Encroachment over Forest Land: Contemporary Indian Jurisprudence and Policy Challenges

Encroachment over Forest Land: Contemporary Indian Jurisprudence and Policy Challenges

Introduction

Encroachment upon forest land constitutes one of the gravest and most persistent threats to India’s ecological security. Despite an elaborate constitutional, statutory, and judicial framework, the phenomenon continues to proliferate, driven by demographic pressures, commercial exploitation, and administrative laxity. This article critically analyses the legal regime governing forest encroachments, synthesises landmark judicial pronouncements, and evaluates emerging trends in policy and adjudication.

Normative and Statutory Framework

The governance of forest land in India rests on a tripartite normative foundation:

  • Constitutional mandate: Articles 48-A (State’s duty to protect the environment) and 51-A(g) (citizens’ duty) supplement the fundamental right to life under Article 21, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to a healthy environment.
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FCA”): Section 2 imposes an embargo on the dereservation or non-forest use of forest land without prior approval of the Central Government. It applies to all land answering the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’, irrespective of ownership (T.N. Godavarman (57), 2002)[1].
  • Forest Rights Act, 2006 (“FRA”): While recognising traditional forest dwellers’ rights, the Act prescribes stringent conditions and does not legitimate post-13.12.2005 encroachments.

Jurisprudential Evolution

Early Curb on Regularisation: Ambica Quarry Works (1986)

The Court refused renewal of quarry leases in reserved forests, construing Section 2 FCA strictly and prioritising ecological integrity over economic claims[2]. The judgment heralded a purposive, conservation-centric reading of the FCA.

Public Trust Doctrine and Expansion of “Forest”: T.N. Godavarman Series

  • Phase I (1997-2001): In the continuing mandamus proceeding, the Court expanded the definition of ‘forest’, froze regularisation of post-25.10.1980 encroachments, and instituted nation-wide monitoring committees[1].
  • Phase II – Compensatory Mechanisms: The 2005 decision (Godavarman (87)) introduced Net Present Value (NPV) and validated CAMPA, integrating economic deterrence into anti-encroachment strategy[3].

Reserved Forest Protection: Tarun Bharat Sangh (1991)

Addressing large-scale illegal mining in Sariska, the Court stressed that statutory declarations of reserved forests must be honoured until modified per law. The appointment of an expert committee foreshadowed the Court’s later practice of continuous oversight[4].

Mining Encroachments and Precaution: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004)

By halting quarrying in the Aravalli hills, the Court reiterated the precautionary principle and clarified that renewal of leases also attracts FCA scrutiny[5].

State Policy versus Central Approval: Nature Lovers Movement (2009)

While upholding Kerala’s policy to regularise pre-1980 occupations, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that any assignment of forest land, even for regularisation, requires prior Central approval under Section 2 FCA[6].

Civil Jurisdiction and Encroachment: Gadbad v. Ramrao (2013)

The Bombay High Court, answering a reference, held that civil courts cannot legitimise encroachments in contravention of Section 2 FCA, underscoring the exclusivity of the Central Government’s approval power[7].

Doctrinal Threads Unifying the Jurisprudence

  • Public Trust Doctrine: Natural resources, including forests, are held in trusteeship by the State for present and future generations (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1996)[8].
  • Inter-generational Equity: Reiterated in the Godavarman line, the doctrine forbids irreversible alienation of forest land without compensatory safeguards.
  • Precautionary and Polluter-Pays Principles: NPV and compensatory afforestation operationalise these principles, shifting the financial burden of ecological loss onto encroachers/user agencies.

Contemporary Administrative and Adjudicatory Trends

National Green Tribunal (NGT) Engagement

Recent NGT determinations, e.g., Avadhesh Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), treat encroachment as a violation of both FCA and the broader principles distilled in Godavarman, reinforcing the Tribunal’s preventive and restorative jurisdiction[9].

Digitisation and Demarcation Initiatives

State affidavits before courts/NGT (e.g., Kerala’s 2025 status report) reveal a strategic shift towards GIS-based boundary demarcation, aimed at pre-empting further encroachments and facilitating swift eviction drives.

Interface with the Forest Rights Act, 2006

While the FRA provides a limited window for regularising bona fide livelihood-based occupations, its Section 4(5) prohibits eviction of claimants until recognition proceedings conclude. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that fraudulent or post-cut-off-date occupations remain removable under the FCA and court orders.

Critical Issues and Policy Challenges

Regularisation versus Deterrence

Recurrent state-level schemes to legitimise “old” encroachments create moral hazard, furnishing incentives for fresh intrusions. The 2001 Supreme Court order prohibiting nationwide regularisation (save where expressly permitted by the Centre) seeks to resolve this tension, but fragmented compliance persists, necessitating stricter federal oversight.

Socio-Economic Dimensions

Eviction drives often implicate vulnerable groups. A calibrated approach—combining FRA-based rehabilitation, livelihood alternatives, and ecological restoration—is essential to align conservation imperatives with distributive justice.

Enforcement Deficit

Although Section 3-A FCA prescribes penal consequences, convictions remain rare. Strengthening forest-offence adjudication mechanisms, deploying technology for real-time surveillance, and ensuring accountability of local officers are imperative to translate judicial directives into ground-level outcomes.

Conclusion

Indian environmental jurisprudence unequivocally condemns encroachment over forest land. Through expansive constitutional interpretation, rigorous statutory construction, and innovative remedial devices such as NPV and CAMPA, the Supreme Court has fashioned a formidable deterrent framework. Nevertheless, the endurance of encroachments underscores an enforcement-governance gap. Bridging this gap demands coordinated federal action, technological vigilance, community-centric rehabilitation, and unwavering judicial oversight. Only then can the constitutional promise of ecological security and inter-generational equity be meaningfully realised.

Footnotes

  1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606 (“Godavarman (57)”).
  2. Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213.
  3. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1.
  4. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 448.
  5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118.
  6. Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala, (2009) 5 SCC 373.
  7. Gadbad v. Ramrao, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 82.
  8. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
  9. Avadhesh Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, NGT (Central Zone) 2025.