Rehabilitation of Van Gujjar families around Rajaji is regularly described online in the passive voice, as though it were a settled programme with a known outcome. The public court record tells a different story: a sequence of interim orders in a public interest litigation, allegations attributed to named parties, directions carrying deadlines, and an unresolved internal contradiction about how many families are involved. This article reads those orders as documents. It is a legal-record explainer, not a community profile, not a field report, and not legal advice.
Orders read for this article, all from the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, all in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2019 and its tagged matters, and all checked on 22 October 2026: the order of 17 August 2020; the order of 17 March 2021; the order of 20 April 2021; the common order of 15 December 2021; and the office note of 27 August 2024. For clearly attributed historical context only, one open academic paper is cited near the end.
The case, and what kind of document each order is
The lead matter is Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2019, filed by the Think Act Rise Foundation through Arjun Kasana against the State of Uttarakhand and others. The orders on this list were passed with other petitions tagged alongside, and the tagging changes between dates. The 17 August 2020 order was heard with Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2012 by Himalayan Yuva Gramin Vikas, Writ Petition (MS) No. 2603 of 2019 by Van Adhikar Samiti Dudhala, and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 79 of 2020 by the Think Act Rise Foundation. The 15 December 2021 common order lists those, plus Writ Petition (PIL) No. 203 of 2020.
The character of these documents matters more than their headlines. An interim order records what a party told the court and what the court directed next. It is not a finding of fact. This article therefore treats every number inside an order as an attributed submission unless the court itself says otherwise, and it never converts a submission into a result. Our national park versus tiger reserve explainer covers the institutional terminology these orders move through, and our history and geography guide covers how the reserve took its present shape.
17 August 2020: a committee proposed, and no issues decided
Recording that on a prima facie consideration the rights of the van gujjars require to be considered appropriately, and that various allegations had been made against the state and its agencies regarding enrichment and other acts of commission and omission, the court expressly declined to go into any of the issues. It stated that it did not think such disputes as raised by the petitioners could be effectively considered in a writ petition, and it directed the learned Additional Advocate General to come out with a proposal for constituting a committee, covering its scope, the extent of inquiry it would conduct, and the period within which a report or a solution would be offered. This is the origin point of the committee process, and it contains no finding against any party.
17 March 2021: the committee is re-constituted, with six points
The order of 17 March 2021 records what followed. By an Office Memorandum dated 1 October 2020, the state constituted a committee consisting of the Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) as chairman, the Chief Wildlife Conservator as a member, the Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve as member secretary, a representative nominated by the Wildlife Institute of India, and a representative nominated by the World Wide Fund for Nature. Six questions were put to it: whether legal proceedings such as removal of encroachment can be stopped; whether FIRs can be withdrawn or recalled where due process was not followed; how to initiate proceedings to provide legal rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006; how to give compensation by following legal procedure for rehabilitation done in the past; conversion of that part of the forest land into a revenue village where the population resides; and inquiry into the steps taken by officers.
The petitioner, appearing party in person, submitted that the committee was an eyewash that had failed to delve into the areas it was meant to examine, and pointed to a letter of 15 February 2021 directing him to raise Forest Rights Act grievances before the District Magistrate and the Social Welfare Department. The court agreed that the constitution was not up to the mark for a body that had to deal with Forest Rights Act claims, noting the absence of the District Magistrate and the Principal Secretary of Social Welfare, and directed re-constitution to include the District Magistrate of the concerned districts, the Principal Secretary of Social Welfare, and the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority. The committee was directed to call the petitioner organisation and seek its views, to meet once every month, and to report within three months, with the case listed monthly to monitor progress. The same order recites an earlier direction of 3 September 2019 that Van Gujjars living within the Shyampur Range of the Haridwar Division of Rajaji National Park shall not be evicted except in strict compliance with Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
20 April 2021: an interim direction against dispossession
In the order of 20 April 2021, the petitioner informed the court that respondents had issued notices of dispossession to certain Van Gujjar families and had initiated the process of dispossessing them while the petition was sub judice. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the state gave an undertaking that he would speak to the concerned officers to ensure that families staying on their land for a number of years were not dispossessed from their home and hearth. He also informed the court, as the state position, that certain families were trying to encroach upon pristine forest land taking advantage of the order of 17 March 2021. The court directed the respondents not to dispossess the Van Gujjars who had been staying on their land for a number of years, while leaving the respondents free to act against alleged encroachment strictly in accordance with law, and directed that an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order come first, expressly taking the COVID-19 pandemic into account. The petitioner was directed to file an affidavit by 27 April 2021. Every element of that paragraph is attributed: the allegation is the petitioner, the undertaking and the counter-submission are the state, and the direction is the court.
15 December 2021: the numbers, and the contradiction inside them
The common order of 15 December 2021 is the densest document in this set, and the one most often flattened into a single statistic. It records, as the petitioner submissions, that the rehabilitation process for Rajaji National Park commenced in 1995 and continues, that 193 families had been rehabilitated, that 1,610 claims were filed in 2009, that approximately 400 claims were eligible for rehabilitation and had yet to be decided, that 229 claims had been found eligible by the government and had yet to be rehabilitated, and that approximately 179 families had been identified for rehabilitation with not a single step taken. For the Sona Nadi Wildlife Sanctuary it records the petitioner submission that land had been diverted for 181 families, that 157 had been granted land without land rights being ensured, that 24 families were left out, and that 84 families were informed no land was available and had been offered Rs 10.00 lakh per family in 2013, with not a single penny paid.
It also records the policy structure the petitioner described: a cut-off date of 31 March 1998, one acre of land and Rs 4.25 lakh for those ousted from reserved forest or protected areas, and, for those who had lived in the core zone of the tiger reserve and been ousted, an option under the National Tiger Conservation Authority rehabilitation policy between a cash payment stated as Rs 10.00 lakh and later enhanced to Rs 15.00 lakh, or relocation by the Forest Department with an upper cap of Rs 15.00 lakh per family. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) is recorded as informing the court that relocation includes a house, a parcel of agricultural land, implements or other incentives, and access to road and electricity, subject to that cap.
Then the contradiction. The order records the petitioner pointing out that in paragraph 18 of an affidavit by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment, it was stated that no family is living within the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, while a letter dated 18 November 2021 from the Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) stated that there are fifty-nine Van Gujjar families staying within the Tiger Reserve. The court recorded that contradiction, and it directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) to clarify the position whether any family is staying within the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, and to specify the time period required for rehabilitation of these 57 families. Fifty-nine and fifty-seven are both printed in this single order. Nothing located for this article resolves which figure is correct, whether both refer to the same set of families, or what the position is today. This article therefore states no current number of Van Gujjar families inside Rajaji Tiger Reserve, and states no current place of residence for any family.
The same order gave interim directions with deadlines. The Forest Department was directed to identify the 179 families and prepare a Detailed Project Report within two months, to be implemented and completed within one year of that report, covering houses, land for agriculture, implements, roads, electricity, water, sewage, a primary health care centre, primary schools, a veterinary hospital, a milk collection point, distribution points, a petrol pump and fair price shops. The government was directed to ensure payment of Rs 10.00 lakh per family to the 84 Sona Nadi families within three months of a certified copy, with liberty to file a contempt petition if unpaid. Land rights were directed to be granted to the 157 families within six months, and the cases of the 24 left-out families were directed to be examined with a view to granting land on the same terms. Within two weeks, the government was directed to ascertain the fodder requirement per family and supply sufficient fodder and veterinary facilities pending rehabilitation. Those are 2021 directions carrying time limits. This article does not report them as implemented, because nothing located shows implementation.
27 August 2024: petitions admitted
The last order located for this article is the office note of 27 August 2024 on WPPIL No. 140 of 2019, WPMS No. 2603 of 2019, WPPIL No. 79 of 2020 and WPPIL No. 203 of 2020, before the Chief Justice and another judge of that court. It then states that all the writ petitions are admitted, and directs that these matters be listed for hearing in the month of April 2025. No later order was located in the public sources checked on 22 October 2026. That is a limit on this search, and nothing more: this article does not say the matter is pending, does not say it is delayed, and does not say it has been decided.
What none of these documents establish
They do not establish that the allegations are true. They do not establish that any direction has been complied with. They do not establish a present count of families, a present place of residence, or a present condition of life for any Van Gujjar family around this reserve. They do not speak about Govind Pashu Vihar or any other protected area, which appears nowhere in the orders read here. And they do not license a general statement about what Van Gujjars as a group experience, because the orders concern petitions, parties and directions, not a community portrait. Our community conservation article covers the villages around the reserve in general terms, and it does not substitute for the record above.
Historical context, attributed to its author
For background only, one open-access academic paper is worth naming. Raghav Srivastava, then at the Yale School of the Environment, published The making of pastoralisms: An account of the Gaddis and Van Gujjars in the Indian Himalaya in the journal Pastoralism on 24 October 2022. Writing about the Gujjars in that paper, Srivastava states that their tension with this modern form of conservation began in 1983, when the Uttar Pradesh Government notified its intent to create Rajaji National Park, for which purpose the Van Gujjars would be evicted from their winter camps, attributing that account to Gooch in 2009. That is a scholar citing a researcher, and it is not a finding of the High Court, not a statement about any current eviction, and not a description of how any Van Gujjar family lives today. Van Gujjars are not a single story, and nothing on this page should be read as generalising their experience. Our ranges and map guide covers where the Shyampur and other named ranges sit within the reserve those orders discuss.
How to read a rehabilitation number you find online
Four checks cover most of what circulates. Ask which document it came from, and whether that document is an order, an affidavit, a submission by a party, or a finding. Ask for the date, because a 2021 figure is a 2021 figure. Ask whether the source distinguishes Rajaji from Sona Nadi, because the 15 December 2021 order does and most summaries do not. And ask whether the number survives the 59 versus 57 problem, which most do not. If you want the same discipline applied to wildlife numbers at this reserve, our research and monitoring article applies it to tiger and elephant estimates, and our myths and facts page applies it to safari claims. For the reservation side of any visit, our safari booking guide covers how permits actually work.
Van Gujjars and Rajaji court record questions answered
What case is this article about?
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2019 in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, filed by the Think Act Rise Foundation through Arjun Kasana against the State of Uttarakhand and others. The orders read here were passed with related matters tagged, including Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2012, Writ Petition (MS) No. 2603 of 2019, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 79 of 2020 and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 203 of 2020. This article explains what those orders say on their face. It is not legal advice, it is not a report from the field, and it does not describe the circumstances of any individual family.
How many Van Gujjar families are living inside Rajaji Tiger Reserve?
The court record does not settle that number, and this article does not give one. In the order of 15 December 2021, the petitioner submitted that an affidavit by the Deputy Secretary of the Forest and Environment department stated in paragraph 18 that no family is living within the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, while a letter of 18 November 2021 from the Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve stated that there are fifty-nine Van Gujjar families staying within the Tiger Reserve. The court recorded that contradiction and asked the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) to clarify. The same order then refers, in a later paragraph, to rehabilitation of these 57 families. The 59 and the 57 are both printed in that single order, and nothing located for this article resolves which is correct. This article reports the inconsistency rather than picking a number.
Has the court finally decided the rehabilitation claims?
No final decision appears in the orders located for this article. The last order located is the office note of 27 August 2024 on WPPIL No. 140 of 2019 with the related petitions, which records that all the writ petitions are admitted and directs that the matters be listed for hearing in the month of April 2025. No later order was located in the public sources checked on 22 October 2026. That is a limit on this search, not a statement that the case is pending, delayed or decided.
What did the court actually order about compensation and rehabilitation?
The order of 15 December 2021 gave interim directions with deadlines. The Forest Department was directed to identify 179 families and prepare a Detailed Project Report for their rehabilitation within two months, covering houses, land for agriculture, roads, electricity, water, sewage, primary health care, primary schools, veterinary facilities, milk collection and fair price shops, to be implemented and completed within one year of the report. The government was directed to pay Rs 10.00 lakh per family to 84 families connected with the Sona Nadi Wildlife Sanctuary within three months of a certified copy. Land rights were directed to be granted to 157 families within six months, and the cases of 24 left-out families were directed to be examined. Fodder and veterinary support were ordered within two weeks. These were directions with time limits in 2021, and this article does not report them as implemented.
Is this article a profile of the Van Gujjar community?
No. It is a reading of court orders. For clearly attributed historical context, one open academic paper is cited here: Raghav Srivastava, writing in the journal Pastoralism and published on 24 October 2022, states that for the Gujjars their tension with this modern form of conservation began in 1983, when the Uttar Pradesh Government notified its intent to create Rajaji National Park, and he attributes that account to Gooch in 2009. That is one scholar citing an earlier researcher, not a finding of the High Court. Individual Van Gujjar experiences vary, and nothing here should be read as describing how any particular family lives today.