land is being grabbed in front of their eyes. Thus, we initiate a suo motu case. “Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Principal Conservation Secretary are instructed to form a fact-finding committee and submit a report. Private parties are stopped from creating any third-party rights and no construction shall take place,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court said vacant land, other than residential houses, shall be taken in possession by the forest department. The bench posted the matter for hearing on Monday after the reopening of the court following vacations. The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by Anita Kandwal pertaining to illegal possession of a large chunk of forest land in Uttarakhand.

Besides ordering an inquiry, the Court also imposed immediate restrictions to prevent the situation from worsening. It barred private parties from creating any third-party rights over forest land and made it clear that no construction is to take place. “Private parties are stopped from creating any third-party rights and no construction shall take place,” said CJI Kant. The Bench effectively put a stop to all ongoing or planned activities until further orders are issued. Additionally, the Court ordered that all vacant land, except areas where residential houses already stand, must be taken into possession by the Forest Department.

“Vacant land other than residential houses shall be taken in possession by the forest department,” said CJI Kant. This step is intended to prevent any further changes from occurring on the ground while the matter remains under the Court’s consideration. The Bench ordered that the case be posted for further hearing on January 5, upon the reopening of the Court.