Shimla, July 24,
The Himachal Pradesh government has approached the Supreme Court seeking an urgent stay on the ongoing felling of apple and other fruit-bearing trees in the state. The plea, filed amid rising concerns from orchardists and horticulture stakeholders, comes in response to a Himachal Pradesh High Court directive ordering removal of encroachments from forest land across the state, including longstanding orchards. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi will represent the state in the matter, and is expected to argue that a blanket implementation of the court’s order is leading to large-scale destruction of economically vital horticultural plantations, without giving affected farmers a fair hearing.
Take Free HimachalScape Subscription Complete this form
Choose Your Membership
The High Court, in its recent order, had directed the forest department to remove all encroachments on forest land, stating that such action should not be confined to Chaithla, Rohru, and Kotgarh alone but extended across Himachal Pradesh. It was reported that in Chaithla division alone, 2,456 apple trees were felled, while 713 and 490 trees were cut in Rohru and Kotgarh respectively. The court had pulled up the administration for failing to act for decades and had asked the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to submit weekly reports. The court also hinted that those responsible for allowing such illegalities, including officials and orchardists, may be held accountable.
However, the state government has argued that while unlawful encroachments cannot be defended, indiscriminate felling of orchards—many of which are the only source of livelihood for small and marginal farmers—is causing irreparable harm. Officials have indicated that many such plantations, although technically falling within forest land, have been cultivated for decades and in some cases are protected under land regularization schemes. There is fear that ongoing action could escalate into widespread unrest in apple-growing regions, which are already under economic strain due to erratic weather, poor crop yields, and rising input costs.
The state’s petition to the Supreme Court seeks temporary relief in the form of a stay on further tree felling until a more nuanced and balanced approach can be evolved. Sources close to the legal team say that Singhvi will argue for a case-by-case assessment to distinguish between recent encroachments and historically cultivated orchards. The plea is likely to highlight the disproportionate impact of the High Court order on Himachal’s horticulture-based economy and stress the need to align forest protection laws with livelihood realities.
This case could set a precedent not just for Himachal but for other hill states facing similar dilemmas where communities are caught between ecological mandates and subsistence farming. For now, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it takes up the matter, which could redefine how judicial activism balances environment and economy in ecologically fragile regions.
