SC Halts Apple Tree Felling, But Orchardists’ Evictions Still Loom: Himdhara Collective Calls Out State for Ignoring Forest Rights
Shimla | 30 July 2025
Even as the Supreme Court on July 28 put a temporary stay on a Himachal Pradesh High Court order directing the felling of apple trees on “encroached” forest land, the Himdhara Environment Collective has slammed the state government for what it calls “gross apathy” and “systematic denial” of rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
The Collective, in a detailed statement today, said the court's stay may have paused the chainsaws, but it failed to address the deeper injustice — the very eviction of orchardists whose families have cultivated these lands for decades.
“This is not just about saving trees, it’s about saving people’s livelihoods, their history, and rightful claim to land under FRA,” said Himdhara.
“The label of ‘encroachment’ is being arbitrarily applied, and the government is avoiding the due process mandated under law.”
State Flouting Due Process, Says Collective
The Himdhara Collective argued that many so-called "encroachments" in Himachal stem from historic land-use practices, including community lands once documented in traditional revenue records like the Wajib-ul-arz. “Without settling these claims under FRA, labeling such land as encroached is unjust,” said the group.
It pointed to traditional rights like nautor and shamlat cultivation, which were often permitted or even incentivised by the government in the past.
However, after the 1952 notification, vast stretches of land—including common panchayat lands—were unilaterally declared as forests without settling rights of cultivators.
“The forest bureaucracy continues to wield unchecked power, with no transparency or accountability,” Himdhara said.
Government’s Role Under Fire
The Collective also called out the State Advocate General (AG), accusing him of ignoring facts while presenting the government’s case. In the July 2, 14, and 16 court hearings, the AG told the court the forest department was struggling to manage these trees and feared re-occupation.
But according to Himdhara, “The AG failed to tell the court that the state has itself been campaigning to implement FRA over the past six months. Shouldn’t people be allowed to file their claims first?”
The group said it was “shocking” that after failing to protect orchardists in the High Court, the state was now talking about filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court.
“This smacks of eyewash. Where was the government’s robust legal defence when it was most needed?” it asked.
Ecological Argument May Backfire
While acknowledging that the petitioners have rightfully brought public attention to the ecological risks of felling fruit trees during monsoon, Himdhara cautioned against relying solely on environmental grounds.
Ì“An eco-centric argument can reinforce the state’s narrative that these are illegal occupants. Also, some state-affiliated agencies don’t even consider apple trees as forest species—as was reflected in the July 2 High Court order.”
“What if these same agencies contest the ecological value of apple orchards in the Supreme Court?” Himdhara warned, adding, “This legal framing is fragile and could backfire.”
Demand for Accountability
Himdhara said the crisis cannot be addressed through judicial intervention alone.
“Legislative inaction is equally responsible. The state government must be held accountable for denying forest rights and failing to follow due process. It must stop evicting people without verifying their legal claims under FRA.”
The Supreme Court's temporary stay might have bought time for orchardists, but the larger fight for forest rights, land justice, and proper legal recognition continues to rage in Himachal’s hills.
For updates, visit: www.himbumail.com
