Disposed¶8

Gulbasiya and 10 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026WRIC/10276/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court WRIT - C 10276 of 2026 (decided March 19, 2026; Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan, JJ.): forest dwellers facing eviction from reserved forest land; Rule 8 procedure under the 2008 Forest Rights Rules mandatory before dispossession; time-bound direction to Collector, Sonbhadra (three months) to decide pending applications; interim stay of coercive eviction for four months or until disposal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with directions: any proceedings against the petitioners shall follow Rule 8 of the 2008 Rules; the Collector to decide the pending applications in accordance with law within three months of production of certified copy; no coercive eviction until disposal of the application or four months, whichever is earlier. ¶8

Gulbasiya and 10 Others vs Union of India and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, claiming protection as forest dwellers under the 2006 Act, could be dispossessed or evicted from land claimed as reserved forest otherwise than by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the 2008 Rules. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

If the petitioners belong to scheduled tribes and are in possession of land which they believe to be tribal land though it falls in reserved forest area, proceedings against them shall be undertaken only by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules, 2008.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The Collector concerned shall pass appropriate order upon the petitioners' pending application in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶7

Key takeaways

Until disposal of the application or for a period of four months, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners to evict them from the land in question.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Forest dwellers — Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — petitioners claiming to be forest dwellers on land claimed by forest authorities as reserved forest; their applications pending before Collector, Sonbhadra. Held: where petitioners belong to scheduled tribes and possess land under the impression it is tribal land though it falls in reserved forest area, proceedings of dispossession/eviction can be undertaken only by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2008, ensuring compliance with the Forest Act, 2006 and Regulations framed thereunder. Collector directed to pass appropriate order on the pending applications in accordance with law within a maximum of three months from production of certified copy. Interim protection: no coercive action to evict the petitioners until disposal of the application or for four months, whichever is earlier.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10276 of 2026

¶3

Gulbasiya And 10 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Union Of India And 3 Others	.....Responde
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Satish Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Pradeep Singh

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Court No. - 2

¶8

HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶10

Petitioners claim to be forest dwellers upon a piece of land which the respondent-forest authorities claimed to be its own land.

¶11

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are protected under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. It is submitted that no action of dispossession/ throwing them out of the land claiming to be reserved for forest area, could have been taken except by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2008.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioners application are still pending consideration before the Collector Sonbhadra, who may be directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, in our considered view, if the petitioners belong to scheduled tribes and are having possession of some land under the impression that it is a tribal land though the land falls in reserved forest area, proceedings shall be undertaken against them only by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of Rules, 2008; and while Collector would examine the application of the petitioners, he will ensure also that the procedure prescribed under the Forest Act, 2006 and Regulations

¶14

WRIC No. 10276 of 2026

¶15

¶16

framed thereunder are fully complied with.

¶17

The Collector concerned shall be passing appropriate order upon the pending application of the petitioners in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶18

Until such disposal of the application or for the period of four months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners to evict them from the land in question.

¶19

(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

¶20

March 19, 2026

¶21

piyush

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulbasiya and 10 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulbasiya and 10 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S J.J. Construction Company and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Asha Ram and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Urban and Others

Sudha Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others

Kamal Singh vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Pradip Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others