Long occupation, voter ID, power bills don't confer rights no proof of land ownership: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that long occupation of reserve forest land or possession of documents such as Aadhaar cards, voter identity cards, ration cards and electricity connections does not confer legal rights over protected forest land, while upholding eviction orders against alleged encroachers in Assam.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury dismissed a batch of appeals challenging the eviction of residents from notified reserve forests in Nagaon district but allowed eligible occupants to seek rehabilitation under applicable government policies.

The appellants had challenged an earlier order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nagaon, declaring them unauthorised occupants of land falling within Barapani, Lutumai, Kaki and other notified reserve forests.

Rejecting their claim, the bench observed that identity and civic documents could not be treated as proof of ownership or proprietary rights.

"Such cards may establish identity, facilitate participation in the electoral process, serve the public distribution system, facilitate supply of power, certify residence or administrative particulars. However, none of these documents is intended to operate as an instrument of title or confer proprietary rights over immovable property," the court said in its 25 June judgment.

Taungya claim rejected

The appellants argued that their families had been permitted by the Forest Department to cultivate and reside in the area under the Taungya system after eviction drives in the 1970s. They claimed many present occupants were descendants of the original settlers or had acquired possession through inheritance or transfer.

They relied on Taungya certificates, government correspondence, electoral rolls, panchayat certificates, annual pattas and land revenue receipts to argue that the state had recognised their occupation over several decades.

The court, however, held that once land is notified as a reserve forest, any claim inconsistent with that notification must be supported by a legally recognised source of title.

"Rights inconsistent with such notification cannot thereafter be assumed or inferred merely from prolonged occupation or administrative inaction," the bench observed.

GIS mapping valid

The court also rejected objections to the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping for identifying forest boundaries.

It held that the legal basis for identifying reserve forests remained the original gazette notifications and that digitised maps merely represented existing boundaries using modern technology without altering them.

The bench noted that authorities had carried out a coordinated verification exercise involving technical and revenue officials after directions from the Supreme Court, during which individual notices were issued and occupants were given an opportunity to produce documents supporting their claims.

Holding that principles of natural justice had been complied with, the court dismissed all appeals, upheld the eviction orders and granted the occupants 45 days to vacate the land in view of the monsoon season.

The court clarified that eligible persons could seek rehabilitation under any applicable government scheme.