The Supreme Court has overturned a Himachal Pradesh High Court directive to remove fruit-bearing apple orchards from forest land, providing crucial relief to small farmers. The apex court has also directed the state government to prepare a proposal to aid marginal and landless cultivators. Farmers' groups have hailed the ruling as a vindication of their demands for land regularization.
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order that mandated the eviction of apple orchards established on what was deemed encroached forest land. This ruling came amid ongoing hearings on eviction drives and the potential felling of trees, which had sparked widespread anxiety among orchard owners in the state.
The court's intervention offers major respite to small and marginal farmers who depend heavily on apple cultivation for their income. Organizations such as the Himachal Kisan Sabha and various apple growers' associations have expressed gratitude for the verdict, viewing it as support for their push to regularize land holdings of up to five bighas. These groups argue that such plots are vital for the economic survival of families in the apple-dependent regions of Himachal Pradesh.
Dr Kuldeep Singh Tanwar, president of the Kisan Sabha, emphasized the broader implications, stating, “The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes that the issue is not merely a legal dispute, but a socio-economic one. The destruction of fruit-bearing apple trees effectively amounts to taking away farmers’ only means of livelihood.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has instructed the Himachal Pradesh government to develop a proposal for the central government, aimed at assisting marginalized sections and landless individuals. This directive underscores the judiciary's recognition of the welfare state's role in safeguarding livelihoods over punitive measures.
Apple growers have long portrayed their orchards not just as crops, but as embodiments of years of toil and future prospects for their communities. The decision reinforces that land use tied to sustenance should not criminalize farmers, and persistent advocacy can lead to equitable outcomes.