JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.403/2024 and Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 133(AP)/2024, WP(C)134(AP)/2024, WP(C) 135(AP)/2024, WP(C) 136(AP)/2024, WP(C) 137(AP)/2024, WP(C) 138(AP)/2024, WP(C)139(AP)/2024, WP(C) 140(AP)/2024, WP(C) 141(AP)/2024, WP(C)142(AP)/2024, WP(C)143(AP)/2024 & WP(C) 144(AP)/2024. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents; Mr. M. Kato, learned DySGI for respondent Union of India and Mr. A. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Oil India Limited. 2. Aggrieved by the eviction notices, dated 13.03.2024, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO in short), Nampong Forest Division, Jairampur, District Changlang, whereby, the petitioners have been directed to vacate the encroached Reserved Forest land, failing which, they will be evicted from the Reserved Forest area and the cultivation area will be confiscated or demolished as well as no compensation for the loss of such property will be given to the unauthorized occupants, these applications are instituted by the petitioners assailing the individual notices of eviction and have prayed for land compensation. 3. As the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar on facts and law, these writ petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. In WP(C) 403 of 2024, the petitioners, 8 (eight) in numbers, who claims to be settled at Muddoknong village @ Moddaka Nallah around the year 1966 under Diyun Circle, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh, are aggrieved by the eviction proceedings by the State respondents and claims for compensation. 5. In WP(C) 133(AP)/2024, WP(C)134(AP)/2024, WP(C) 135(AP)/2024, WP(C) 136(AP)/2024, WP(C) 137(AP)/2024, WP(C) 138(AP)/2024, WP(C)139(AP)/2024, WP(C) 140(AP)/2024, WP(C) 141(AP)/2024, WP(C)142(AP)/2024, WP(C)143(AP)/2024 & WP(C) 144(AP)/2024, the petitioners who claims to be settled in the Sompoi-II village, are also aggrieved by the impugned eviction notices dated 13.03.2024, issued by the DFO, Nampong Forest Division, Jairampur and have prayed for land compensation. 6. 5. In WP(C) 133(AP)/2024, WP(C)134(AP)/2024, WP(C) 135(AP)/2024, WP(C) 136(AP)/2024, WP(C) 137(AP)/2024, WP(C) 138(AP)/2024, WP(C)139(AP)/2024, WP(C) 140(AP)/2024, WP(C) 141(AP)/2024, WP(C)142(AP)/2024, WP(C)143(AP)/2024 & WP(C) 144(AP)/2024, the petitioners who claims to be settled in the Sompoi-II village, are also aggrieved by the impugned eviction notices dated 13.03.2024, issued by the DFO, Nampong Forest Division, Jairampur and have prayed for land compensation. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the impending eviction orders to pave way for the “Oil and Gas Drilling and Exploration Project” by M/s Oil India Limited, they approached the Chakma Development Foundation of India (CDFI), an NGO based in New Delhi, on which a complaint was filed before the National Human Rights Commission (in short NHRC) and same was registered as NRC Case No. 6/2/4/2022, seeking compensation under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (in short, the LARR Act, 2013) in respect of Sompoi-II and Moddoknong villages. The NHRC disposed of the case vide order, dated 31.08.2022, providing that “no forceful eviction to be made without paying compensation to the affected persons”. It is contended that instead of complying with the order of the NHRC, the respondent authorities issued the impugned eviction notices, dated 13.03.2024 against the petitioners for violation of Section 25(d)(e) and (f) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, under Rule 3(3)(ii) of The Arunachal Pradesh Forest (Ejectment of Unauthorised Persons from Reserved Forest) Rules, 2013, (in short the Ejectment Rules, 2013) which is in clear violation of the order of the NHRC. 7. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question from where the petitioners are sought to be evicted are recognised villages. The petitioners have settled at the Muddoknong village @ Moddaka Nallah in an around 1966 under Diyun Circle, Changlang District of Arunachal Pradesh and the village was renamed vide notification dated 31.08.2006 by the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, it is clear that it is Government recognised villages and since the villages are recognised by the government in which the petitioners are settled since many decades, no notices of eviction could have been issued to the petitioners. Therefore, the issuance of impugned notices is without jurisdiction. 8. Mr. Therefore, it is clear that it is Government recognised villages and since the villages are recognised by the government in which the petitioners are settled since many decades, no notices of eviction could have been issued to the petitioners. Therefore, the issuance of impugned notices is without jurisdiction. 8. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel, while referring to the Section 3(c)(i) of the LARR Act, 2013, submits that “affected family” is defined being a family whose land or other immovable property has been acquired. Therefore, he submits that assuming without admitting that even if it is a forest area, no forceful eviction could be done without compensating the affected families as they still have right to compensation under the LARR Act, 2013. He submits that it is only for the onshore of Oil and Gas exploration and development and drilling and production in Ningru Oil and Gas Field in the district of Changlang and Namsai, including the villages of the petitioners, the impugned eviction notices have been issued in order to protect the Oil India Limited and whenever, any entity undertakes such project, the Forest Department claims the affected areas as forest land and thereby, initiates illegal eviction proceedings. 9. Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel, submits that in fact, pursuant to the order of the NHRC, the respondent authorities have started discussion with the petitioners to resolve the issue for payment of compensation. However, without bringing the proceedings initiated to its logical conclusion and in total defiance of the order of NHRC, the impugned eviction orders have been issued illegally. The petitioners are only seeking enforcement of statutory right under the law, which has also been recognised by NHRC vide order, dated 31.08.2022, wherein, it is provided that no forceful eviction to be made without paying compensation to the affected persons. Therefore, he submits that the impugned eviction notices being illegal, the same may be set aside and quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to pay compensation of the land that is proposed to be given to the M/s Oil India Limited for Oil Drilling and Exploration, in accordance with the law. 10. Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners in the other batch of writ petitions above, while endorsing the submissions made by Mr. 10. Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners in the other batch of writ petitions above, while endorsing the submissions made by Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel submits that on the Show Cause Notices issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioners have submitted their replies clearly stating that the petitioners are in possession and occupation of the land since the time Sompoi village came into existence. The Sompoi-II village is a settled and surveyed village, which is supported by the Cadastral Map with Dag numbers against each plot of land as per occupation and possession of the land by the administration. He submits that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bordumsa, vide letter, dated 07.12.2021, addressed to the DFO, Jairampur, while informing about approval for diversion of 7.11 hectares of Forest Land for Oil Drilling location at Sompoi-II village and Mudakha Nallah villages, informed that a joint survey was conducted comprising of Officials from the Forest Department, Oil India Limited and Administration and found that people have occupied Sompoi-II area and have full grown Areca Nuts and Tea Plantation and requested for eviction process after following due process of law. 11. He submits that the land from which the petitioners are sought to be evicted is a Government recognised village, allegedly covered under the Government Notification, dated 29.11.1982, declaring the Anchal Reserve Forest, notified much after the Chitha Register for Surveyed Village, which was done in the year 1979. If the area is covered by the Notification, dated 29.11.1982, the same was notified without following the due process of law and the consent of the villagers of the Sompoi village was not taken. Therefore, the impugned eviction notices are liable to be set aside and quashed. 12. Mr. Deori, learned counsel, questioning the jurisdiction of DFO in issuing the impugned notices, submits that since the land in question has been diverted for Oil Drilling and Exploration, same would not remain as the Forest Land. Therefore, the DFO is not a competent authority to issue eviction notice and the Ejection Rules, 2013 would no longer be applicable. 13. E converso, Mr. Therefore, the DFO is not a competent authority to issue eviction notice and the Ejection Rules, 2013 would no longer be applicable. 13. E converso, Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents, submits that the Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest was officially established vide Notification, dated 29.11.1982, which is approximately 42 (Forty-Two) years back by following the statutory regulations and the procedural requirements under the law, which has been subsequently encroached upon by the petitioners illegally. As the legal status of the land remains unaltered and stands as the Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest, the petitioners are bound to vacate the land and cannot claim any right over the land. 14. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, countering the submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners, with regard to the competence of DFO in issuing notice under the Ejection Rules, 2013, submits that although the land has been diverted but the same continued to be under the Reserved Forest. Moreso, there is no challenge to the notification declaring the Anchal Reserve Forest in the year 1982. Therefore, the DFO is the competent authority. 15. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General submits that there exists no authoritative documentation substantiating the scale or precise location of the purported settlement area. Consequently, the petitioners' claim asserting the establishment of Sompoi-II Village since 1970, purportedly as a Surveyed Village, lacks substantiation and are deemed misleading and unsubstantiated, being founded solely, on conjecture devoid of factual basis. As a result, the petitioners' replies to the Show Cause Notice issued by the authority, asserting authority over the encroached land, were rejected, leading to the consequential issuance of eviction notices. Moreover, it is imperative to assess the applicability of Section 7 of the Bengal Easter Frontier Regulation (BEFR) Act, 1873 by competent authorities before conferring land right to any individuals within the jurisdiction of Arunachal Pradesh. Upon receipt of notification regarding the encroachment issue, prompt measures were undertaken by the respondent authorities to initiate the eviction process in accordance with the Ejectment Rules, 2013. Hence, he vehemently refutes any claim suggesting lack of intervention from the Forest Department. 16. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the area in question was lawfully established as the Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest after settling all the claims, if any, of the people. Hence, he vehemently refutes any claim suggesting lack of intervention from the Forest Department. 16. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the area in question was lawfully established as the Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest after settling all the claims, if any, of the people. The petitioners are encroachers and have no legal claim on the land whatsoever. Further, both the Show Cause Notices dated 31.03.2022 and the Eviction Notices dated 13.03.2024, were issued in accordance with the provisions delineated within the Ejectment Rules, 2013. Any claims suggesting the existence of a Chitha Register or the purported status of Sompoi-II as a Surveyed Village, lacks substantiation and merit. 17. Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the illegal encroachment area against which eviction notices were issued, does not fall within the village jurisdiction of Moddakha Nallah and Sumpoi-II villages. In the contrary, the land in question is far away from the villages. The illegal encroachers, i.e. the petitioners, are inhabitants of Moddakha Nallah and Sumpoi-II villages and they have encroached upon forest land under Diyun Reserve Forest, which has been legally notified vide Govt. Notification No. FOR.120/68, dated 22.09.1962. The land in question is a freshly encroached forest land and does not come under recognised village area. Any commission of such illegality as under the refuge of human rights may set up a bad precedence and is misleading. He submits that the area in question, falls under the jurisdiction of the Diyun Reserved Forest, the DFO is the competent authority empowered to initiate proceedings for the eviction of individuals engaged in unauthorised occupation of land within the Reserved Forest and to issue orders directing the vacation of such unauthorised occupation. 18. Mr. A. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Oil India Limited, submits that Oil & Gas drilling activities can be carried out only after obtaining Environment Clearance from Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. Accordingly, OIL has obtained the Environment Clearance for the Ningru block on 07.01.2020. Mr. Sarma submits that OIL has proposed to drill at location KUL which falls in the notified Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest (ARF) and in order to carry out any drilling activities in forest land, Forest Clearance under relevant provisions of law has to be obtained. Accordingly, OIL has obtained the Environment Clearance for the Ningru block on 07.01.2020. Mr. Sarma submits that OIL has proposed to drill at location KUL which falls in the notified Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest (ARF) and in order to carry out any drilling activities in forest land, Forest Clearance under relevant provisions of law has to be obtained. Accordingly, OIL has obtained Forest Clearance for the location KUP & KUL on 25.02.2021. 19. Mr. A. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, submits that after obtaining Forest Clearance, OIL has requested Forest Department, Arunachal Pradesh to handover the said land for drilling purpose. As the forest land is under encroachment, Forest Department has issued eviction notice to illegal encroachers so that forest land can be handed over to OIL for carrying out drilling operations. The land described in the instant Writ Petitions is a forest land which is diverted in favour of OIL by the Forest department/MoEF&CC for non-forestry purposes (Oil & Gas drilling activities) by following relevant law. 20. Mr. A. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, submits that M/s OIL is in time constrain and the project is of national importance. The said land is a forest land and as such, there is no involvement of land acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013. Therefore, the petitioners have no merit to claim for any compensation and to hinder the project which is of national importance and beneficial for the people of the State of Arunachal Pradesh at large. 21. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also, perused the materials available on record. 22. The petitioners are the inhabitants of Muddoknong village @ Moddaka Nallah and Sumpoi-II villages under Diyun Circle, Changlang District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. They are aggrieved by the eviction notices dated 13.03.2024, issued by the DFO, Nampong Forest Division, Jairampur, Changlang, whereby, the petitioners have been directed to vacate the encroached Reserved Forest land, failing which, they will be evicted from the Reserved Forest area and the cultivation area will be confiscated or demolished and no compensation for the loss of such property will be given to the unauthorized occupants. 23. The land measuring 11913 Hectares, was declared and legally constituted as Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest vide Govt. notification dated 29.11.1982 in accordance with the statutory regulations and the procedural requirements under the law. 23. The land measuring 11913 Hectares, was declared and legally constituted as Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest vide Govt. notification dated 29.11.1982 in accordance with the statutory regulations and the procedural requirements under the law. It appears that many villages including the petitioners’ villages have been established within the notified Anchal Reserve Forest. There appears to be rampant encroachment upon the notified Reserved Forest area. As the legal status of the land remains unaltered and stands as the Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest as on date, no person would have claim any right over the said land and the encroachers must vacate the land. 24. It is seen that M/s Oil India Limited has proposed to drill at location KUL which falls in the notified Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest and as the drilling activities in forest land requires Forest Clearance from Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), same has been obtained for the Ningru block on 07.01.2020 and for the location KUP & KUL on 25.02.2021. Thereafter, on the request of the M/s Oil India Limited for handing over the said land for drilling activities and the area being under encroachment, Forest Department has issued eviction notices to illegal encroachers so that forest land can be handed over for carrying out drilling operations. The land in question is a forest land which is diverted in favour of Oil India Limited for non-forestry purposes i.e. Oil & Gas drilling activities. 25. Record reveals that on the request of Oil India Limited, the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Geology & Mining Department, vide letter dated 04.05.2018 has re-grant Petroleum Mining Lease under Rule 5 (1) (ii) read with Rule 12 of the Petroleum & Natural Gas Rules' 1959 for an area of 427.058 sq.km falling under Changlang & Namsai Districts to OIL for production of Crude Oil & Natural Gas for a period of 20 (twenty) years. Thereafter, on 16.01.2025, the Secretary (Geology & Mining), Government of Arunachal Pradesh send a correspondence to the Additional Principal CCF (Cons) & NO (FCA), Department of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Arunachal Pradesh, seeking clarification as to whether the status report of CCF (Chief Conservator of Forest), Southern Arunachal Circle, can be considered as permission under Forest Conservation Act towards re-allocation of the modified Ningru PML (Petroleum Mining Lease) area measuring 432.00 Sq. Km and grant of Ningru extension PML (Petroleum Mining Lease) with modified area measuring 61.90 Sq. Km to OIL and also to accord the necessary clearance/permission for re-allocation of Ningru PML (Petroleum Mining Lease), with modified area in favour of M/s Oil India Limited. From the above, it reveals that the land in question is a forest land and therefore, there is no requirement of acquisition proceedings under the LARR Act, 2013. Thus, question of compensation does not arise. 26. Claims to be aggrieved of the action of respondent authorities, the petitioners approached the Chakma Development Foundation of India (CDFI), on which a complaint was filed before the NHRC essentially claiming compensation under the LARR Act, 2013 in respect of Sompoi-II and Moddoknong villages. The NHRC disposed of the case vide order, dated 31.08.2022, which is reproduced herein under:- “Proceeding: The complainant has drawn attention of the Commission towards alleged forcible eviction of the Chakma's and Deori's, from Mudokka Nallah and Sompoi-II villages under Diyun Circle of Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh for the "Onshore Oil and Gas exploration and development and drilling and production in Ningru Oil and Gas field in districts of Changlang and Namsai for Ningru PML Block (Arunachal Pradesh) by M/S Oil India Ltd" without paying fair compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As per the complainant, such forcible eviction is clear violation of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of National Human Rights Commission vs State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr dated 9th January, 1996 [1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1 ) 742]. He has requested intervention of the Commission in the matter. Pursuant to the direction of the Commission, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Govt. of India vide communication dated 08.03.2022 submits action taken report in the matter. It is submitted in the report that OIL had applied for diversion of forest land for drilling location KUP and KUL under Ningur PML area, Nampong Forest Division, Jairampur in Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh. OIL has obtained forest clearance for diversion of the proposed forest land and has written letter dated 05.04.2021 to DFO, Nampong Forest Division Jairampur to hand over the land to OIL for carrying out the drilling operation. OIL has obtained forest clearance for diversion of the proposed forest land and has written letter dated 05.04.2021 to DFO, Nampong Forest Division Jairampur to hand over the land to OIL for carrying out the drilling operation. However, till date the handing over the land has not been done as a result OIL has not taken possession of the forestland. It is submitted that no activity has started till date in the area and hence there was no case of any forceful eviction without paying compensation. The Commission vide its proceeding dtd 27.04.2022, considered the report which revealed that till date possession of proposed forest land has not been handed over to the OIL, hence, there is no question arises of any forceful eviction without paying compensation by the OIL and asked for comments of the complainant, if any on the report dated 08.03.2022, within four weeks. In response, the complainant has furnished his detailed comments vide his letter dtd 18.05.2022. Complainant has alleged that the report dtd 08.03.2022, submitted by Under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Govt. is outdated and not based on current facts at the ground. The 13 families of Modokkonallah @ Moddoknong village who have been issued notification by the Forest department and the EAC, Diyun are "project affected families" as per section 3(c) of LARR Act and the state government in connivance with the Oil India Ltd Company are attempting to evict the project affected Chakma families without paying fair compensation and rehabilitation as requires under the LARR Act. In view of reply of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that no forceful eviction to be made without paying compensation to the affected persons. Action be taken in accordance with law. The complainant, if dissatisfied, with action taken is free to take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings. The case is closed with aforesaid direction.” 27. Perusal of the above order of the NHRC, shows that the Commission, having found that the possession of proposed forest land has not been handed over to the M/s Oil India Limited, has observed that question of any forceful eviction without paying compensation did not arise and in view of reply of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that no forceful eviction to be made without paying compensation to the affected persons and action be taken in accordance with law. In my view, there is no mandate to pay compensation and since the land in question is admittedly declared Reserve Forest land, the encroachers over the said land would not be entitled for any compensation. 28. The respondent authorities through the DFO, have initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners under the Ejectment Rules, 2013, the relevant provisions are quoted herein under: “3. Ejectment of unauthorized persons from Reserve Forest: 1. Subject to the provisions of Scheduled tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forests Rights) Act, 2006 as amended from time to time, and rules framed thereunder, the Divisional Forest Officer shall be competent to eject any person who has entered into unauthorized occupation of land in Reserved Forest or order him to vacate such unauthorized occupation forthwith. 2. (i) If the Divisional Forest Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorized occupation of land in a Reserved Forest should be evicted, the Divisional Forest Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned that is to say, all persons who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in such parcel of land, to show cause why an order of ejectment should not be made. (ii) The notice shall: (a) Specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in such parcel of land the Reserved Forest. (i) To show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof; and (ii) To appear before the Divisional Forest Officer on the date specified in the notice, along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired. (iii) The Divisional Forest Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the parcel of the land in the Reserved Forests, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (iii) The Divisional Forest Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the parcel of the land in the Reserved Forests, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (iv) where the Divisional Forest Officer knows or has reasons to believe that any person is in occupation of land in the Reserved Forests then without prejudice to the provisions of sub- clause (iii), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as many be prescribed. 3.(i) If the Divisional Forest Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorized occupation of land in a Reserved Forest should be evicted, the Divisional Forest Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned that is to say, all persons who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in such parcel of land, to show cause why an order of ejectment should not be made. (ii) if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of ejectment on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of its publication under sub- rule (i) of Rule 3 whichever is later, the Divisional Forest Officer or any other Officer duly authorized by the Divisional Forest Officer on his behalf may eject that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and, may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. (4) No civil court shall exercise jurisdiction in any mater provided for by these rules made in accordance with the provisions of section 72 (c) of the Assam Regulation, 1891. (5) When any person is ejected under clause (i) of sub- rule(3) or ordered to vacate the land under his unauthorized occupation, the Divisional Forest Officer may sell, confiscate or destroy any crops raised, building or construction erected on the land in Reserved Forests without authority.” 29. (5) When any person is ejected under clause (i) of sub- rule(3) or ordered to vacate the land under his unauthorized occupation, the Divisional Forest Officer may sell, confiscate or destroy any crops raised, building or construction erected on the land in Reserved Forests without authority.” 29. Bare reading of the above provisions amply shows that if the Divisional Forest Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorized occupation of land in a Reserved Forest should be evicted, the Divisional Forest Officer shall issue a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in such parcel of land, to show cause why an order of ejectment should not be made. Upon cause (s) shown and considered, if the Divisional Forest Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorized occupation of land in a Reserved Forest should be evicted, the Divisional Forest Officer shall issue a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned who are or may be in occupation of, or claim interest in such parcel of land, to show cause why an order of ejectment should not be made. Thereafter, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of ejectment on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of its publication, the Divisional Forest Officer or any other Officer duly authorized by the Divisional Forest Officer on his behalf may eject that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and, may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Thus, the DFO is the competent authority to initiate eviction proceedings against any person who has encroached upon the Reserve Forest Land by following the due procedure prescribed above. 30. The DFO, has issued eviction notices individually against the petitioners who are found to be illegal occupants and encroachers of the Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest. One of the impugned Eviction Notices dated 13.03.2024, is reproduced herein under: “GOVT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NAMPONG FOREST DIVISION: JAIRAMPUR Eviction Notice Whereas, a show cause notice was served to Sri Anantalal Chakma vide memo No. NFD/IND/05/2022/6988-94Dtd. One of the impugned Eviction Notices dated 13.03.2024, is reproduced herein under: “GOVT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NAMPONG FOREST DIVISION: JAIRAMPUR Eviction Notice Whereas, a show cause notice was served to Sri Anantalal Chakma vide memo No. NFD/IND/05/2022/6988-94Dtd. 31/03/2022 for violation of section 25 (d) (e) and (f) of Assam Forest Regulation 1891 (Regulation 7 of 1891) as adopted by the state of Arunachal Pradesh, and under rule3 (2) (f) of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest (Ejectment of unauthorized persons from Reserved Forest) Rule, 2013. Whereas, the representation claiming the authority of your occupation vide your representation letter No. NIL Dtd. 13/04/2022 is not accepted by the undersigned as per provision given under rule 3(2) (f) of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest (Ejection of unauthorized persons from Reserved Forest) Rules 2013. Whereas, eviction notice was also served to Sri Anantalal Chakma vide memo No. NFD/IND/05/2022/9215-23 Dtd.06/01/2023 for violation of section 25 (d) (e) and (f) of Assam Forest Regulation 1891 (Regulation 7 of 1891) as adopted by the state of Arunachal Pradesh, and under rule3 (3) (ii) of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest (Ejectment of unauthorized from Reserved Forest) Rule, 2013. Whereas, Sri Anantalal Chakma has encroached upon the Diyun RF In Lower Modakha Nallah land covered under the Govt. Notification No FOR 120/68/Dtd. 22 Sept 1962 and the forest land is used for cultivation purpose without acquiring forest land clearance from the concerned authorities and herein after violated the Govt. Notification order No. FOR.67/PRO/2012 Dtd.24/01/2013 which attracts section 25(d)(e) and (f) of Assam Forest regulation Act of 1891. The said encroachment made by Sri Anantalal Chakma is without the explicit approval from the Govt. of India. Therefore, I Shri D. Lendo, Divisional Forest Officer, Nampong Forest Division Jairampur in exercise of powers conferred under Arunachal Pradesh Forest (Ejectment of unauthorized persons from Reserved Forest) Rules, 2013 and section 72(c) of Assam Forest Regulation Act of 1891, order Sri Anantalal Chakma to vacate the encroached reserved forest land within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of issue of the notice, falling which he/she will be evicted from the reserve forest area and the cultivation area will be confiscated or demolished. No compensation for the loss of such property will be given to un- authorized occupants. Sd/- Divisional Forest Officer Nampong Forest Division Jairapur”. 31. No compensation for the loss of such property will be given to un- authorized occupants. Sd/- Divisional Forest Officer Nampong Forest Division Jairapur”. 31. Perusal of the impugned notices clearly reflects that Show Cause Notices were issued to the petitioners for violation of Section 25(d)(e) and (f) of Assam Forest Regulation as required under Rule 3(3)(ii) of the Ejectment Rule, 2013 and upon consideration of the cause shown, the petitioners have been found to be encroached upon the Diyun Reserve Forest land and the forest land is used for cultivation purpose without acquiring forest land clearance from the concerned authorities which attracts Section 25(d)(e) and (f) of Assam Forest Regulation Act of 1891. Accordingly, the impugned eviction notices have been issued by the DFO, a competent authority as prescribed under the law. Thus, I find no illegality in issuance of eviction notices to the petitioners as the petitioners have encroached upon the Reserve Forest land including the land legally diverted for non forest activities. 32. Regard being had to the competency in issuing the impugned notices of eviction by the Forest Authority, to the effect that since the land has already been diverted, it would no longer be within the jurisdiction of the Forest Department, I find that although, the land has been diverted for no forestry activities, the status of land shall not change as the same will remain as forest land as per the provisions of law. Therefore, the DFO has the authority and jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices of eviction under the Ejection Rules, 2013 and as such the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is considered for rejection. 33. Having considered the materials, this Court finds that admittedly, the land in question falls within the Diyun Anchal Reserve Forest area and the area diverted for non forest purposes, i.e. Oil & Gas drilling activities, does not fall in the settled recognised villages of the petitioners, but falls outside the villages and the petitioners have encroached upon the land. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation and they are bound to vacate the land as the petitioners have been legally issued the impugned eviction notices after following the due procedure of law and there is no question of forcible eviction. 34. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation and they are bound to vacate the land as the petitioners have been legally issued the impugned eviction notices after following the due procedure of law and there is no question of forcible eviction. 34. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in issuance of eviction notices by the respondent authorities against the petitioners as the respondent authorities have followed the due procedure of law. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 35. Writ petitions are consequently, dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to cost(s).