Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua  held that mere use of encroached forest land does not confer locus standi to challenge eviction proceedings initiated against the actual encroachers. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court  held this in the matter of Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors.,(2025) Case? 

• In 2011, an FIR was registered against Ravi and Vikram Singh for allegedly encroaching upon forest land measuring 01-03-61 hectares in Manali-III forest, Kullu district. The FIR was filed under Sections 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 32 & 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. However, in 2014, both accused persons were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate who extended to them the benefit of doubt. 
• Following the FIR registration, revenue officials conducted a demarcation in February 2013 and detected unauthorised occupation by Ravi and Vikram Singh over government land in eight khasra numbers, including Khasra No. 1328. The officials found that the brothers had encroached upon the land and constructed a 'Gompa' (Buddhist monastery) and planted an apple orchard. Based on this demarcation, the Collector, Forest Division Kullu issued a notice under Section 4(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. 
• When the brothers objected to the demarcation, a fresh survey was ordered and conducted in March 2016. This fresh demarcation revealed that Khasra No. 1328 was vacant with nine Deodar trees, one Kail tree, and one Popular tree growing on it. Consequently, the Collector passed an eviction order on 05th April 2016, directing the Forest Department to take possession of all eight khasra numbers, including 1328, and fence the area to prevent future encroachments. The brothers accepted this order and did not file any appeal. 
• Meanwhile, in November 2011, Ravi had sold portions of his land to the present petitioners - Nishant Mahajan and Khushal Chand Mahajan (father and son).  
• The petitioners purchased land parcels in nearby khasra numbers and used the disputed forest land as an approach road to their property. 
• In November 2021, Arjun Thakur filed a complaint through the Chief Minister Sankalp Helpline, alleging that a cemented road had been constructed over forest land in Khasra Nos. 1315, 1328, and 1346 for the benefit of the petitioners' commercial property. Following this complaint, revenue officials conducted another demarcation in the presence of forest officials, which detected illegal construction of a cemented road in Khasra No. 1328. 
• The investigation revealed that the Block Development Officer, Naggar, and the Gram Panchayat, Nasogi had constructed a road named "C/O Road from DAV School to house of Sh. Vikram" during 2018-19 with an expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000 sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner Kullu.  
• The Gram Panchayat claimed they had only carried out crate work alongside the road but had not constructed the actual road structure. 
• Based on these findings, the Range Forest Officer filed a complaint under Section 4(1) of the Act against the Block Development Officer and the Gram Panchayat. After issuing show cause notices and hearing their responses, the Collector, Forest Division Kullu passed an eviction order on 22nd August 2022, holding that the respondents had unauthorisedly occupied forest land and encroached upon 00-68-56 hectares in Khasra No. 1328 by constructing a cemented road over 00-11-08 hectares. 
• The eviction order was implemented on 25th May 2023, and the Forest Department cleared the encroachments, took possession of the land, and fenced it. However, on 29.05.2023, forest officials reported that the land had been broken overnight and a road had been paved again, contrary to the Collector's order. 
• The petitioners, who had been using this road to access their property, filed applications before the Collector Forest for setting aside the eviction order and for their impleadment in the case, claiming the order was passed ex parte against them. When these applications were dismissed, they filed a third-party appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was also dismissed on the ground that they lacked locus standi as they were not necessary parties to the original proceedings. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that petitioners, being mere users of a road constructed over forest land (Khasra No. 1328), lacked proper legal standing to challenge the eviction order. Even if they possessed easementary rights as users, the Collector Forest lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate private easement disputes, making their plea legally irrelevant to the forest encroachment proceedings. 
• The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata, ruling that petitioners' previous unsuccessful challenge to the same eviction order (22.08.2022) in CMPMO No. 126 of 2024 under Article 227, which was dismissed on 02th April 2024, barred them from filing a subsequent writ petition on the same matter without obtaining express liberty to institute separate proceedings. 
• The Court established that under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and following the Supreme Court's interpretation in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad case, "forest" includes all statutorily recognised forests and any area recorded as forest in government records, irrespective of ownership. Land with Deodar, Kail, and Popular trees constitutes forest land requiring protection. 
• The Court noted that a prior order dated 05th April 2016 by the Collector Forest had already established the Forest Department's ownership of Khasra No. 1328 and ordered removal of encroachment. This order became final and absolute when the original encroachers (Ravi and Vikram Singh) failed to file any appeal, creating binding precedent for the current case. 
• The Court found that petitioners had endeavoured to mislead the Court by falsely claiming the road existed "from times immemorial" and served public purposes. The Divisional Forest Officer's report contradicted these claims, establishing that the road did not connect to other villages, was not used by students for school access, and served only the petitioners and original encroachers. 
• The Court concluded that merely asserting a need to use forest land for non-forest purposes, without proper legal permission, is insufficient in law to justify continued encroachment. The absence of any recorded permission for non-forest use of the land, combined with Supreme Court directives on forest protection, rendered the petitioners' necessity-based arguments legally untenable. 

Implications for Forest Land Encroachment Cases 

This ruling establishes that: 

• Mere usage of encroached forest land does not confer standing to challenge eviction proceedings 
• Only those with ownership rights or direct involvement in the encroachment can be considered necessary parties 
• Easementary rights (right to use a path/road) are separate from ownership rights and don't grant party status in eviction cases 
• Forest authorities focus on removing encroachers, not resolving private easement disputes 

This principle helps streamline forest land eviction proceedings by limiting party participation to those directly involved in the encroachment, rather than all users of the encroached land.