In an unusual expression of helplessness thursday, Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister sukhvinder singh sukhu say the state high court “does not listen to my govern” and said he may approachme.
Sukhu’s Complaint was regarding of the felling of Fruit-space Across Across Approximately 3,000 bighas-About 243 Hecthers-of “Encroached” Foret Land. On July 2, The High Court had directed State-Wide Removal of All Apple Trees and Orchards That Had Come Up on Forest Land.
The Himachal Government Triad Arguing That The Court Order Put At Risk Livelihood, escaically in a state that relies heavily on fruit production.
How big is the issue of encroachment of forest land in Himachal?
Himachal Predesh’s Forest Cover Spans from the shivalik foothills to the pir panjal ranges, totaling 37,033 sq km. As per an affidavit submitted to the national green tribunal (ngt) in February 2025 Himachal Chief Conservator of Forests, The ifs Office Sameer Sameer Rastogi, Theyer 1874 Cashes of ENCHEMENT 5689. Hectares of Forest Land Across the State.
The affidavit, which did not talk about the nature of the encroachments, Said 9,903 – or nearly halff – of the encroachments had been removed, reclaiming 3,097 hectare.
However, action against removal of encroachments has been sporadic at, and runs into resistance by local communities which has been doing profiting by using the land to Cultivate Fruit.
The onongoing clearing of encroached land stems from two complaints, filed back in 2014 and later converted into public interest liters (pils).
What did the high court say?
On July 2, a division bench of justice vivek singh thakur and bipin c negi cured that “fruit-bearing trees are not found species” and directed the fast department to plant nothing form deodar, and chir. after clearing the encroached area.
The division bench further said, “The needful be done at a war footing. The onongoing monsoon is a condom to plan for the cost of the cost of removal – Cutting, Removal of Stant and Plantation Species. From the encroachers. “
How are the farmers and activists reacted?
Many of the felled trees were three to four decades old, farmers have pointed out, with the yelds now without having just before harvesting.
“These trees were at their peak bearing stage. It takes 7 to 10 years for a new orchard to reachh this maturity,” says a chaithla-based orchardist, who stees over two bighas flated.
Noted horticulturist Deepak Singha, who has hailed the high court to evict the encroached Forest Land, caught that small fermenrs course the brunt of the drive. “Big farmers who have encroached hundreds of bighas of forest land have becomeed, but the small applices live hand to mouth.
Environment Activist Guman Singh Said He was “not in favor of cutting down any kind of tree, be it forest species or fruit species”.
Why is the government worried?
Himachal’s economy rests on apple farming to a large extent, with the fruit accounting for 49% of the total Area under fruit crops. Apples make up 85% of the State’s Fruit Economy, which is valued at around Rs 4,000 croore.
With harvest season only weeks away, the tree-off and the damage to their yields have left left apple farmers distressed.
According to State Government data, available in an affidavit submitted to the high court, “3,659 apple and other fruit-bearing trees had felled on encroached on encroached forth zuly 15”. This is inscribed land in chaithla (2,456 trees fell), Rohru (713) and kotgarh (490) – The three tows which which constitute the main region for apple cultivation in Himachal.
As the Sukhu Government Tries to Assess the overly impact of the drive on this search this season, the cpi (m) is mobilising the smaller farmers, who own lace than five bighas and whose land is in Among that cleared, in protest. Rakesh Singha, A Senior CPI (M) Leader and Formr MLA from Theog, has LED Multiple Meetings under Various Farmer Fronts.
While refraining from commenting directly on the high court order, the CPI (M) has accused the state government of not having a policy to protects of small fruit growers.
BJP MLA from Chopal (Shimla) and Party spokesperson balbir singh verma has said sukhu’s claim of going to the supreme court is “merely political”. He pointed out that in January 2025, The High Court hadfered the state to take possession of the fruit trees growing on encroached land. At the time, the government, through the advocate general, expressed its inability to do so, claiming that it is Forest and Revenue Departments was not in a position to manage or harvest without freedom.
This, verma argued, effectively paved the way for court-order felling.
The BJP Leader Said the Congress Government will have to pay a heavy price. The state is due to see panchayat elections next year.