Introduction:
In the landmark case of Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters (CWPIL No.17 of 2014 & CWPIL No.9 of 2015), the Himachal Pradesh High Court issued a sweeping directive for the statewide removal of illegal apple orchards and fruit-bearing trees planted on government or forest lands. A division bench comprising Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin C. Negi observed that the State must ensure that such illegal plantations are removed across the entire state rather than limiting the action to specific forest divisions such as Rohru or Kotgarh. The bench, while hearing two connected public interest litigations, emphasized that any selective action or failure to remove encroachments uniformly would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The Court noted that forest lands and government properties cannot be allowed to be usurped for private commercial benefits, including the cultivation of apple orchards, as this not only disrupts ecological balance but also contravenes public policy and statutory mandates for forest conservation. The case originated from concerns raised over widespread illegal encroachments in Himachal Pradesh where individuals were planting apple trees and raising orchards on forest lands to claim ownership or commercial benefits, posing significant challenges for the State’s environmental governance. During the course of hearings, the Court scrutinized progress reports submitted by the State and expressed displeasure over the limited scope of the ongoing removal drives. Despite the State’s submission that 2,456 trees had been removed in Village Chaithla, 713 trees in Rohru, and 490 in Kotgarh, the Court observed that such actions were insufficient and highlighted that the same standard of enforcement should apply throughout Himachal Pradesh. The Court directed the State to file comprehensive progress reports and ensure that no encroached forest land remains exempt from the removal drive, regardless of geographical or administrative boundaries.
Arguments:
On behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Advocate General Mr. Anup Rattan, assisted by Additional Advocate General Mr. Varun Chandel, submitted that the government had undertaken a large-scale removal drive across certain divisions and had made significant progress in clearing encroachments. It was contended that the removal of illegal orchards is an ongoing process that requires careful coordination between the forest department, district administrations, and law enforcement authorities, given the sensitive nature of forest lands and the resistance often faced from encroachers. The State further argued that logistical challenges, including geographical terrain and weather conditions, posed hurdles in achieving statewide coverage in a single phase. However, the State assured the Court that the directive would be complied with and that a detailed action plan covering all forest divisions would be submitted before the next hearing.
In contrast, the petitioners, represented by Ms. Tamana Sharma, argued that the State had failed to act uniformly and decisively in removing encroachments, thereby indirectly encouraging encroachers in other regions to continue their illegal activities. It was emphasized that allowing selective removal of illegal apple orchards while ignoring other encroachments undermines the very purpose of public interest litigation and creates a perception of unequal enforcement of law. The petitioners asserted that forest lands are a shared public resource crucial for maintaining ecological balance, and unauthorized occupation for commercial purposes such as apple cultivation must be addressed with zero tolerance. They highlighted that the planting of fruit-bearing trees on government land is not only illegal but also a deliberate strategy by certain individuals to claim rights over public land through adverse possession or to exert pressure on authorities. The petitioners also raised concerns over the lack of transparency in the identification of encroached lands, calling for a detailed survey of all government and forest lands to identify illegal orchards and ensure their immediate removal.
The applicants in CMP Nos. 15930, 15931, and 15932 of 2025, represented by Mr. Arsh Chauhan, sought to intervene by pointing out that while the State was undertaking removal drives, certain genuine landholders whose ownership was under dispute were also facing arbitrary actions. They urged the Court to direct the State to ensure proper verification of land records and encroachment claims before undertaking mass removal of trees. The applicants contended that while illegal encroachers must be dealt with strictly, the rights of bona fide landowners should not be jeopardized due to administrative lapses.
Judgement:
The Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, after hearing the arguments and examining the progress reports submitted by the State, issued a categorical directive mandating the removal of all illegal apple orchards and fruit-bearing trees raised on government or forest lands across the state. The Court made it clear that such removal cannot be restricted to areas like Rohru or Kotgarh and must be uniformly implemented throughout Himachal Pradesh. The bench observed that failure to apply the law equally in all cases of encroachment would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of equality before the law. The Court remarked,
“The State is expected to deal with all cases in equal terms, by removing the apple trees from every encroached forest land, wherever it has been raised on Government/Forest Land in the State of Himachal Pradesh, because any conduct contrary to the aforesaid shall be in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court acknowledged the efforts made by the State in removing 2,456 trees in Village Chaithla, 713 trees in Rohru, and 490 trees in Kotgarh Forest Division but expressed dissatisfaction with the overall pace and scope of the removal drive. It directed the State to submit a fresh and comprehensive report before the next hearing scheduled on 29th July 2025, detailing the steps taken across all districts to identify and remove illegal orchards. The Court further ordered the Principal Secretary of the Department of Panchayati Raj, Divisional Commissioners, and District Collectors to ensure that all Chief Executive Officers of Panchayat Samitis are fully informed about the enforcement of this directive and the legal implications of allowing encroachments on public lands.
The bench reiterated that forest lands are vital ecological assets and cannot be compromised for private profit. The judgment emphasized that the State government has a constitutional and statutory duty to safeguard forest lands and public resources under various environmental and forest conservation laws. The Court also highlighted that public officials must ensure proper implementation of the Forest Conservation Act and other related statutes while simultaneously adhering to due process to avoid arbitrary action. By extending the scope of the removal directive statewide, the Court intended to send a strong message that encroachments, irrespective of their nature or location, would not be tolerated and that the State’s duty to protect public lands is paramount.
This judgment also underscored the responsibility of the State machinery to avoid any selective or discriminatory enforcement. The Court directed that any future failure or non-compliance with its orders would be viewed as contempt of court. Moreover, the bench encouraged the State to develop a systematic mechanism for monitoring forest encroachments, conducting periodic surveys, and preventing the illegal planting of fruit-bearing trees or any other commercial crops on public lands. It also urged the State to undertake awareness programs to educate local communities about the legal and environmental consequences of encroachments.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching consequences, not only in Himachal Pradesh but also as a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues of encroachment on forest and government lands. By emphasizing uniform enforcement and the constitutional principle of equality, the High Court has reinforced the concept that natural resources and public lands are held in trust for the collective good and cannot be misappropriated for private gain.