GIS Mapping Valid Aid To Identify Encroachment: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction Of Taungya Settlers From Assam’s Reserved Forest Areas

The Court observed that the digitised GIS map was not the primary source of title or boundary determination but merely a scientific aid used for implementing and visualising boundaries already established through statutory Gazette notifications and official boundary descriptions.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury dismissed a batch of intra-court appeals challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had upheld the eviction proceedings initiated against Taungya settlers occupying reserved forest land.

The Bench observed: "The electronic map is not the primary source of title or boundary determination, but a scientific aid for implementing and visualising the boundaries already established by statutory notification. The appellants have produced no alternative materials, nor have they suggested any error in the methodology or conclusions reached therefrom."

“We accordingly reject the challenge to the validity or evidentiary use of the digitised map and hold that authorities were justified in relying upon the GIS-based exercise, read in conjunction with original statutory records and the field verification for identifying the location of the reserve forest boundaries and the alleged encroachments”, the Bench added.

Background

The appeals arose from the dismissal of several writ petitions filed by Taungya settlers residing in different forest villages situated within notified reserved forests in Assam. The settlers challenged eviction notices issued pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek v. State of Assam (2026), contending that they had been residing in the forest villages for decades and could not be treated as encroachers.

The appellants asserted that many of the forest villages had existed for generations and that their predecessors had originally been settled by the Forest Department under the Taungya cultivation scheme. They further contended that they possessed annual pattas, electoral identity cards, Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other governmental documents recognising their occupation and that several villages had been notified as revenue villages or Gram Panchayats.

The State resisted the appeals, submitting that the lands in question formed part of duly notified reserve forests and that the Supreme Court had already directed the removal of encroachments after verification by the competent authorities. It was contended that verification was undertaken jointly by Forest and Revenue officials through scientific survey methods, georeferencing and DGPS technology, establishing that the lands occupied by the appellants lay within the notified reserve forests.

Court's Observations

Supreme Court Directions Governed The Entire Exercise

The Court first noted that the eviction exercise did not originate from an independent executive decision of the State Government but was undertaken pursuant to binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek.

The Bench observed that the Supreme Court had directed the State to identify forest encroachments after following a transparent verification process and had simultaneously protected genuine occupants by directing that no person should be evicted without proper verification.

The Court held that the authorities had substantially complied with the procedural framework evolved by the Supreme Court before initiating eviction proceedings.

Scientific Verification Of Forest Boundaries

Addressing the principal challenge raised by the appellants regarding the methodology adopted for identifying reserve forest boundaries, the Court found no infirmity in the scientific process adopted by the authorities.

Rejecting the contention that GIS-based maps lacked statutory sanctity, the Bench observed: "The learned Single Judge has noted that the authorities undertook verification through the joint participation of Forest and Revenue Officials and employed scientific methods, including modern survey techniques and geospatial identification, to correlate the lands under occupation with the notified forest boundaries. The record further indicates that such exercise was undertaken pursuant to the procedural framework that has evolved and been accepted by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek (supra)."

The Court further observed that the legal basis for identifying the reserve forest remained the original statutory notification itself.

The Bench held: "The records available reveal that the legal basis for identifying the reserve forest is the original Gazette Notification and the boundary description contained therein. The digitised map does not create or alter those boundaries; it merely represents them in a modern geospatial format to facilitate accurate on-the-ground identification."

The Court noted that the methodology adopted by the State involved reading the original Gazette notification together with the sketch maps and Survey of India toposheets, georeferencing them with orthorectified satellite imagery and thereafter undertaking extensive field verification through Differential Global Navigation Satellite System (DGPS/DGNSS).

According to the Court, this process ensured that the reserve forest boundaries reflected in the GIS maps faithfully corresponded with the legally notified boundaries rather than replacing or modifying them.

GIS Maps Are Only Scientific Aids And Do Not Determine Legal Title

Rejecting the submission that the digitised maps lacked statutory sanctity, the Court held that the GIS maps neither created nor altered reserve forest boundaries but merely translated existing statutory records into a scientifically verifiable geospatial format.

The Court further explained that modern technology only enhances precision in implementing statutory notifications and cannot be discarded merely because the original notifications predate such technology.

The Bench observed: "The use of modern technology to identify and verify pre-existing notified boundaries cannot be faulted merely because the original notifications predate such technology. On the contrary, geo-referencing and DGPS-based verification enhance precision and transparency while remaining faithful to the original legal records."

The Court also found that the impugned findings were not based exclusively upon the GIS maps.

The Bench observed: "In any event, the impugned findings do not rest solely upon the digitised map. They are supported by gazette notifications, the boundary schedule, Survey of India records, georeferenced overlays, and field verification undertaken by the competent authorities. The GIS map is therefore only one component of the evidentiary exercise and not the sole foundation of the decision."

Rejecting the challenge to the survey process, the Court held that the appellants had failed to produce any scientific material discrediting either the methodology or the conclusions reached by the authorities.

The Court observed: "The appellants have not placed before us any convincing technical material demonstrating that the methodology itself was fundamentally flawed or that conclusions reached through such exercise are demonstratively erroneous. Bald assertions questioning the correctness of the survey, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot displace the findings recorded through an official verification undertaken by the Competent Authority."

The Court further noted: "Significantly, no alternative survey of comparable evidentiary value has been produced by the appellants to establish that the lands occupied by them lie outside the notified boundaries of the Reserve Forest."

Long Occupation Does Not By Itself Create A Legally Enforceable Right

The Court distinguished proof of occupation and proof of legal entitlement, holding that the appellants' long residence in the forest villages, even if established through various governmental documents, could not by itself confer a legally enforceable right to continue occupying notified reserve forest land.

The Bench observed: "This controversy must be approached by maintaining a clear distinction between proof of occupation and proof of legal entitlement. A person may establish that he has been residing upon a particular parcel of land for several years or even decades. Still, that fact by itself does not answer the juridical question. The real question for determination is whether such an occupation is sanctioned by law or capable of defeating statutory rights vested in the State under the Forest Conservation Act."

The Court acknowledged that the appellants had produced numerous documents indicating their residence and long association with the localities. However, it held that the decisive issue was whether those documents created or recognised any legal right over the reserve forest.

The Bench observed: "The appellants have undoubtedly produced numerous documents indicating residence, identity and long association with the localities concerned. The decisive question, however, is whether those materials create, recognise, or evidence any right in law to continue in occupation of lands admittedly forming part of the notified reserve forest."

Reserve Forest Notification Prevails Over Prolonged Occupation

The Court further observed that the appellants had neither challenged the validity of the Gazette notifications constituting the reserve forests nor demonstrated that the lands occupied by them had ever been lawfully excluded from the notified forest areas.

The Bench held: "It is not seriously disputed before us that the lands identified in the Speaking Orders fall within the geographical limits of a duly notified reserve forest. The appellants have not challenged the validity of the notifications constituting the reserve forest, nor have they established that the lands occupied by them were lawfully excluded therefrom."

Emphasising the legal consequences of a reserve forest notification, the Court observed: "Once an area stands notified as a reserve forest in accordance with law, the legal incidence flowing from such notification necessarily attaches to the land. Rights inconsistent with such notification cannot thereafter be assumed or inferred merely from prolonged occupation or administrative inaction. Any person asserting a continuing right over such land must establish the same by reference to a legally recognised source."

Applying the above principle to the facts of the case, the Court found that no such legally recognised source had been produced.

The Bench observed: "In the present case, despite elaborate submissions, the appellants have not produced any statutory grant, settlement order or instrument recognised by law conferring upon them or their predecessors an enforceable property or possessory right over the reserve forest."

Taungya Arrangements Did Not Create Heritable Rights Over Forest Land

The Court next examined the appellants' principal contention that the Taungya settlement scheme of the 1970s constituted governmental recognition of their occupation and created heritable rights over the forest land.

Rejecting the submission, the Bench held that the Taungya arrangements were merely administrative measures introduced to facilitate forestry operations and rehabilitation and could not, in the absence of statutory authority, be construed as creating permanent proprietary or possessory rights.

The Court observed: "The materials relied upon indicate, at the highest, that certain displaced persons were permitted to undertake plantation activities or were temporarily accommodated under the Taungya system. Such arrangements were essentially administrative measures intended to facilitate forestry operations and rehabilitation in a limited context. They cannot, in the absence of clear statutory authority, be constituted as grants creating a permanent, heritable or transferable interest in forest land."

The Court also found no material indicating that the competent authorities ever intended to permanently alienate reserve forest land.

The Bench observed: "Equally significant is the absence of any material demonstrating that the competent authority intended to alienate reserve forest land or permanently divest the State of its rights therein. Neither the language of the communications relied upon by the appellants nor the surrounding circumstances support such inference."

Accordingly, the Division Bench affirmed the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge.

The Court held: "We are therefore in respectful agreement with the conclusions of the learned Single Judge that the Taungya documents relied upon by the appellants do not confer title or any legally enforceable right to continue in occupation of the reserve forest."

Derivative Claims Based On Purchase, Gift Or Inheritance Also Fail

The Court further rejected the claims of appellants who asserted rights through purchase, gift, inheritance or other private arrangements entered into with original Taungya settlers.

The Bench held that no transferee could acquire a better title than that possessed by the transferor.

The Court observed: "Several appellants seek to distinguish themselves by asserting that although they may not be original Taungya settlers, they have acquired possession through purchase, gift, inheritance or other private arrangements from persons who allegedly held Taungya rights. Such derivative claims cannot be accepted for more than one reason. In the first place, no person can ordinarily transfer a better title than he himself possesses."

It further held that informal private arrangements could not create rights over reserve forest land.

The Bench observed: "Secondly, many of the documents relied on in support of such transfers are unregistered private arrangements or informal transactions, which, even otherwise, cannot operate to convey the rights in the reserve forest."

Inclusion Within A Gaon Panchayat Does Not Regularise Forest Encroachments

Rejecting another principal submission, the Court held that inclusion of forest villages within the territorial limits of a Gaon Panchayat under Section 5 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, did not amount to de-reservation or regularisation of reserve forest land.

Referring to the State's stand accepted by the Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek, the Bench observed: "Lawful occupation within Forest Village, in such areas notified, must be independently established through the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest Department or through rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and that unauthorised occupants within a Gaon Panchayat remain liable to be evicted in accordance with law. Such a procedural mechanism was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Khalek (supra) as conforming to the principles of fairness and due process."

The Court further held: "Even assuming that a notification under Section 5 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 was issued declaring Gaon Panchayat within territorial limits, which forms part of a reserve forest, such notification cannot either expressly or by implication amount to de-reservation, diversion or regularisation of forest land."

It also observed that any action recognising rights inconsistent with the protected status of reserve forest land would necessarily require prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The Bench concluded: "No such approval of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, is admittedly available in the present case."

Forest Rights Act Cannot Be Invoked As A Shield Against Eviction

The Court also rejected the appellants' reliance on the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

The Bench observed: "The said enactment does not create a general right in every person residing in or near the forest to continue in occupation thereof. Recognition of rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, operates within the statutory framework created by Parliament and only in favour of persons who satisfy the conditions prescribed therein."

Clarifying the scope of the legislation, the Court held: "The Act cannot be construed as authorising wholesale regularisation of encroachment or as impliedly overriding the safeguards embodied in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, unless rights are duly recognised in accordance with the procedure established under the Act, 2006. No person can invoke it as a shield against eviction from reserve forest land merely based on long occupation or inclusion within a Gaon Panchayat."

The Court found that none of the appellants had established eligibility under the Forest Rights Act.

The Bench observed: "No material has also been placed by the appellants to even remotely suggest that the appellants are forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and/or other traditional forest dwellers to satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Act, 2006."

Summarising its findings, the Court held:

"Mere residence within a forest area or inclusion of a settlement within a Gaon Panchayat is, therefore, insufficient to attract the protection of the Forest Rights Act. A claimant must establish that it falls within the categories recognised by the Act and that the statutory process culminating in recognition of such rights has been duly completed."

The Court ultimately concluded that the omission to separately discuss the Gaon Panchayat notifications in the speaking orders did not prejudice the appellants, as none of the materials relied upon conferred a legally enforceable right to continue occupying the reserve forest land.

Rehabilitation Cannot Defeat Conservation Obligations

The Division Bench acknowledged that several families had been residing in the forest villages for long periods and that their rehabilitation deserved consideration.

However, it held that humanitarian considerations could not override statutory obligations relating to the protection of reserved forests or the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court.

The Court clarified that eligible persons would remain entitled to seek rehabilitation strictly in accordance with applicable governmental schemes and policies, but such rehabilitation could not be treated as a legal defence against eviction from reserved forest land.

The Bench observed that forest conservation and ecological protection are constitutional obligations and that the State is under a continuing duty to preserve notified forests.

While recognising the hardship that eviction may cause, the Court held that sympathy cannot legalise occupation of land which continues to form part of a notified reserve forest under law.

The Court therefore declined to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.

Conclusion

Holding that the authorities had undertaken a comprehensive verification exercise by reading the original Gazette notifications together with boundary schedules, Survey of India records, georeferenced satellite imagery, DGPS verification and field inspection, the Gauhati High Court found no infirmity in the identification of the encroached lands as falling within the notified reserve forests.

The Court upheld the reliance placed upon GIS-based mapping as a scientific aid for implementing statutory notifications and held that the appellants had failed to produce any comparable technical or scientific material capable of displacing the official verification undertaken by the competent authorities.

Finding no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the appellants, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the eviction proceedings initiated against the Taungya settlers.

However, considering the approaching monsoon season and the practical difficulties that immediate eviction could cause, the Court extended the time for compliance by directing that the eviction process shall commence only after the expiry of 45 days from the date of the judgment. The Court also clarified that eligible occupants would be at liberty to seek rehabilitation under the applicable rehabilitation policies of the State Government, if otherwise entitled.

Cause Title: Abdul Khalek v. The State of Assam (Neutral Citation: GAHC010129002026)

Appearances

Appellants: A.R. Bhuyan, S. Laskar, R. Yasmin, N.A. Mazarbhuiya and M.A.I. Hussain, Advocates

Respondents: Advocate General, Assam; Standing Counsel, Forest Department; Standing Counsel, Revenue Department; and other counsel appearing for the State authorities, as recorded in the judgment.

Click here to read/download the Judgment