NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Uttarakhand govt for being a silent spectator for two decades to rampant encroachment of forest land in Rishikesh, which was allotted in 1950 to Gandhian Mira Behn by the then UP govt, and said it smacked of nexus between the executive and squatters. The court also sought details of such illegal constructions.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the facts of this case, prima facie, show how private individuals systematically grabbed thousands of acres of forest land while the state govt remained in slumber from 2000 till 2023.Uttarakhand’s deputy advocate general Jatinder Kumar Sethi informed the court that the state had recovered around 500 acres of forest land from encroachers in 2023 and an additional 50 acres in the drive carried out in the last three days at Rishikesh. He said the state would continue the drive against encroachers.However, the bench said the way squatters enjoyed residential rights unauthorisedly over vast tracts of forest land for more than two decades indicated collusion among politicians, bureaucrats and encroachers. It asked the state to file a detailed affidavit describing the extent of encroachment, nature of constructions and the officers who were at the helm of affairs between 2000-2023 for protection of govt land in the area.Of the 2,866 acres of land notified as forest area by the state, a part was leased to Pashulok Sewa Samiti, which was an organization associated with Pashulok Ashram established by British born Mira Behn (Madeleine Slade). The society came under liquidation and surrendered 594 acres of land to the forest department on Oct 23, 1984. Yet certain private individuals took control of the land.The bench in its previous order had said, “What seems shocking to us is that the State of Uttarakhand and its authorities are sitting as silent spectators when the forest land was being systematically grabbed in front of their eyes.” It enlarged the scope of the petition and directed the state’s chief secretary and principal chief conservator of forest to constitute an inquiry committee to examine all issues and submit a report to SC.“Meanwhile, all private individuals are restrained from alienating the land, encumbering it or creating any third-party rights. It goes without saying that no construction activity shall be allowed to take place either. The vacant land (other than the residential houses) shall be taken into possession by the forest department and the collector concerned,” the bench had ordered on Dec 22 last year.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos‘Really Happy For Others’: SC Rejects Umar Khalid’S Bail; Partner Shares His Reaction“Trump’s Interest Is Clear”: Ex-Diplomat Slams Venezuela ActionCPI-M Protests Near Us Consulate In Chennai Over Venezuela AttackBJP Welcomes SC Denial Of Bail To Umar Khalid And Sharjeel Imam; Opposition Calls It Unfortunate”US Has No Jurisdiction in Venezuela” Ex-UN Envoy Dilip Sinha Slams US Action In VenezuelaAfter T20 World Cup Move, Bangladesh Now Bans IPL 2026 Broadcast Amid Mustafizur Rahman RowSC Rejects Bail Plea Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam; Grants Bail To 5 Others In Delhi Riots CaseRajnath Singh Commissions ICG’s Pollution Control Vessel ‘Samudra Pratap’, Hails Make-In-IndiaShashi Tharoor, Manish Tewari & Salman Khurshid Raise Concerns Over US Attack In Venezuela’Whole Of Jammu And Kashmir Should Be Reunited With India’: British MP Bob Blackman123PhotostoriesBirthday special: Best songs of Diljit DosanjhAR Rahman birthday special: From ‘Chaiyya Chaiyya’ to ‘Chaka Chak’ — his best Bollywood songs5 powerful money lessons from Morgan Housel’s bestselling book ‘The Psychology of Money’Chef Sanjeev Kapoor shares comforting flavours of Gujarat that are worth trying this winterDeepika Padukone birthday special: From Denmark roots to Bollywood stardom4 foods that may help slow down ageingHeart health: The big 3 heart numbers to know, as per Harvard experts7 legendary Indian scientists and their contributionsHow to make Paneer Bread Pakoda for evening snacking5 foods that steadily cause hair loss without you knowing about it123Hot PicksUS strikes VenezuelaVande Bharat Sleeper TrainPublic holidays January 2026Gold rate todayUmar Khalid BailCigarette tax hikeBank Holidays JanuaryTop TrendingSan Francisco 49ersCardi BQuinn HughesKyle TuckerSidney Crosby LifestyleTyrese Haliburton and Jade Jones Net WorthKevin StefanskiChicago Bulls vs Boston CelticsJohn PyleKevin Durant vs LeBron James Net Worth
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Uttarakhand govt for being a silent spectator for two decades to rampant encroachment of forest land in Rishikesh, which was allotted in 1950 to Gandhian Mira Behn by the then UP govt, and said it smacked of nexus between the executive and squatters. The court also sought details of such illegal constructions.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the facts of this case, prima facie, show how private individuals systematically grabbed thousands of acres of forest land while the state govt remained in slumber from 2000 till 2023.Uttarakhand’s deputy advocate general Jatinder Kumar Sethi informed the court that the state had recovered around 500 acres of forest land from encroachers in 2023 and an additional 50 acres in the drive carried out in the last three days at Rishikesh. He said the state would continue the drive against encroachers.However, the bench said the way squatters enjoyed residential rights unauthorisedly over vast tracts of forest land for more than two decades indicated collusion among politicians, bureaucrats and encroachers. It asked the state to file a detailed affidavit describing the extent of encroachment, nature of constructions and the officers who were at the helm of affairs between 2000-2023 for protection of govt land in the area.Of the 2,866 acres of land notified as forest area by the state, a part was leased to Pashulok Sewa Samiti, which was an organization associated with Pashulok Ashram established by British born Mira Behn (Madeleine Slade). The society came under liquidation and surrendered 594 acres of land to the forest department on Oct 23, 1984. Yet certain private individuals took control of the land.The bench in its previous order had said, “What seems shocking to us is that the State of Uttarakhand and its authorities are sitting as silent spectators when the forest land was being systematically grabbed in front of their eyes.” It enlarged the scope of the petition and directed the state’s chief secretary and principal chief conservator of forest to constitute an inquiry committee to examine all issues and submit a report to SC.“Meanwhile, all private individuals are restrained from alienating the land, encumbering it or creating any third-party rights. It goes without saying that no construction activity shall be allowed to take place either. The vacant land (other than the residential houses) shall be taken into possession by the forest department and the collector concerned,” the bench had ordered on Dec 22 last year.
