SC Stay on tree felling not enough, focus must shift to farmer rights: Himdhara
Old photo. Used for indicative purpose only
Shimla, July 30,
The recent Supreme Court stay on the felling of apple trees on forest lands has offered only a temporary reprieve to orchardists in Himachal Pradesh, but left the core issue of farmer evictions unresolved. Environmental advocacy group Himdhara Collective has raised serious concerns over the state’s handling of the matter, warning that relying solely on ecological arguments in the SLP may prove counterproductive and undermine the rights of small and marginal farmers.
On July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order to fell apple trees planted on forest lands classified as “encroachments.” The petitioners contended that the felling during the monsoon posed ecological and economic threats. However, Himdhara argues that the real crisis is the continued eviction of long-standing orchardists and the structural injustice in labelling their land as “encroached.”
“These lands have been cultivated for decades, and in many cases, such use was either permitted or incentivised by the state,” Himdhara said in a statement. They highlighted that the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006—meant to secure tenure for forest dwellers including tribal and small farmers—remains poorly implemented in the state. The group criticised the July High Court order, which reversed a 2019 protection extended to small farmers, and pointed to the state’s failure to defend these interests in court.
The collective noted that Himachal has historically recognised customary land rights, such as nautor and shamlat usage, documented in local records like Wajib-ul-arz. However, following blanket notifications and the expansion of forest lands post-1952, many legitimate claims were overridden.
“The state government, while publicising the FRA over the past six months, failed to facilitate proper claim filing and due process before eviction began,” the statement added. It accused the Advocate General of ignoring ground realities and painting orchardists as re-occupiers, without acknowledging the state’s role in denying legal recourse.
Himdhara warned that building the SLP on ecological grounds—such as whether apple trees qualify as forest species—could backfire, especially if government-affiliated institutions counter such claims. “This is not just about defending trees, but about safeguarding livelihoods and land relationships,” the statement asserted.
The group urged the state to shift focus from court battles to policy clarity, and to urgently implement FRA provisions to protect vulnerable communities from further displacemen
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
