No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2025 INSC 754 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN RE: ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS
I.A. NO.12465 OF 2019
WITH
I.A. NO. 98194 OF 2019
[Application for permission to file Additional Documents
in I.A. No.12465 of 2019]
I.A. NO. 127871 OF 2020
[Application for Intervention in I.A. No.12465 of 2019]
WITH
I.A. NO. 127874 OF 2020
[Application for Directions in I.A. No.12465 of 2019]
WITH
I.A. NO. 44602 OF 2025
[CEC REPORT NO. 08 OF 2025 IN I.A. NO.12465 OF
2019]
WITH
I.A. NOS. 66986 AND 74569 OF 2025
[Applications for permission to file Additional Documents
in I.A. No.127871 of 2020]
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
2
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …APPLICANT
PRASAD KHALE …INTERVEN OR/APPLICANT
INDEX
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 3
II. SUBMISSIONS ......................................................................... 5
III. FACTUAL POSITION ............................................................. 7
a. Meaning of the term Zudpi ................................................... 7
b. Forest Conservation Act, 1980 ........................................... 12
c. Steps taken by the State Government ................................ 13
(i) Government Order dated 6
th November 1987 ................... 13
(ii) Mahajan Committee and Joshi Committee ................... 16
(iii) Expert Committee ........................................................ 18
d. HPC constituted by the Central Government ...................... 20
e. Remedial measures by Central and State Government ........ 26
f. IAs concerning Zudpi Jungle .............................................. 30
(i) IA No.176 of 1997 ........................................................... 30
(ii) IA No.12465 of 2019 .................................................... 31
g. Recommendations in the 2025 CEC Report ........................ 35
IV. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION .............................................. 39
V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .................................................. 39
a. Locus of the intervenor in IA No.127871 of 2020 ............... 39
b. Efforts taken by CEC .......................................................... 46
c. Consequences of not accepting recommendations of CEC .. 47
d. Social and Economic Justice .............................................. 48
e. Inter-relationship between DPSP and Fundamental Rights . 55
f. Case Laws on clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39...................... 62
g. Right to Shelter ................................................................. 68
h. Right to Livelihood ............................................................ 74
i. Sustainable Development ................................................... 77
j. Effect of CEC’s recommendations ...................................... 81
VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 90
3
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This batch of applications involves a peculiar issue
concerning the situation prevailing in the six districts of
Eastern Vidarbha Region namely Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara,
Gondia, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli. The issue pertains to the
status of the parcels of lands known as Zudpi Jungle or Zudpi
Forest in the aforesaid districts of State of Maharashtra.
2. The State of Maharashtra has approached this Court
stating that though these lands have been recorded in the
revenue records as Zudpi Forest lands, however, taking into
consideration the historical perspective, it is clear that these
lands are not forest lands and that for the past several decades
these lands have been put to various non-forestry purpose like
residential, agricultural, government offices, public schools,
primary health centres etc. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, State of Maharashtra accordingly has filed
certain IAs being IA No.12465 of 2019 and IA No.98194 of
2019. The prayers in the first of the two IAs are thus:
4
“(a) Issue the directions that the 86409 ha. Zudpi
land, unfit for Forestry Management does not come
under the purview of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
and also does not attract the provisions of orders of
12.12.1996 issued by this Hon’ble Court in the
present Writ Petition AND in light of the submissions
made above, this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased
to issue directions that the directions in order dated
13.11.2000 in Writ Petition No. 337/1995 are also
not applicable in respect of 86409 ha. Zudpi land,
unfit for Forestry Management in the State of
Maharashtra;
(b) Pass such other or further orders as may be
deemed fit and proper.”
3. One Mr. Prasad Khale has filed IA No.127871 of 2020
seeking intervention. Further, IA No.127874 of 2020 has been
filed by the said intervenor seeking the following reliefs:
“a. Direct the State of Maharashtra to initiate
departmental enquiry against the errant officers of
the Forest Department and Revenue Department
who have violated the provisions of the Forest
Conservation) Act, 1980 by permitting Zudpi lands to
be diverted for non-forest use and for allowing
encroachments in the said areas.
b. Direct the State of Maharashtra to undertake
necessary measures to restore the zudpi lands to its
original condition, in cases where such lands have
been illegally diverted without following the
procedure laid down as per law.”
4. This Court, by its earlier orders, had directed the Central
Empowered Committee (hereinafter, “CEC”) constituted under
the orders of this Court, to submit its report.
5
5. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, two
reports have been submitted by the CEC being CEC Report
No.29 of 2019 dated 22
nd October 2019 (hereinafter referred to
as “2019 CEC Report”) and CEC Report No.8 of 2025 dated
17
th February 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “2025 CEC
Report”). We will refer to the orders passed by this Court and
the aforesaid reports submitted by the CEC in the subsequent
paragraphs of this judgment.
6. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus
curiae, Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State and Smt. Madhavi Divan,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor.
II. SUBMISSIONS
7. Shri Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae has placed
before us the entire factual scenario and the recommendations
of the CEC as contained in both the reports. He submits that
this Court after taking into consideration the entire factual
scenario and the historical background should pass an
appropriate order that balances the concerns with regard to
protection of forests and also the interests of lakhs of citizens
6
who would be affected by the orders passed by this Court in
the present proceedings.
8. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submits that the said Zudpi lands were
never forest lands. However, on account of reorganization of
States and inaction of certain bureaucrats, the revenue
records were not corrected and as such, the lands continued
to be recorded as Zudpi Forest lands erroneously. He submits
that, inter alia, government offices, public schools, colleges,
hospitals are constructed on these lands. He submits that if
the prayers sought by the State are not granted, it will cause
grave and irreparable damage to lakhs of citizens residing in
these six districts of the Eastern Vidarbha Region in the State
of Maharashtra.
9. Smt. Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the intervenor submits that the 2025 CEC Report has failed
to address various ecological concerns specifically with regard
to wildlife and flora and fauna. She submits that the said
Report of the CEC does not state that in the said Zudpi lands
there is no wildlife. She submits that Zudpi lands are a
representation of the transitional stage in ecological evolution.
7
She further submits that the “Scrub Forests” have an
individual status and therefore they cannot be permitted to be
used for non-forestry activities. She further submits if
denotification of Zudpi Forest lands will be allowed, it will lead
to healthy forests being degraded so that they can also be
de-notified in the future. She further submits that there are
various discrepancies in the 2025 CEC Report when compared
with the 2019 CEC Report.
III. FACTUAL POSITION
a. Meaning of the term Zudpi
10. For considering the rival submissions, it will be
appropriate to refer to the meaning of Zudpi Jungle, its history
and usage.
11. As can be seen from the Report of the Committee for
suggesting changes required in simplified procedure for
diversion of Zudpi Jungle Land under Forest Conservation Act,
1980 titled as “Resolving Zudpi Jungle Land Issue : A
Development Perspective” chaired by the Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur, “Zudpi” is a Marathi word which
literally means Bushes/Shrubs. Zudpi lands means inferior
type of unoccupied lands with bushy growth. The term Zudpi
8
Jungle has been in vogue over several decades and was used
for all such wastelands which were not occupied by individual
farmers for cultivation and other purposes. These lands
consist of very low Murmadi soil (arid soil with gravel and soft
stones) where tree growth was not possible. These lands had
very poor potential of vegetative growth since the soil strata
did not support root systems of trees. Such Murmadi soil
supported mostly bushes and shrubs only. According to the
said Report, in a nutshell, Zudpi was what forest was not.
These lands were traditionally grazing lands and called as
Gairan/Gurcharan/E-Class land as per Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “MLR Code,
1966”) in other parts of Maharashtra.
12. As has been stated in the said Report, the Zudpi Jungle
land issue is an issue very peculiar to the six districts of
Eastern Vidarbha viz., the Nagpur Division which w ere
erstwhile part of Central Provinces i.e., Nagpur, Wardha,
Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli. The Central
Provinces was a province of British India which covered
present day Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh a nd Vidarbha
Region of Maharashtra with Nagpur as its capital.
9
13. It will further be relevant to note that the word Zudpi
Jungle was first used under the Central Province Settlement
Code, 1889 (hereinafter referred to as “1889 Code”). The said
term was used in the revenue records (Settlement Khasra)
during the last round of the revision settlements which took
place in the Ex Central Province Districts during 1912-1917.
The said term of Settlement was for a period of 30 years. As
such, the next round of Settlement was to be undertaken
between 1942-1947. However, the said round of Settlement
could not take place due to the Second World War and was
also not undertaken post 1947 when India became
independent.
14. The Central Province Grazing and Nistar Act, 1948
(hereinafter referred to as “Nistar Act, 1948”) defined the term
“Scrub Jungle”. The said Act was enacted to regulate the rights
of grazing and Nistar within the area of any estates in the
Central Provinces. The relevant provisions of the said Act are
thus:
“2. Definitions.-
(m) “right of nistar” means right to cut, gather or
otherwise appropriate any jungle produce for
domestic purposes and not for sale.
10
(n) “Scrub Jungle” means forest growth of four years
or less
3. Right of grazing and nistar – (1) The right of a
resident of a village in respect of grazing of cattle and
collection of jungle produce shall be regulated in
accordance with the provisions made by or under
this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall affect any
custom or any entry in the village administration
paper relating to grazing or collection of jungle
produce, which is not inconsistent with any express
provision of this Act.”
15. It can thus be seen that clause (m) of Section 2 of the
Nistar Act, 1948 defines “right of nistar” to mean right to cut,
gather or otherwise appropriate any jungle produce for
domestic purposes and not for sale. Clause (n) of Section 2 of
the said Act defines “Scrub Jungle” to mean forest growth of
four years or less. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act
provides that the right of a resident of a village in respect of
grazing of cattle and collection of jungle produce shall be
regulated in accordance with the provisions made by or under
the said Act. However, sub-section (2) thereof provides that
nothing contained in the said Act shall affect any custom or
any entry in the village administration paper relating to
grazing or collection of jungle produce, which is not
inconsistent with any express provision of the said Act.
11
16. It will also be relevant to note that the term Zudpi Jungle
or Scrub Jungle was also used in Vidarbha after Nistar rights
were settled and incorporated in the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “MPLR Code,
1954”).
17. After abolition of Malguzari System in 1951, the State of
Madhya Pradesh appointed Nistar Officers for all the Talukas.
It was decided that the suitable areas out of the waste land
belonging to former Malguzari/Zamindari would be
transferred to the Forest Department for the purpose of fodder
and fuel. The abovementioned Nistar Officers after inspection
of their respective Talukas, classified the lands in 2 categories:
(1) Zudpi Jungle meaning land with bushes and shrubs and
(2) Mothe Zadancha Jungle meaning forest containing big
trees.
18. It will be pertinent to note that for years the Zudpi lands
vested with the Revenue Department were used by the State
Government for development of basic amenities for villages like
schools, primary health centres, laying of water supply
pipeline or electrical poles, burial grounds, etc. These lands
were also allowed to be used by the State Government for
12
Central Government’s various projects like construction of
railway stations, post offices, telegraph offices etc. The said
lands were also used for various irrigation projects.
19. The area of these six districts after the reorganization of
States which took place on 1
st November 1956 became part of
the State of Maharashtra. However, the scheme of preparation
of record of rights was taken up for this area only in 1974.
b. Forest Conservation Act, 1980
20. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred
to as “FC Act, 1980”) came into force on 25
th October 1980. It
will be relevant to refer to Section 2 of the said Act, as it stood
then, which reads thus:
“2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or
use of forest land for non-forest purpose -
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force in a State, no State
Government or other authority shall make, except
with the prior approval of the Central Government,
any order directing-
(i) that any reserved forest (within the
meaning of the expression "reserved
forest" in any law for the time being in
force in that State) or any portion thereof,
shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be used for any non-forest
purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be assigned by way of lease or
otherwise to any private person or to any
13
authority, corporation, agency or any
other organisation not owned, managed or
controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be cleared of trees which have
grown naturally in that land or portion, for
the purpose of using it for reafforestation.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "non-
forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of
any forest land or portion thereof for -
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices,
rubber, palms, oil -bearing plants,
horticultural crops or medicinal plants;
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation,
but does not include any work relating or ancillary to
conservation, development and management of
forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of
check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and
construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams,
waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks,
pipelines or other like purposes.”
21. It can thus be seen that after the FC Act, 1980 came into
effect, no State Government or any other authority except with
the prior approval of the Central Government could have
de-reserved the reserved forest land or permitted use of any
forest land for non-forestry purpose. So also without the prior
approval of the Central Government, no trees could be cleared
from forest or any portion thereof.
c. Steps taken by the State Government
(i) Government Order dated 6
th November 1987
22. Faced with the peculiar problem arising out of the
14
aforesaid situation, the State of Maharashtra took up the issue
with the Central Government. The issue was discussed with
the Union Minister for Forests.
23. As an outcome of the discussion, the State of
Maharashtra issued a Government Order dated 6
th November
1987. It will be relevant to refer to the following part of the said
Government Order:
“…In this connection, the Union Minister for Forests
had studied this question during his discussions
with the Hon. Chief Minister and the concerned
senior officials of the State and Central Governments.
It was suggested at this meeting called by the Central
Government that the aforesaid lands in the 5
districts of Vidarbha classified as “Scrub forests” will
not attract the provisions of the Forest (Conservation)
Act 1980, provided that these lands out of the private
forest lands under possession of the Rev enue
Department in 1950, were classified as “Scrub
Forests” and the Dy. Commissioner/Dist. Collector
had, after consultations with the Zonal Forests
Officers in regard to the legal status of these lands,
decided to hand over these lands to the Revenue
Department for afforestation, grazing, etc, and the
lands had remained in possession of the Revenue
Department at the time of settlement operation…”
24. Perusal of the aforesaid Government Order would reveal
that the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Union Minister for
Forests and the concerned Senior Officers of the Central and
the State Government had discussed the issue pertaining to
Zudpi lands. In the said meeting, it was suggested that the
15
aforesaid lands which were “Scrub Forests” would not attract
the provisions of the FC Act, 1980. However, for this, it was
necessary that the said lands were classified as “Scrub
Forests” and the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector had,
after consultations with the Zonal Forests Officers in regard to
the legal status of these lands, decided to hand over these
lands to the Revenue Department for afforestation, grazing,
etc., and that the lands had remained in possession of the
Revenue Department at the time of settlement operation.
25. The said Government Order dated 6
th November 1987
came to be challenged by Bombay Environmental Action
Group and one other before the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench by filing a Writ Petition being WP No.
2840 of 1988.
26. When the said Writ Petition was pending, it appears that
the Government of India changed its earlier stand and issued
a notification dated 12
th February 1992 clarifying therein that
the Zudpi Jungle in revenue records would continue to be
treated as “Forest Lands” under the FC Act, 1980. However,
by the said notification, the Central Government also provided
that the land which was a part of the Zudpi Jungle and which
16
was also used for certain non-forestry purpose (for example
land used for Gaothan, land falling in Nagpur City used for
urban buildings etc.) but for which the corresponding
mutation entries had not been made in the revenue records,
specific proposals would be sent by the State Government for
approval of the Central Government under the FC Act, 1980.
27. It appears that in view of the stand taken by the Union of
India in its notification dated 12
th February 1992, the
Government of Maharashtra vide Resolution dated 17
th March
1994 withdrew its earlier Government Order dated 6
th
November 1987.
(ii) Mahajan Committee and Joshi Committee
28. To address the challenges arising out of the said
situation, the Government of Maharashtra appointed a
Committee known as the “Mahajan Committee”. The said
Committee after studying the village records found that out of
the 9,23,913 hectares of Zudpi Jungle lands, an extent of
6,55,619 hectares had already been notified as “Forest” during
the period 1955-56 to 1959 as protected/reserved forest under
the provisions of the Indian Forest Act 1927. It, therefore,
found that only 2,68,293 hectares of land remained as Zudpi
17
Jungle land. Another committee known as “Joshi Committee”
was also appointed to provide a possible solution to the
problem of Zudpi Jungle.
29. In the meanwhile, this Court, in the present proceedings,
vide an order dated 12
th December 1996
1 defined the term
“Forest” as under:
“4. ….The word “forest must be understood
according to its dictionary meaning. This
description covers all statutorily recognised
forests, whether designated as reserved,
protected or otherwise for the purpose of Sec 2(i)
of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest
land”, occurring in the Section 2, will not only
include “forest” as understood in the dictionary
sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the
Government record irrespective of the ownership.
This is how it has to be understood for the
purpose of the Section 2 of the Act. The
provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation
Act 1980 for the conservation of forests and the
matters connected therewith must apply clearly
to all forests so understood irrespective of the
ownership or classification thereof…
5. We further direct as under:
1. In view of the meaning of the word
“forest” in the Act, it is obvious that
prior approval of the Central
Government is required for any non
forest activity within the area of any
“forest”. In accordance with Section 2
of the Act, all on-going activity within
any forest in any State throughout the
country, without the prior approval of
the Central Government, must cease
1
(1997) 2 SCC 267 : 1996 INSC 1477
18
forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the
running of saw mills of any kind including
veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any
mineral are non-forest purposes and are,
therefore, not permissible without prior
approval of the Central Government….”
[Emphasis supplied]
(iii) Expert Committee
30. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court,
the State of Maharashtra constituted an Expert Committee
comprising of the following:
1. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Maharashtra State
Chairman
2. Chief Conservator of Forests
(Conservator), Maharashtra State
Member
3. Director, Social Forestry, Maharashtra
State
Member
4. Settlement Commissioner and Director
of Land Records, Pune
Member
5. Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Revenue
and Forests Department
Member
6. Representative of Private Company
indulging in raising of plantation of
tree species
Member
7. Representative of the NGO, Fr.
Krispino Lobo of Indo -German
Watershed Development Programme,
Ahmednagar
Member
8. Nodal Officer in the o/o of the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests
Member –
Secretary
31. The Expert Committee submitted its report and on the
basis of the said report, an affidavit came to be filed by the
19
State of Maharashtra before this Court on 20
th August 1997.
In the said affidavit, three categories were made i.e., (i) forest;
(ii) areas which were earlier forest which degraded, denuded or
cleared; (iii) areas covered by plantation of trees belonging to
government and those belonging to private persons. Further,
the details of the areas identified in all the three categories
including areas which could be construed as forests were
stated. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant part of the
said affidavit which reads thus:
“Even as we are seeking to include areas covered by
the dictionary meaning of the word ‘forest’, in the
areas already notified as forests 2680 sq.km of Zudpi
lands are also included. In these, there are vast
stretches which have no attributes of forest. The
Government of Maharashtra has been persistently
requesting the Union Government to exclude such
areas from the application of the Forest
(Conservation) Act 1980. It is prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may issue suitable directions to the
Union Government for exclusion of such Zudpi areas
from the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act
1980.”
32. It can thus be seen that the said affidavit shows that in
the areas already notified as forests, 2680 sq. km of Zudpi
lands were also included. The affidavit stated that there were
vast stretches which had no attributes of forest. Further, the
Government of Maharashtra had been persistently requesting
20
the Union Government to exclude such areas from the
application of the FC Act, 1980. The Government of
Maharashtra thus prayed that this Court issues suitable
directions to the Union of India for exclusion of such Zudpi
areas from the purview of the FC Act, 1980.
d. HPC constituted by the Central Government
33. To address these problems, the Government of India vide
notification dated 21
st September 1998 constituted a High
Powered Committee (hereinafter, “HPC”). It will be relevant to
refer to the following observations of the said HPC:
“Though the term “Zudpi” has not been defined
specifically in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
it is in use in Vidarbha area of the ex -Madhya
Pradesh State since 1954 -55 indicating the
classification of land owned by and normally covered
by scrub (bush growth) and not by big trees. The
meaning is obvious since ‘Zudpi’, a Marathi word,
means bushy growth in inferior type of lands on
unoccupied lands in a village.
In fact the term “Zudpi Jungle” in common
parlance over the years has come to be used for all
such wastelands, as were not occupied by the
individuals for cultivation and other purposes.
Actually these lands are of very low murmadi soil
where tree is not possible or the tree growth is very
low like scrub jungle and hence these land were
knows as scrub jungle and grazing lands in English
terminology.”
21
34. It will also be apposite to refer to the analysis and the
recommendations made by the HPC which read thus:
“Analysis by the HPC
High Powered Committee (hereinafter referred as
HPC) constituted by Government of India vide its
notification No.4B-87/FC (pt.) dated 21/9/98 held 4
meetings: Nagpur (11/12/1998), Delhi (8/1/1999,
19/2/1999, and)
HPC examined the reports of the two Committees
mentioned in paragraph in details and the survey work
of Zudpi Jungle area undertaken by Government of
Maharashtra during 1993-94.
Its observations are as follows:
(i) Application of the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act 1980 to Zudpi Jungle has given
a severe jolt to the cultivators and villagers in
Vidarbha in meeting their communal and day to day
needs.
It was felt by the HPC that Zudpi Jungle lands
cater to the communal and day to day needs of
villagers and were complimentary to agriculture,
dairy, cottage & small-scale industries in the
villages. This was in consonance with the
developmental policies of the Government which
emphasized that the villagers should not be
required to go outside their villages for their needs
of fodder, firewood, minor minerals, clay, murrum,
boulders, wood etc.
However the sodden interpretation covering
these communal village lands under the Forest
(Conservation) Act 1980 adversely affected the
cultivators and the villagers in the 5 districts of
Vidarbha Area where Forest Department started
refusing permission for non forest uses of these
lands which were guaranteed by the Government
since 1954-55 under the Nistar Patraks framed
under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,
1955 and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
22
Unfortunately, the legal provisions already in
force guaranteeing rights of grazing, firewood,
minor minerals, etc. to cultivators and landless
labours from “Zudpi Jungle” lands in the vicinity of
the villages has been unceremoniously withdrawn
without amending the provisions under the
Maharashtra land revenue code.
Major problems faced by the villagers and
various Central/State government departments in
implementing the developmental schemes/works in
the Villages are primarily due to the above
impediments created in respect of “Zudpi Jungle”.
In fact the entire issue has been made so sensitive
that the implementing agencies are being
prosecuted if they remove minor mi nerals like
murrum, small stones, etc. and MSEB or Telephone
Department fix a pole even.
(ii) The procedure envisaged under the Forest
(Conservation) Act has led to slowing down of
development projects including even those
requiring minimal Zudpi Jungle land like school
buildings, laying of electrical poles, pipe lines etc.
(iii) Since Zudpi Jungle lands have traditionally been
used for communal and day to day needs by the
villagers, they should have been kept out of the
purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The
application of the Forest (Conservation) Act intends
to negate the benefits, which were flowing and were
intended to flow in future also to the community
and the villagers.
(iv) It was felt that these lands though referred to as
‘Jungle’ should not have been treated as forest
under the Forest Conservation Act, since the term
was used very loosely since early 1900 when there
was no idea of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
In fact such lands are not known as Jungle in other
parts of Maharashtra at all. Instead they are known
as gairon, parampok etc. Therefore it would be
desirable that the Forest (Conservation) Act is not
made applicable to such lands though known as
Zudpi Jungle.
23
(v) It may not be possible to take Zudpi Jungle out of
purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in
view of the Supreme Court Judgment of 1996.
(vi) The problem of Zudpi Jungle is primarily confined
to Vidarbha area alone.
(vii) The Committee analysed the results of the survey
and demarcation done by the Government of
Maharashtra during 1993 to 1998 and observed
that:
(a) 92115 Ha. Of Zudpi Jungle (out of 178525 Ha.
With Revenue Department) is suitable for forestry
management, development and conservation.
(b) 86409 Ha. Of land is unsuitable for forest
management due to encroachment, fragmented
holding, and existing non-forestry use.
(c) Government of India should give permission for
86409 ha. Land, unsuitable for forest
management under the Forest (Conservation) Act
1980 in bulk without insisting on individual
proposals. Government of India should also
waive the conditions of compensatory
afforestation and equivalent non-forest land.
(viii) Slowing down of the development projects coupled
with restrictions of Nistar rights has led to
discontent and unrest amongst the villagers in
Vidarbha region. This has the potential of taking
serious turn if not attended to urgently.
(ix) It is pertinent to point out here about the area of
89768.39 ha of Zudpi Jungle as point out in para
11(ii) above. This area needs to be located, surveyed
and proposals for regularization under FCA 1980 be
submitted to the Government of India, if these areas
cannot be put to forestry use as per principles of
discussions and recommendations.
Recommendations
1. 92,115 Ha. of Zudpi Jungle, which is found to be
suitable for forestry management, development
24
and conservation should be notified as
protected/reserved forest under Forest Act,
1927.
2. 86,409 Ha. Zudpi Jungle land, which is not
suitable for forest management, as mentioned
below, should be denotified and be allowed for
any purpose including non-forestry as decided by
the Revenue Department.
A) Land under encroachment 27507 Ha.
B) Land already under non -forestry use
26672 Ha.
C) Fragmented land etc. 32229 Ha.
3. Government of India should give permission
under Forest (Conservation) Act to the above land
86,409 Ha. Through a consolidated proposal
without insisting on individual proposals.
4. Government of India should not insist on
compensatory afforestation because during
1955-59, 6,55,619 ha and in this report as per
recommendation No.1 above, an area of 92,115
ha totalling to 7,47,734 ha of all Zudpi Jungle
has been taken to be forests out of a total of
9,23,913 ha of land which had the status of
Zudpi Jungle.
5. The area of 89,768.39 ha which has already been
diverted to non-forestry purpose (upto 1992)
needs to be located, surveyed ad proposals for its
regularization under FCA 1980 be sent to
Government of India provided these areas cannot
be put to forestry use as per principles of
discussions and recommendations.”
35. It can be seen from the Report of the HPC that on account
of the inaction of certain bureaucrats a huge problem has
arisen. It was emphasized that Zudpi Jungle lands cater to the
community and day-to-day needs of villagers and were
25
complimentary to agriculture, dairy, cottage and small-scale
industries in the villages. It was further emphasized that the
villagers should not be required to go outside their villages for
their needs of fodder, firewood, minor minerals, clay, murrum,
boulders, wood etc. It was further emphasized that the major
problems faced by the villagers and various Central/State
Government Departments in implementing the developmental
schemes/works in the villages are primarily due to the above
impediments created in respect of Zudpi Jungle. It was also
emphasized that in the other parts of the State, similar lands
instead of being referred to as “Jungle”, were known as gairon,
parampok etc. The said Committee, therefore, recommended
that 92,115 hectares of Zudpi Jungle, taking all these factors
into consideration which was found to be suitable for forestry
management, development and conservation should be
notified as protected/reserved forest under the Indian Forest
Act, 1927. It also recommended that 86,409 hectares of Zudpi
Jungle land, which was not suitable for forest management,
should be denotified and be allowed for any purpose including
non-forestry as decided by the Revenue Department. The said
26
Committee also recommended that the Government of India
should not insist on compensatory afforestation.
36. The Report of the HPC along with the proposal of the
State Government for denotification of 35,010.89 hectares
Zudpi Jungle land was considered by the Forest Advisory
Committee (hereinafter referred to as, “FAC”) of the Ministry of
Environment and Forest & Climate Change (hereinafter
referred to as, “MoEF&CC”) in its meeting dated 24
th April
2001. The FAC recommended a site visit. After the site visit
and the recommendation of FAC, the MoEF&CC granted
Stage-I approval on 20
th November 2001 for the diversion of
31,192.34 hectares subject to compliance of certain prescribed
conditions.
e. Remedial measures by Central and State
Government
37. Subsequently, a meeting was chaired by the Chief
Minister of Maharashtra and through a letter dated 18
th July
2011, the following suggestions were made to the MoEF&CC:
i. “To drop the condition of notifying 92,115 ha
Zudpi Jungle land which is suitable for forestry
management as Reserved Forest/Protected
Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927
27
ii. An extent of 92,116 ha Zudpi Jungle land as
recommended by the HPC, may be kept as land
bank for compensatory afforestation
iii. To de-notify 86,409 ha of Zudpi Jungle lands,
recommended by the Committee as unsuitable
for forestry management, break up being
27,507 ha under encroachment and 26,672 ha
under various non forestry use and 32,229 ha
of fragmented land available in patches of less
than 3.00 ha
iv. Simplification of procedure under the Forest
(Conservation) Act for submission of proposals
as at present it entails an enormous amount of
paperwork.”
38. Thereafter, a Joint Meeting of Secretary of MoEF&CC and
representative of State of Maharashtra was held on 18
th April
2013. In the said meeting, the following decisions were taken:
i) In accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Judgment, Zudpi Jungle will have to be treated
as a forest.
ii) Out of 92,115 ha. of Zudpi Jungle land an
extent of 16,309.99 ha has already been notified
as forest. The balance 75,806.78 ha will be
notified by the State Government at the earliest.
The proposal of the State Government to use
these lands as land bank for compensatory
afforestation will be favourably considered.
However, double the area will have to be taken
up and this will be admissible only for proposal
of the State Government and for other projects
it will be as provided in the guidelines.
iii) The proposals for the diversion of forest land as
at (a) (b), and (c) below will be examined by the
MoEF&CC and considered favorably within the
framework of prevailing laws and the directions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
28
(a) Proposals for diversion of 32,229 ha.
Fragmented Zudpi Jungle Lands for public
purpose/infrastructure will be submitted by
the State Government Departments/
Undertakings in a consolidated form giving
details of the area of each of the fragmented
lands.
(b) Proposals for Zudpi Jungle Lands under
encroachment (27,507 ha.) and land under
non-forest use (26,672 ha) will be submitted
in the following manner:
(i) State Government will identify the area
under encroachment/non-forestry use
prior to 12.12.1996 and post
12.12.1996.
(ii) The Slate Government will identify the
area under non-forestry use for
commercial purposes.
(iii) Proposals for pre-12.12.1996 non-
forestry uses/encroachment and post-
12.12.1996 non -forest
uses/encroachments will be submitted
separately in accordance w ith the
prevailing law and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's directions.
(c) The special dispensation for submission and
consideration of diversion proposals will not
be considered for the diversion of forest land
under commercial use.
iv) The Government of India will prescribe
simplified procedures for the submission of
proposals of Zudpi Jungle lands under FCA.”
39. It will also be pertinent to note that the request of the
State Government for exemption from payment of Net Present
Value (hereinafter referred to as “NPV”) was considered by the
29
FAC in its meeting dated 26
th October 2017. The FAC
recommended that since the concept of NPV was introduced
by this Court in its order dated 29
th October 2002 in the
present proceedings, it recommended that NPV shall not be
collected from the State Government for diversion proposals
submitted under the FC Act, 1980 where Zudpi Jungle Land
has been put to non-forestry use before 12
th December 1996.
It will also be relevant to refer to the following
recommendations made by the FAC:
“15. The proposal was considered by the FAC on
26.10.2017 and following recommendations were
made:
1. The recommendation of the state government that
the 86,409 Ha. Zudpi Jungle land with following
present land use should be de-notified for any
purpose including non-forestry as decided by the
Revenue Department is not according to the legal
provisions.
(a) Land under encroachment 27507 Ha.
(b) Land already under non -forestry use
26,672 Ha.
(c) Fragmented land etc. 32,229 Ha.
2. The judpi jungle under encroachment (27507 ha)
and under non-forestry use (26672 ha) which has
been put to non-forestry use without FC clearance
before judgement dated 12.12.1996 by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
be considered for post facto approval under
section 2(ii) of FC Act subject to mitigation
measures.
30
3. District wise comprehensive proposal, where zudpi
jungle is recorded in the land record and the same
has been put to non -forestry use before
12.12.1996 will be submitted providing the details
of each piece of judpi jungle land with names of
owner of the land and its present land use duly
certified by District collector and the respective
Divisional Forest Officer of the concerned district
along with the maps. If the present land use of the
judpi jungle is still a forest having jungle jhar and
tree growth, as certified by the DFO and revenue
authority, the same piece of landwill be retained
and maintained as forest and developed as village
or urban forest as the case may be.
4. 33229 ha of fragmented piece of judpi jungle
which are being treated as small patches of forest
should be maintained as forest land and developed
and maintained as village or urban forest by the
state government. If any of these land is required
for non-forestry purpose by the state government
then the approval under section 2(ii) of FC Act will
be mandatorily required on payment of NPV and
Compensatory afforestation and other mitigation
measures.
5. Since the concept of NPV was introduced by
Supreme Court judgment on 29
th October 2002 for
future diversion proposals, NPV shall not be
collected from the state Government for the
diversion proposal submitted under section 2(ii) of
FC Act as referred above in para 15(3) of the
recommendation.”
f. IAs concerning Zudpi Jungle
(i) IA No.176 of 1997
40. It will also be relevant to note one other development.
After the order dated 12
th December 1996 was passed by this
31
Court in the present proceedings, an IA being IA No.176 of
1997 came to be filed by one Nagpur Quarry Owners Welfare
Association seeking permission to continue quarrying in the
Zudpi Jungle in Nagpur District as they had been refused
permission for stone quarrying on the ground that the area
falls within a Zudpi Jungle which attracted the provisions of
FC Act, 1980. This Court called upon the CEC for its
recommendations in this regard. The CEC recommended that
the said area would be a forest area in view of the order passed
by this Court dated 12
th December 1996. The said
recommendation of the CEC was accepted by this Court vide
order dated 6
th May 2003 and the applicant therein was
relegated to take appropriate recourse by making an
application through the State Government for obtaining prior
approval from the Central Government.
(ii) IA No.12465 of 2019
41. In this background, IA No.12465 of 2019 came to be filed
by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur with the prayer s
which we have already reproduced hereinbefore.
42. This Court, vide order dated 8
th March 2019, sought the
opinion of the CEC. Pursuant to the order dated 8
th March
32
2019, the CEC filed its Report being 2019 CEC Report. The
conclusions recorded by CEC in the said Report are as under:
i. “Zudpi Jungle lands are recorded forests and
not notified forests;
ii. Out of 9,23,913 ha. of originally recorded Zudpi
Jungle lands, 6,55,619 ha. of land with tall tree
growth has already been notified as Reserved
Forest/Protected Forest between 1955 and
1959;
iii. Another 93,293.18 ha. of land has been notified
under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927
and it is proposed to declare the same as
Reserve Forest;
iv. Change in land use in respect of 45056.14 ha.
(33,739.40 ha. before 25.10.1980 and
11,316.74 ha. between 25.10.1980 and
12.12.1996) out of 170212.37 ha. has taken
place prior to the order dated 12.12.1996 of this
Hon’ble Court but corresponding changes in
land records are yet to be made;
v. Secretary, MoEFF&CC in its meeting dated
18.04.2013 has requested the State of
Maharashtra to submit separate proposals
under FC Act 1980 for pre 12.12.1996 and post
12.12.1996 non-forestry use;
vi. The FAC in its meeting held on 26.10.2017
recommended that since the concept of NPV
was introduced by this Hon’ble Court in its
judgment dated 29.10.2002 NPV shall not be
collected from the State Government for
diversion of Zudpi Jungle lands which have
been put to non-forestry use before 12.12.1996;
vii. Revenue Department does not have any other
land at its disposal to meet the residential needs
of the poor sections of the society in Nagpur
Revenue Division;
33
viii. Most of the Zudpi Jungle lands which are not
notified as Reserved forest/Protected forest or
under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act 1927
are spread over 6919 villages and are highly
fragmented and are not suitable for
management as forests; and
ix. The Government of India on 12.02.1992
conveyed to the State of Maharashtra that lands
shown as “Zudpi Jungle” in revenue records will
continue to be treated as forest land under the
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980.”
43. The CEC also recommended thus:
“A. Permitting the Applicant, Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur to make suitable changes in
the revenue records with a view to change the
classification/ nomenclature of the "Zudpi Jungle"
lands to actual land use class/nomenclature in
respect of "Zudpi Jungle" lands which have been put
to non-forest use prior to 12.02.1992. However, the
Zudpi Jungle lands which have not been put to non-
forest use prior to 12.02.1992 will attract the
provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and
the State of Maharashtra therefore will be required to
take forest clearance from MoEF&CC and make
payment of NPV and undertake compensatory
afforestation; and
i. transfer all the Section 4 notified forest lands to the
Forest Department latest by 31.03.2020; and
ii. complete the forest settlement proceedings in
respect of all the Section 4 notified Zudpi Jungle
Lands latest by December 2021.
B. The balance extent of Zudpi Jungle land out of
86,409 ha identified as unfit for forestry management
be considered for approval under FC Act, 1980 by
MoEF&CC only after ensuring that the possession of
entire 15,485.74 ha of reserve forest land in
Ahmednagar District and 51,032.59 ha of reserve
34
forest land in Sholapur District (total 66,518.33 ha)
referred to in para 34 of above is transferred from the
Revenue Department to the Forest Department in
compliance of this Hon’ble Court order dated
22.09.2006 in IA No.1483 of 2006.”
44. The State of Maharashtra filed its reply to the 2019 CEC
Report. The matter was thereafter heard by this Court from
time to time.
45. When the matter was heard by this Court on 14
th
February 2024, it was noted that there were some issues that
could be resolved by the CEC and the representatives of the
State Government and the MoEF&CC. This Court, therefore,
directed the CEC to have a joint meeting with representatives
of the State Government & MoEF&CC and file a fresh report.
46. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court,
the CEC carried out a fresh exercise for data collection. The
CEC had several rounds of meetings with the officials of the
MoEF&CC as well as State Government. It also made various
site visits even to the remotest parts of the districts. Huge data
was collected by the CEC and the said data was also verified
by the respective District Collectors. It is pertinent to note that
the total data collected by the CEC amounts to 141 GB
35
comprising of 76,907 files distributed across 8,826 folders. It
is further to be noted that the District Collectors of Nagpur,
Wardha, Bhandara, Chandrapur, Gondia and Gadchiroli
Districts have issued certificates authenticating the Zudpi
Jungle data of their respective districts.
g. Recommendations in the 202 5 CEC Report
47. After considering all the aspects of the matter, the CEC
has made the following recommendations vide its Report being
2025 CEC Report:
“46. In view of the available facts and analysis of
various documents as highlighted in the preceding
paragraphs, the CEC recommends that:
i. the Zudpi Jungle lands shall be considered
as Forest Lands for all purposes, whatsoever
and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is
applicable on Zudpi Jungle lands;
ii. given the peculiar circumstances and
significance of Zudpi Jungle lands, as an
exception and without treating it as a
precedent by whatsoever for any matter, for
the Zudpi Jungle lands allotted by competent
Authority upto 12.12.1996 and for which
land classification has not been changed, the
State of Maharashtra shall seek approval
under section 2(i) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 for their deletion
from the "list of the forest areas". A
consolidated proposal shall be submitted by
the State Government of Maharashtra for
each district and the Central Government
may take a decision on that as per the extant
norms/rules. All activities for which lands
36
have been allotted by the competent
Authority will be deemed to be site-specific
and no condition for compensatory
afforestation or depositing NPV levies may be
imposed by the Central Government while
processing such proposals. Moreover, the
State Government shall necessarily ensure
that the land use is not changed in the future
under any circumstances and transfer is
made only by inheritance;
iii. the Central Government and the State
Government shall with mutual consultation,
and with prior approval of the CEC, devise a
simpler format and process for processing
the proposals of diversion of Zudpi Jungle
land for non-forestry activities under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This task
shall be completed within the next three
months. Liberty may please be granted to the
CEC to decide the issue in case any
conflicting stand is taken by both the
Governments;
iv. it has been observed that certain allotments
of Zudpi Jungle lands have been done post
12.12.1996 also. The State Government shall
give reasons as to why such allotments were
done along with the list of officers who made
such allotments in violation of the orders of
this Hon'ble Court. The Central Government
shall process such proposals under the
provisions of section 2(ii) of the Forest
{Conservation) Act, 1980 only after ensuring
that suitable punitive action has been taken
against the concerned officials under
sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980;
v. all the unallotted 'fragmented land parcels'
(each plot having an area of less than 3 ha
and not adjoining any forest area), shall be
declared as 'Protected Forests’ under section
29 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 by the State
37
Government. The concerned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate shall be responsible for ensuring
that no such land parcel is encroached upon.
As and when these lands are required for
non-forestry purposes by the State
Government, the proposal may be submitted
under the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 and the same shall
require prior approval of the Central
Government for diversion of such land .
However, in no case any such land shall be
diverted to any nongovernment entity for any
purpose, whatsoever;
vi. the detailed data of Zudpi jungle land
admeasuring 13,158.026 ha as mentioned in
para 44 above shall be collected by the
revenue authorities within the next si x
months. All such land parcels with an area
less than 3 ha and not adjoining any forest
area shall be treated as 'fragmented land
parcels’ and the remaining shall be
transferred to the Forest Department under
intimation to the CEC;
vii. in Zudpi jungle land, for settlement of rights
under the provisions of the Forest Rights Act
2006, apart from other required documents,
the historical satellite imagery shall also be
used as a tool in the decision-making
process;
viii. any government order issued by the State
Government of Maharashtra regarding the
regularisation of encroachments on any land
shall not be applicable to Zudpi Jungle lands.
All encroachments prior to 25.10. 1980 shall
be removed except in the cases where ex-post
facto approval of the Central Government
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is
permissible and granted;
ix. all allotments for commercial purpose post
25.10.1980 must be treated at par with
encroachments. An exercise of removal of all
38
allotments for commercial purpose post
25.10.1980 and all encroachments post
25.10.1980 shall be started immediately. A
special task force comprising of a Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, an Assistant
Conservator of Forests and a Taluka
Inspector of Land Records should be
constituted in each district to remove
encroachments. These officials will be posted
only for this purpose and will not be assigned
any other duty. This entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of two years;
x. all the proceedings regarding notification u/s
20 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 concerning
Zudpi Jungle lands notified under Section 4
of the Indian Forest Act, shall be completed
within the next six months. Any further delay
shall call for fixing of responsibility and
punitive action against the concerned
officers;
xi. in the five districts of Vidarbha, viz.
Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Nagpur, Wardha,
and Bhandara, the Central Government shall
consider Zudpi jungle lands for
compensatory afforestation instead of non-
forest land, without insisting on the Chief
Secretary's Certificate regarding the non-
availability of non-forest land. However, in
such cases, compensatory afforestation must
be carried out on double the area of Zudpi
Jungle land, as per the existing guidelines of
the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change; and
xii. the State Government shall fix a timeline to
transfer all the Reserve Forest Lands in the
custody of the Revenue Department to the
Forest Department within the next three
months. Liberty may please be granted to the
CEC to monitor the progress of the aforesaid
transfer of the Reserve Forest Lands and
39
submit periodic reports to this Hon’ble
Court.”
IV. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
48. We are, therefore, called upon in the present lis to
consider as to whether the recommendations made by the CEC
in its 2025 Report should be accepted or not?
V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
a. Locus of the intervenor in IA No.127871 of 2020
49. The intervenor, who is a resident of Dombivli East,
Maharashtra which is around 800 kms away from the area of
the six districts in respect of which the issue arises, has
opposed the recommendations of the CEC.
50. At the outset, we clarify that we do not propose to go into
the question regarding the locus of the intervenor inasmuch as
the present matter involves concern with regard to
environmental protection. However, at the same time, it is also
required to be noticed that though the present lis is pending
before this Court for a number of years, there is not a single
application of intervention from any of the residents or
organizations working for protection of environment from the
aforesaid area opposing the recommendations of the CEC.
40
51. Having said that, we are of the opinion that the present
batch of applications are required to be considered by us from
a historical perspective.
52. As discussed hereinabove, the term Zudpi Jungle was
used under the erstwhile 1889 Code. The said term was used
in the revenue records (Settlement Khasra) during the last
round of the revision settlements which took place in the
erstwhile Central Province Districts during the years 1912-
1917. The said term of Settlement was for a period of 30 years.
Therefore, ideally, the next round of settlement ought to have
been undertaken between 1942 -1947. However, during the
said period, the Settlement could not be undertaken on
account of Second World War. It further appears that after
India became independent in the year 1947, the Settlement
could not be undertaken on account of apathy on the part of
bureaucrats.
53. It is further to be noted that the Nistar Act, 1948
conferred certain rights on the residents of villages in certain
matters including grazing of cattle and collection of jungle
produce from the “Scrub Jungle”. It also protects the
41
customary rights relating to grazing of cattle and collection of
jungle produce.
54. The term Zudpi Jungle or Scrub Jungle was thereafter
used in Vidarbha after Nistar rights were settled and
incorporated in the MPLR Code, 1954. It is to be noted that in
order to take forward the avowed principle of social and
economic equality as enshrined in the Constitution of India,
the erstwhile Malguzari system was abolished in 1951. Under
the said Malguzari system, the ownership of land was vested
with the Malguzars. It is clear that in order to give effect to the
Directive Principles under clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of
the Constitution, the Malguzari system was abolished in the
year 1951 when the country was undergoing the process of
agrarian reforms and as a part of it Zamindari system and the
likewise systems were abolished. After the abolition of
Malguzari system, it was decided that the suitable areas out of
the waste land belonging to former Malguzari/Zamindari
would be transferred to the Forest Department for the purpose
of fodder and fuel. The Nistar Officers, who were appointed for
identifying the lands, classified the lands into 2 categories: (1)
Zudpi Jungle and (2) Mothe Zadancha Jungle. These Zudpi
42
Jungle would mean the Shrub Jungle i.e., the land with
bushes and shrubs whereas Mothe Zadancha Jungle would
mean the forest containing big trees.
55. It is further to be noted that though in the other parts of
the State of Maharashtra, after reorganization of States, the
similar lands were known as Gairan/Gurcharan/E-Class
land, however, on account of certain bureaucrats not taking
steps at the right time, the lands continued to be recorded in
the revenue record as Zudpi Jungle.
56. It is further to be noted that the effect of the FC Act, 1980
and the order of this Court dated 12
th December 1996 was that
the rights in the lands which were granted to the citizens as
early as in 1954-55 under the Nistar Act, 1948 issued under
the MPLR Code, 1954 and MLR Code, 1966 came to be
withdrawn. Till 1996, the lands in question were already put
in use for various purposes. Various government projects
including the irrigation dams, schools, hospitals, primary
health centres and the government buildings were already
existing thereon. The lands were allotted to landless people for
agricultural purposes.
43
57. Faced with this difficulty, the State of Maharashtra took
up the issue with the Central Government. The Central
Government, as is evident from the communication dated 6
th
November 1987, discussed the issue with the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra and the concerned Senior Officials of the Central
and State Governments. In the said meeting, it was decided
that the lands classified as “Scrub Forests” in the erstwhile
Districts of Vidarbha would not attract the provisions of the
FC Act, 1980. The Government of Maharashtra therefore
issued the Government Order dated 6
th November 1987
directing therein that the “Scrub Forests” would not attract the
provisions of FC Act, 1980. It was clarified that the said
Government Order was applicable only to “Scrub Forests” of
the Districts of Vidarbha and would not affect any other lands.
58. Further, it appears that the said Government Order came
to be challenged before the High Court of Bombay by filing of
a Writ Petition. During the pendency of the said writ petition,
the Government of India issued a notification dated 12
th
February 1992 stating therein that the Zudpi Jungle would be
continued to be treated as “Forest Land” under the FC Act,
1980. The Government of Maharashtra consequently withdrew
44
its earlier Government Order dated 6
th November 1987 vide
Resolution dated 17
th March 1994. Thereafter, the position
came to be clarified by this Court vide its order dated 12
th
December 1996 in the present proceedings.
59. It can thus be seen that between the period from 1980 to
1996, there was a situation of uncertainty as to whether the
said land would be covered by the FC Act, 1980. It is for the
first time on 12
th December 1996 the position became clear
that the said lands i.e. Zudpi Lands would also be treated as
“Forest Lands” for the purpose of FC Act, 1980. Thereafter,
various Committees were constituted by the State Government
to find out the solution. Finally, the HPC consisting of various
Senior Officers of the Central Government and the State
Government was constituted to submit its report. The HPC,
accordingly, submitted its Report.
60. Thereafter, the matter was pending between the State
Government and the Central Government for a long time.
61. Thereafter, though on the basis of the recommendations
of the FAC given in its meeting dated 24
th April 2001, the
MoEF&CC granted Stage-I approval on 20
th November 2001
for the diversion of 31,192.34 hectares subject to compliance
45
of certain prescribed conditions, the Government of
Maharashtra through a letter dated 18
th July 2011 made
various requests to MoEF&CC. Again, a Joint Meeting of
officials of MoEF&CC and the State of Maharashtra was held
on 18
th April 2013. Certain decisions were taken in the said
meeting to which we have already referred to hereinabove.
62. Thereafter, the request of the State Government for
exemption from payment of NPV was considered by the FAC in
its meeting dated 26
th October 2017. The FAC recommended
that since the concept of NPV was introduced by this Court in
its order dated 29
th October 2002 in the present proceedings,
the NPV shall not be collected from the State of Maharashtra
for diversion, where Zudpi Jungle land has been put to non-
forestry use before 12
th December 1996.
63. Faced with this grave situation, the State of Maharashtra
preferred I.A. No.12465 of 2019 for clarification that the
directions of this Court dated 12
th December 1996 issued in
the present proceedings were not applicable in respect of
86409 hectare of Zudpi lands being unfit for Forestry
Management.
46
64. This Court sought the Report of the CEC and the CEC
filed its Report being 2019 CEC Report.
65. The matter thereafter was heard from time to time and
this Court vide order dated 14
th February 2024 noted that
there were some issues that could be resolved by joint
deliberation between the CEC and the representatives of the
State Government so also that of the MoEF&CC.
b. Efforts taken by CEC
66. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the CEC
conducted site visits and several rounds of meetings with the
officials of MoEF&CC as well as the State Government and also
collected a huge amount of data which was verified by the
respective District Collectors.
67. It can thus be seen that the aforesaid recommendations
are an outcome of a huge exercise undertaken by the CEC. The
CEC consists of various experts having vast experience in the
field of forest management and protection. As already stated
hereinabove, the said recommendations contained in the 2025
CEC Report will have to be considered in the background of
the historical perspective as stated hereinabove.
47
c. Consequences of not accepting recommendations of
CEC
68. It can also be seen that if the recommendations made by
the CEC are not accepted, it will have a devastating effect and
lakhs of people who are residing on the said lands for a
number of decades will be dishoused. The slum dwellers, who
have constructed the slums on the said lands and after
protection under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 have continued to
reside on the said lands decades prior to the period from 1980-
1996 will have to be dishoused. Huge government buildings
which are existing on the said lands for decades including
government offices, schools, hospitals etc. will also have to be
demolished.
69. The effect of non-acceptance of the recommendations as
made by the CEC would lead to demolition of the facilities in
use by the Defence Ministry, the Air Force, the buildings,
offices of the Central Government and the State Government.
It would also affect the establishments of the Agricultural
Universities constructed in the said area.
48
70. We are annexing along with this judgment as an
illustration, Annexure-1 to the Report of the Committee for
suggesting changes required in simplified procedure for
diversion of Zudpi Jungle Land under Forest Conservation Act,
1980 chaired by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, which
would show the number of establishments only in the city of
Nagpur which would be affected if the Report of the CEC is not
accepted.
71. We are annexing the said list only to show as to how
many institutions/buildings/residences etc. would be affected
on non-acceptance of the 2025 CEC Report. This is only
pertaining to the area in Nagpur Municipal Corporation. One
can imagine as to what would be the effect in the entire 6
districts including various cities, towns and villages!
d. Social and Economic Justice
72. There is another aspect to be considered in the present
matter.
73. The Constitution of India promises social and economic
justice along with political justice. It will be relevant to refer to
Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India which are
49
included in the Constitution as an instrument for bringing out
social and economic equality, and which read thus:
“38. State to secure a social order for the
promotion of welfare of the people.- (1)The State
shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by
securing and protecting as effectively as it may a
social order in which justice, social, economic and
political, shall inform all the institutions of the
national life.
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize
the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate
inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities,
not only amongst individuals but also amongst
groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations.
39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by
the State. - The State shall, in particular, direct its
policy towards securing-
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally,
have the right to an adequate means of
livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the
material resources of the community are so
distributed as best to subserve the common
good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system
does not result in the concentration of wealth
and means of production to the common
detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both
men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men
and women, and the tender age of children
are not abused and that citizens are not
forced by economic necessity to enter
avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and
facilities to develop in a healthy manner and
in conditions of freedom and dignity and that
50
childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and against moral and material
abandonment.”
74. It will also be relevant to note that there was a debate
even with regard to use of the word “strive” used in clause (1)
of Article 38 of the Constitution.
75. It will be apt to refer to the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar,
in his speech in the Constituent Assembly on 19
th November
1948. While explaining as to what was the fundamental
position taken in the Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar observed
thus:
“The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr.
Vice-President, I see that there is a great deal of
misunderstanding as to the real provisions in the
Constitution in the minds of those members of the
House who are interested in this kind of directive
principles. It is quite possible that the
misunderstanding or rather inadequate
understanding is due to the fact that I myself in my
opening speech in support of the motion that I made,
did not refer to this aspect of the question. That was
because, not that I did not wish to place this matter
before the House in a clear-cut fashion, but my
speech had already become so large that I did not
venture to make it more tiresome than I had already
done; but I think it is desirable that I should take a
few minutes of the House in order to explain what I
regard as the fundamental position taken in the
Constitution. As I stated, our Constitution as a piece
of mechanism lays down what is called parliamentary
democracy. By parliamentary democracy we mean
‘one man, one vote’. We also mean that every
Government shall be on the anvil, both in its daily
51
affairs and also at the end of a certain period when
the voters and the electorate will be given an
opportunity to assess the work done by the
Government. The reason why we have established in
this Constitution a political democracy is because we
do not want to install by any means whatsoever a
perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of
people. While we have established political
democracy, it is also the desire that we should lay
down as our ideal economic democracy. We do not
want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable
people to come and capture power. The Constitution
also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who
would be forming the Government. That idea is
economic democracy, whereby, so far as I am
concerned, I understand to mean, ‘one man, one
vote’. The question is : Have we got any fixed idea as
to how we should bring about economic democracy?
There are various ways in which people believe that
economic democracy can be brought about; there are
those who believe in individualism as the best form
of economic democracy; there are those who believe
in having a socialistic state as the best form of
economic democracy; there are those who believe in
the communistic idea as the most perfect form of
economic democracy.
Now, having regard to the fact that there are
various ways by which economic democracy may be
brought about, we have deliberately introduced in
the language that we have used, in the directive
principles, something which is not fixed or rigid. We
have left enough room for people of different ways of
thinking, with regard to the reaching of the ideal of
economic democracy, to strive in their own way, to
persuade the electorate that it is the best way of
reaching economic democracy, the fullest
opportunity to act in the way in which they want to
act.
Sir, that is the reason why the language of the
articles in Part IV is left in the manner in which this
Drafting Committee thought it best to leave it. It is no
52
use giving a fixed, rigid form to something which is
not rigid, which is fundamentally changing and
must, having regard to the circumstances and the
times, keep on changing. It is, therefore, no use
saying that the directive principles have no value. In
my judgment, the directive principles have a great
value, for they lay down that our ideal is economic
democracy. Because we did not want merely a
parliamentary form of Government to be instituted
through the various mechanisms provided in the
Constitution, without any direction as to what our
economic ideal, as to what our social order ought to
be, we deliberately included the Directive Principles
in our Constitution. I think, if the friends who are
agitated over this question bear in mind what I have
said just now that our object in framing this
Constitution is really two fold : (i) to lay down the
form of political democracy, and (ii) to lay down that
our ideal is economic democracy and also to
prescribe that every Government whatever, it is in
power, shall strive to bring about economic
democracy, much of the misunderstanding under
which most members are labouring will disappear.
My friend Mr. Tyagi made an appeal to me to
remove the word ‘strive’, and phrases like that I think
he has misunderstood why we have used the ‘strive’.
The word ‘strive’ which occurs in the Draft
Constitution, in my judgment, is very important.
We have used it because our intention is even
when there are circumstances which prevent the
Government, or which stand in the way of the
Government giving effect to these Directive
Principles, they shall, even under hard and
unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the
fulfillment of these Directives. That is why we
have used the word ‘strive’. Otherwise, it would
be open for any Government to say that the
circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so
inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in
the direction in which the Constitution asks us to
go. I think my friend Mr. Tyagi will see that the
word ‘strive’ in this context is of great
53
importance and it would be very wrong to delete
it.”
[Emphasis supplied]
76. Dr. Ambedkar stated that our Constitution as a piece of
mechanism lays down what is called parliamentary
democracy. According to him, we established parliamentary
democracy by employing the principle of ‘one man, one vote’.
He further stated that by parliamentary democracy, it is meant
that every Government should be on the anvil, both in its daily
affairs and also at the end of a certain period when the voters
and the electorate would be given an opportunity to assess the
work done by the Government. According to him, the purpose
of the political democracy was not to install by any means
whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of
people. According to him, when we establish political
democracy, it was also the desire that we should lay down as
our ideal economic democracy.
77. According to Dr. Ambedkar, the Constitution does not lay
down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture
power. It also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who
would be forming the Government and that ideal is economic
democracy. After referring to various ideologies, he stated that
54
the Drafting Committee has not deliberately used any principle
which is fixed or rigid. He stated that the Drafting Committee
has left enough room for people of different ways of thinking,
with regard to the reaching of the ideal of economic democracy,
to strive in their own way. They will persuade the electorate
that it is the best way of reaching economic democracy.
78. Criticizing the argument that the Directive Principles
have no value, Dr. Ambedkar stated that the Directive
Principles have a great value, for they lay down that our ideal
is economic democracy. In his view, no fixed or rigid formula
would be laid down in the Constitution as to what our
economic ideal or as to what our social order ought to be. He
stated that one of the objects in framing the Constitution was
also to prescribe that every Government, whoever is in power,
shall strive to bring about economic democracy. Justifying the
use of term “strive”, he stated that the intention of the Drafting
Committee was that even when there are circumstances which
prevent the Government, or stand in the way of the
Government giving effect to the Directive Principles, they shall,
even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always
strive in the implementation of the Directive Principles. He
55
stated that if this was not done, it would be open for any
Government to say that the circumstances are so bad and that
the finances are so inadequate that we cannot make an effort
in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go.
e. Inter-relationship between DPSP and Fundamental
Rights
79. It is to be noted that after the Constitution came into
effect on 26
th January 1950, on several occasions, an issue
arose for consideration before this Court with regard to the
conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights.
80. Initially, this Court in a catena of judgments including
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Others
2,
Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving
Company Limited and Others
3 and State of West Bengal
v. Bela Banerjee
4 took the view that whenever there was a
conflict between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental
Rights, the Fundamental Rights would prevail over the
Directive Principles.
2
(1953) 2 SCC 688 : 1953 INSC 89
3
(1953) 2 SCC 791 : 1953 INSC 92
4
(1953) 2 SCC 648 : 1953 INSC 85
56
81. An 11-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of I.C.
Golak Nath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another
5,
by a majority of 6:5, went to the extent of holding that the
importance attached to the fundamental freedoms was so
transcendental that a bill enacted by a unanimous vote of all
the members of both the Houses was ineffective to derogate
from its guaranteed exercise. The view wi th regard to
untouchability of the Fundamental Rights was again reiterated
by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India
6 commonly
known as the Bank Nationalization Case and another
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of H.H.
Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia
Bahadur of Gwalior v. Union of India and Another
7
commonly known as Privy Purse Case.
82. However, this conflict came to be resolved by a 13-Judges
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of His
Holiness Kesavananda Bhar ati Sripadagalvaru v. State
of Kerala and Another
8.
5
[1967] 2 SCR 762 : 1967 INSC 45
6
(1970) 1 SCC 248 : 1970 INSC 18
7
(1971) 1 SCC 85 : 1970 INSC 250
8
(1973) 4 SCC 225 : 1973 INSC 91
57
83. Though the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court
Kesavananda Bharati (supra) is widely known for laying
down the Basic Structure Doctrine which view is taken by the
thin majority; insofar as the equal treatment of the Directive
Principles and the Fundamental Rights is concerned, there is
almost a uniformity.
84. The said judgment recognises that both the Fundamental
Rights and the Directive Principles of the State Policy are
equally important and that there is no conflict amongst them.
It recognises that they are complementary to each other, and
that they together are the conscience of the Constitution. It will
be appropriate to refer to some of the observations made by
this Court in the said case. J.M. Shelat and A.N. Grover, JJ.,
observed as under:
486. ....Parts-III and IV which embody the
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State
Policy have been described as the conscience of the
Constitution...
X X X X
489. …..The Directive Principles of State Policy set
forth the humanitarian socialist precepts that were
the aims of the Indian social revolution…… The
Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles
were designed by the members of the Assembly to be
the chief instruments in bringing about the great
reforms of the social revolution……. They have
helped to bring the Indian society closer to the
58
Constitution’s goal of social, economic and political
justice for all in the affirmative….”.
85. K. S. Hegde and A. K. Mukherjea, JJ., observed thus:
“634. ….The Directive Principles embodied in Part-IV
of the Constitution or at any rate most of them are as
important as the rights of individuals….
X X X X
712. ….The fundamental rights and the Directive
Principles constitute the ‘conscience’ of our
Constitution. The purpose of the Fundamental
Rights is to create an egalitarian society, to free all
citizens from coercion or restriction by society and to
make liberty available for all. The purpose of the
Directive Principles is to fix certain social and
economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing
about a non-violent social revolution….”
86. A. N. Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed
thus:
“1015. …The directive principles are also
fundamental. They can be effective if they are to
prevail over Fundamental Rights of a few in order to
subserve the common good and not to allow
economic system to result to the common
detriment….
1044. …Part III and IV of the Constitution touch
each other and modify. They are not parallel to each
other...”
87. P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J., observed thus:
“1161. …What is implicit in the Constitution is that
there is a duty on the Courts to interpret the
Constitution and the laws, to further the Directive
Principles which under Article 37, are fundamental
59
in the governance of the country….”
88. H. R. Khanna, J., observed thus:
“1480. …The Directive Principles embody a
commitment which was imposed by the Constitution-
makers on the State to bring about economic and
social regeneration of the teeming millions who are
steeped in poverty, ignorance and social
backwardness. They incorporate a pledge to the
coming generations of what the State would strive to
usher in....
1482. …There should be no reluctance to abridge or
regulate the fundamental right to property if it was
felt necessary to do so for changing the economic
structure and attain the objectives contained in the
Directive Principles.”
89. K.K. Mathew, J., observed thus:
“1714. ……..Therefore, the moral rights embodied in
Part-IV of the Constitution are equally an essential
feature of it, the only difference being that the moral
rights embodied in Part-IV are not specifically
enforceable as against the State by a citizen in a
Court of law in case the State fails to implement its
duty but, nevertheless, they are fundamental in the
governance of the country and all the organs of the
State, including the judiciary, are bound to enforce
those directives...”
90. Y. V. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was),
observed thus:
“2002. …Our decision of this vexed question must
depend upon the postulate of our Constitution which
aims at bringing about a synthesis between
“Fundamental Rights” and the “Directive Principles
of State Policy”, by giving to the former a pride of
60
place and to the latter a place of permanence.
Together, not individually, they form the core of the
Constitution. Together, not individually, they
constitute its true conscience.”
91. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud, in the case of Minerva Mills Limited and
Others v. Union of India and Others
9, observed thus:
“56. ….Parts-III and IV are like two wheels of a
chariot, one no less important than the other. You
snap one and the other will lose its efficacy. They are
like a twin formula for achieving the social revolution,
which is the ideal which the visionary founders of the
Constitution set before themselves. In other words,
the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of
the balance between Parts-III and IV. To give absolute
primacy to one over the other is to disturb the
harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and
balance between fundamental rights and directive
principles is an essential feature of the basic
structure of the Constitution.”
92. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations made
by Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) in the
case of Minerva Mills Limited (supra), who partly disagreed
and held that though the amendment to Article 368 of the
Constitution taking away the power of judicial review was
invalid, the amendment to Article 31C of the Constitution
expanding the scope was valid. Justice Bhagwati (as His
9
(1980) 3 SCC 625 : 1980 INSC 142
61
Lordship then was) observed thus:
“107. ……The Directive principles therefore, impose
an obligation on the State to take positive action for
creating socio-economic conditions in which there
will be an egalitarian social order with social and
economic justice to all, so that individual liberty will
become a cherished value and the dignity of the
individual a living reality, not only for a few privileged
persons but for the entire people of the country. It
will thus be seen that the Directive Principles enjoy a
very high place in the constitutional scheme and it is
only in the framework of the socio -economic
structure envisaged in the Directive Principles that
the Fundamental Rights are intended to operate, for
it is only then they can become meaningful a nd
significant for the millions of our poor and deprived
people who do not have even the bare necessities of
life and who are living below the poverty level.”
93. The importance given to the Directive Principles by the
Higher Judiciary of the country could also be seen in the case
of Waman Rao and Others v. Union of India and Others
10
wherein the validity of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1975 was challenged. Rejecting the
challenge, Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. stated thus:
“54. ...In fact far from damaging the basic structure
of the Constitution, laws passed truly and bona fide
for giving effect to directive principles contained in
clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 will fortify that
structure. We do hope that the Parliament will utilise
to the maximum its potential to pass laws, genuinely
and truly related to the principles contained in
10
(1981) 2 SCC 362 : 1980 INSC 216
62
clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39…”
f. Case Laws on clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39
94. The cases to which we are referring to hereinbelow would
reveal as to how a widest possible interpretation has been
given by this Court with regard to importance of Directive
Principles while upholding various enactments and st eps
taken by the Legislature or the Executive for bringing social
and economic justice.
95. In the case of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v.
Union of India and Others
11, the validity of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which provided for
compulsory acquisition of the land beyond a particular ceiling
limit, came up for consideration before a 5-Judges Bench of
this Court, wherein, the majority of 3:2 upheld the enactment.
Again V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the majority, stated
as under:
“10. …It needs no argument to conclude that the
objective of the legislation as set out in the long title
and in the statutory scheme is implementation of
Part-IV of the Constitution. The directive principles
of State Policy being paramount in character and
fundamental in the country's governance,
11
(1981) 1 SCC 166 : 1980 INSC 219
63
distributive justice envisaged in Article
39(b) and (c) has a key role in the developmental
process of the socialist republic that India has
adopted...”
96. However, in the said case of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim
Singhji (supra), a note of caution was put by Y.V.
Chandrachud, C.J., as under:
“3. …..It shows that the Act was passed with the
object of preventing concentration of urban land in
the hands of a few persons and with a view to
bringing about an equitable distribution of land in
urban agglomerations to subserve the common good.
“Common good” being the writing on the wall, any
disposal which does not serve that purpose will be
outside the scope of the Act and therefore lacking in
competence in diverse senses. Private property
cannot under our Constitution be acquired or
allotted for private purposes though an enabling
power like that contained in sub -section (1) of
Section 23 may be exercised in cases where the
common good dictates the distribution of excess
vacant land to an industry, as defined in clause (b) of
the Explanation to Section 23.”
97. Again, before a 5-Judges Bench of this Court in the case
of State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. L. Abu Kavur Bai
and Others
12, the nationalisation of transportation in the
State of Karnataka was challenged on the ground that the
compensation so provided was inadequate and there was no
12
(1984) 1 SCC 515 : 1983 INSC 168
64
distribution of resources as provided under Article 39 (b) and
(c) of the Constitution. S.M. Fazal Ali, J., speaking for the
Bench, stated as under:
“11. …although the directive principles are not
enforceable yet the court should make a real attempt
at harmonising and reconciling the directive
principles and the fundamental rights and any
collision between the two should be avoided as far as
possible. ”
98. Insofar as the term “distribution” is concerned, this Court
gave a wider meaning. It held that distribution cannot be given
a narrower meaning of collecting from someone and
distributing to others. This Court held that insofar as private
transporters are concerned, their main aim would be to earn
profit and, therefore, they would only provide transport
services on the profit earning routes. However, on
nationalization, the vehicles would go to remote villages even
if the State did not earn any profit there from. It therefore held
that providing facilities to the citizens residing in the remotest
part of the country, would also amount to “distribution” within
the meaning of Article 31(b) and (c) of the Constitution.
99. Then in the case of State of Maharashtra and Another
65
v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Others
13, the provision
of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976
which provided for compulsory acquisition of the land at a
meagre compensation and thereafter using that land for
construction of the houses for houseless persons came to be
challenged. An important factor is that in that enactment,
there was no declaration that the law is protected under Article
31C of the Constitution. In spite of that, this Court rejected
the challenge. It will be appropriate to refer to the words of E.S.
Venkataramiah, J. (as His Lordship then was), which read
thus:
“13. …..The question whether an Act is intended to
secure the objects contained in Article 39 (b) or not
does not depend upon the declaration by the
legislature but depends on its contents. We have
already dealt with the objects of the Act with which
we are concerned in this case. It inter alia, makes
provision for acquisition of private lands for providing
sites for building houses or housing accommodation
to the community. The title to the lands of the private
holders which are acquired first vests in the State
Government. Later on, the land is developed and
then distributed amongst the people as house sites.
It also provides for reserving land for providing public
amenities without which people cannot live there.
Community centres, shopping complexes, parks,
roads, drains, playgrounds, are all necessary for civic
life and these amenities are enjoyed by all. That is
also a kind of distribution…… ”
13
(1986) 2 SCC 516 : 1986 INSC 40
66
100. It can thus be seen that in spite of there being no
declaration that the law was protected under Article 31C of the
Constitution, this Court itself examined, as to whether the
enactment was taking further the mandate of Article 39(b) and
(c) of the Constitution and upheld it on the ground that it is
protected under Article 31C of the Constitution.
101. Then in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity
Board v. Thana Electric Supply Company and Others
14,
the constitutional validity of Indian Electricity (Maharashtra
Amendment) Act, 1976 was discussed. The issue under
consideration was whether compensation should be awarded
based solely on the depreciated value of the property and not
on the basis of the prevailing market value. Again, in this case
also, there was no declaration that the said Act was protected
under Article 31C of the Constitution. M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.
(as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held thus:
“28. At the outset the misconception that an express
legislative declaration in the legislation is condition
precedent to the attraction of Article 31-C would,
perhaps, require to be removed. The High Court, we
say so with respect, was under a clear misconception
on the point that an express incantation was
necessary in the law itself. The nexus between the
law and the objects of Article 39(b) could be shown
14
(1989) 3 SCC 616 : 1989 INSC 127
67
independently of any such declaration by the
legislature……”
“48. We accordingly hold that the provisions of
Amending Act of 1976 have a direct and substantial
relationship with the objects of Article 39(b) and,
therefore, are entitled to the protection of Article 39-
C. If the impugned law has such protection, as we
indeed hold that it has, all challenges to it on the
ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31 must
necessarily fail……”
102. Similarly, in the case of Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co.
Ltd. v. State of Assam and Others
15, the challenge was to
the acquisition of land on the ground that the compensation
provided on the book value is totally illusory in nature. Again
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was), stated as
under:
“62. On an examination of the scheme of the
impugned law the conclusion becomes inescapable
that the legislative measure is one of nationalisation
of the undertakings and the law is eligible for and
entitled to the protection of Article 31C.”
103. In this background, the question that we will have to ask
and answer is as to whether the steps taken by the State prior
to 1980 or 1996 which are in furtherance of the avowed
15
(1989) 3 SCC 709 : 1989 INSC 128
68
objective of social and economic justice should be permitted to
be frustrated or not.
g. Right to Shelter
104. This Court, in the case of Chameli Singh and Others
v. State of U.P. and Another
16, though was considering an
issue in the context of land acquisition, had elaborately
discussed on the right to shelter. It will be apt to refer to the
following observations of this Court:
“7. In State of
Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy [(1995) 5 SCC 524 :
JT (1995) 6 SC 375] (SCC p. 526, para 7 : JT at p.
378, para 7), this Court held that right to shelter is a
fundamental right under Article 19(1) of
the Constitution. To make the right meaningful to
the poor, the State has to provide facilities and
opportunity to build houses. Acquisition of the land
to provide house sites to the poor houseless is a
public purpose as it is the constitutional duty of the
State to provide house sites to the poor.
8. In any organised society, right to live as a human
being is not ensured by meeting only the animal
needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured
of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from
restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human
rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live
guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right
to food, water, decent environment, education,
medical care and shelter. These are basic human
rights known to any civilised society. All civil,
political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
16
(1996) 2 SCC 549 : 1995 INSC 906
69
Convention or under the Constitution of
India cannot be exercised without these basic human
rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not
a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home
where he has opportunities to grow physically,
mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to
shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space,
safe and decent structure, clean and decent
surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water,
electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities
like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his
daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore,
does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's
head but right to all the infrastructure necessary
to enable them to live and develop as a human
being. Right to shelter when used as an essential
requisite to the right to live should be deemed to
have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As
is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State
should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure
it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic
budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of
the organised civic community one should ha ve
permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and
intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence
as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental
Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal
participant in democracy. The ultimate object of
making a man equipped with a right to dignity of
person and equality of status is to enable him to
develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent
residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the
constitutional animation of right to equality,
economic justice, fundamental right to residence,
dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring the
Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life,
providing these facilities and opportunities to them is
the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic
human and constitutional rights.”
[Emphasis supplied]
70
105. A perusal of the said judgment in the case of Chameli
Singh (supra) would show that this Court has held that in any
organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured
by meeting only the animal needs of a man. It is secured only
when he is assured of all the facilities to develop himself and
is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. It has been
held that right to live guaranteed in any civilized society
implies the right to food, water, decent environment,
education, medical care and shelter. It has been held that
these are basic human rights necessary in order to ensure that
a person lives life with dignity. It has been held that shelter for
a human being is not a mere protection of his life and limb,
but it is a home where he has opportunities to grow physically,
mentally, intellectually and spiritually. It has been held that
the State should be deemed to be under obligation to secure
right to shelter for its citizens. However, this has to be subject
to its economic budgeting. This Court has held that want of
decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the
constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice,
fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to
live itself. This Court emphasized that to bring the Dalits and
71
Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing of such
amenities is the duty of the State.
106. In another case titled Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Others
17, this
Court observed thus:
“13. Socio-economic justice, equality of status and of
opportunity and dignity of person to foster the
fraternity among all the sections of the society in an
integrated Bharat is the arch of the Constitution set
down in its Preamble. Articles 39 and 38 enjoin the
State to provide facilities and opportunities. Articles
38 and 46 of the Constitution enjoin the State to
promote welfare of the people by securing social and
economic justice to the weaker sections of the society
to minimise inequalities in income and endeavour to
eliminate inequalities in status. In that case, it was
held that to bring the Dalits and the Tribes into the
mainstream of national life, the State was to provide
facilities and opportunities as it is the duty of the
State to fulfil the basic human and constitutional
rights to residents so as to make the right to life
meaningful. In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan
Khimalal Totame [(1990) 1 SCC 520] another Bench
of three Judges had held that basic needs of man
have traditionally been accepted to be three — food,
clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in
any civilised society. That would take within its
sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right
to decent environment and a reasonable
accommodation to live in. The difference between the
need of an animal and a human being for shelter has
to be kept in view. For an animal, it is the bare
protection of the body; for a human being, it has to
be a suitable accommodation which would allow him
to grow in every aspect — physical, mental and
17
(1997) 11 SCC 121 : 1996 INSC 1189
72
intellectual. The surplus urban vacant land was
directed to be used to provide shelter to the poor.
In Olga Tellis case [(1985) 3 SCC 545] the
Constitution Bench had considered the right to dwell
on pavements or in slums by the indigent and the
same was accepted as a part of right to life enshrined
under Article 21; their ejectment from the place
nearer to their work would be deprivation of their
right to livelihood. They will be deprived of their
livelihood if they are evicted from their slum and
pavement-dwellings. Their eviction tantamounts to
deprivation of their life. The right to livelihood is a
traditional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a
person of his right to life would be to deprive him of
his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
Such deprivation would not only denude life of its
effective content and meaningfulness but it would
make life impossible to live. The deprivation of right
to life, therefore, must be consistent with the
procedure established by law. In P.G. Gupta v. State
of Gujarat [1995 Supp (2) SCC 182 : 1995 SCC (L&S)
782 : (1995) 30 ATC 47] another Bench of three
Judges had considered the mandate of human right
to shelter and read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article
21 of the Constitution and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the Convention of Civic,
Economic and Cultural Rights and had held that it is
the duty of the State to construct houses at
reasonable cost and make them easily accessible to
the poor. The aforesaid principles have been
expressly embodied and inbuilt in our Constitution
to secure socio-economic democracy so that everyone
has a right to life, liberty and security of the person.
Article 22 of the Declaration of Human Rights
envisages that everyone has a right to social security
and is entitled to its realisation as the economic,
social and cultural rights are indispensable for his
dignity and free development of his personality. It
would, therefore, be clear that though no person
has a right to encroach and erect structures or
otherwise on footpaths, pavements or public
streets or any other place reserved or earmarked
73
for a public purpose, the State has the
constitutional duty to provide adequate facilities
and opportunities by distributing its wealth and
resources for settlement of life and erection of
shelter over their heads to make the right to life
meaningful, effective and fruitful. Right to
livelihood is meaningful because no one can live
without means of his living, that is the means of
livelihood. The deprivation of the right to life in that
context would not only denude life of effective content
and meaningfulness but it would make life miserable
and impossible to live. It would, therefore, be the
duty of the State to provide right to shelter to the
poor and indigent weaker sections of the society
in fulfilment of the constitutional objectives.”
[Emphasis supplied]
107. This Court in the aforesaid case of Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation (supra), while relying on the case of
Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
and Others
18 wherein the surplus urban vacant land was
directed to be used to provide shelter to the poor, reiterated
the constitutional duty of State to provide adequate facilities
and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for
settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads to
make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful.
18
(1985) 3 SCC 545 : 1985 INSC 151
74
108. This Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid two
judgments of this Court, recently in the case of In Re:
Directions in the matter of demolition of structures
19 to
which one of us B.R. Gavai, J. (as he then was) was a Member,
wherein this Court in unequivocal terms reiterated that the
Right to Shelter is one of the facets of Article 21 of the
Constitution.
109. The question therefore that we are called upon to
consider is as to whether the shelter from the heads of lakhs
of people who are living in the houses constructed for decades
together should be permitted to be removed or not.
h. Right to Livelihood
110. This Court, in a catena of judgments including in the
cases of Olga Tellis (supra), Consumer Education and
Research Centre and Others v. Union of India and
Others
20, Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of
India and Others
21 and Amarnath Shrine, In Re (Court on
19
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 : 2024 INSC 866
20
(1995) 3 SCC 42 : 1995 INSC 76
21
(1999) 6 SCC 667 : 1999 INSC 299
75
its own Motion) v. Union of India and Others
22 has held
the Right to Livelihood to be a Fundamental Right.
111. The question that we are also called upon to consider is
as to whether the citizens of this country who have been
allotted parcels of land and are undertaking agricultural
activities thereon for decades together should now be deprived
of their livelihood.
112. For a period ranging more than half a century, various
public amenities like schools, government offices, public
health centres, graveyards, cemeteries are existing on these
lands for providing services to the citizens of this country
residing in the Zudpi areas. The question that we will also have
to answer is as to whether the citizens should be deprived of
all these facilities on account of some bureaucratic mess
caused by the negligence of the officials of the State
Government at the time of reorganization of the States.
113. In our considered view, the answers to all these questions
will have to be in the negative.
114. Our conclusion in this regard would be fortified by the
22
(2013) 3 SCC 247 : 2012 INSC 593
76
following chart which will show the purposes in all the districts
for which the aforesaid land is being utilized:
District
Total
Gat No.
Land use as per Govt. Record
Area under
occupation
(hectare)
Residential
(hectare)
Agricultural
(hectare)
Public
Purpose
(hectare)
Public
Utility
(hectare)
Nagpur 6308 55.89 2077.44 3762.09 5046.18 10941.6
Wardha 4687 16.06 1668.38 260.23 3116.36 5061.03
Bhandara 3778 34.61 627.01 337.34 1615.68 2614.64
Gondia 3099 3.87 595.87 105.57 1902.48 2607.79
Chandrapur 4098 24.0 1508.6 298.36 1712.64 3543.6
Gadchiroli 10939 16.72 7451.93 141.68 1012.44 8622.77
Total 32909 151.15 13929.23 4905.27 14405.78 33391.43
115. It is thus clear that the vast chunks of land have been
utilized either for residential purposes or for agricultural
purposes by the landless persons to whom the lands were
allotted in order to earn their livelihood. Vast chunks of land
have been utilized for providing public utilities like open
ground, burial and burning ground, etc. Vast chunks of land
have been utilized for public utilities such as primary health
centres, schools, anganwadi centres, offices of the Central
Government as well as the State Government and the other
establishments belonging to the State Government and the
77
Central Government or the local government. Not only that but
vast chunks of land have also been utilized for the purposes of
defence services including the Army and the Air Force.
116. The citizens who are residing in the houses built on these
lands for decades together cannot be permitted to be
dishoused. The agriculturists who have been allotted lands for
their livelihood in order to give effect to the promise of social
and economic equality to the citizens of this country cannot be
deprived of their livelihood at this stage. The citizens cannot
be deprived of public amenities which are essential for living
in their day-to-day life in a dignified manner.
i. Sustainable Development
117. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the balance
between environmental protection and the need for
sustainable development. It will be apt to refer to paras 87-88
of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust
and Others
23, which read thus:
“87. It cannot be disputed that Section 20 of the NGT
Act itself directs the learned Tribunal to apply the
principles of sustainable development, the
23
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469 : 2022 INSC 1129
78
precautionary principle and the polluter pays
principle. Undisputedly, it is the duty of the State as
well as its citizens to safeguard the forest of the
country. The resources of the present are to be
preserved for the future generations. However, one
principle cannot be applied in isolation of the other.
88. It is necessary that, while protecting the
environment, the need for sustainable development
has also to be taken into consideration and a proper
balance between the two has to be struck.”
118. Much prior to that, this Court, in the case of Vellore
Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others
24,
had an occasion to consider the conflict between the
development and ecology. This Court observed thus:
“10. The traditional concept that development and
ecology are opposed to each other is no longer
acceptable. “Sustainable Development” is the
answer. In the international sphere, “Sustainable
Development” as a concept came to be known for the
first time in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972.
Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite
shape by the World Commission on Environment and
Development in its report called “Our Common
Future”. The Commission was chaired by the then
Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and
as such the report is popularly known as
“Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the World
Conservation Union, United Nations Environment
Programme and Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly
came out with a document called “Caring for the
Earth” which is a strategy for sustainable living.
Finally, came the Earth Summit held in June 1992
at Rio which saw the largest gathering of world
24
(1996) 5 SCC 647 : 1996 INSC 952
79
leaders ever in the history — deliberating and
chalking out a blueprint for the survival of the planet.
Among the tangible achievements of the Rio
Conference was the signing of two conventions, one
on biological diversity and another on climate
change. These conventions were signed by 153
nations. The delegates also approved by consensus
three non-binding documents namely, a Statement
on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on
environmental policy and development initiatives
and Agenda 21, a programme of action into the next
century in areas like poverty, population and
pollution. During the two decades from Stockholm to
Rio “Sustainable Development” has come to be
accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and
improve the quality of human life while living within
the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems.
“Sustainable Development” as defined by the
Brundtland Report means “Development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of the future generations to meet their own
needs”. We have no hesitation in holding that
“Sustainable Development” as a balancing concept
between ecology and development has been accepted
as a part of the customary international law though
its salient features have yet to be finalised by the
international law jurists.”
119. The principle of Sustainable Development as a balancing
concept between ecology and development has been accepted
as a part of the Customary International Law by this Court in
various judgments including S. Jagannath v. Union of India
and Others
25, Consumer Education & Research Society v.
25
(1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996 INSC 1466
80
Union of India and Others
26, Intellectuals Forum,
Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others
27 and Tata Housing
Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga and
Others
28.
120. As discussed hereinabove, on the land in question,
various developmental activities have already been
undertaken viz. irrigation dams have been constructed, roads
have been laid down, schools, public health centres, other
public utilities, facilities have been provided for the citizens.
All these public utilities are necessary for the citizens living in
the areas. We have annexed herewith the list of various
institutions/buildings/residential areas/public utilities which
will be affected in the city of Nagpur. The said list would show
that even the buildings wherein the High Court, the High
Court Judges’ residences, the State Governments’ Secretariat,
the Central Government’s buildings, the Defence Buildings,
the Air Force buildings, the establishment of Agricultural
University, the graveyards etc. are situated, they all would be
affected.
26
(2000) 2 SCC 599 : 2000 INSC 81
27
(2006) 3 SCC 549 : 2006 INSC 101
28
(2020) 15 SCC 784 : 2019 INSC 1203
81
j. Effect of CEC’s recommendations
121. Another reason that persuade s us to accept the
recommendations of the CEC is that the CEC has
recommended that all allotments for commercial purposes
post 25
th October 1980 must be treated at par with
encroachments. It is recommended that a Special Task Force
comprising of a Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Conservator of Forests
and a Taluka Inspector of Land Records should be constituted
in each district so as to demolish encroachments. It has been
recommended that these officials be posted only for this
purpose and that they will not be assigned any other duty. It
has also been recommended that the said exercise should be
completed within a period of two years.
122. The CEC has further recommended that the State
Government shall ensure that the land use is not changed in
the future under any circumstances and that the transfer is
permitted only by inheritance. Insofar as allotment of land
post 12
th December 1996 is concerned, the CEC has
recommended that the State Government shall give reasons as
to why such allotments were done along with the list of officers
82
who made such allotments in violation of the orders of this
Court. It has further recommended that the Central
Government shall process such proposals under the
provisions of Section 2(ii) of the FC Act, 1980 only after
ensuring that the suitable punitive action has been taken
against the concerned officials under Sections 3-A and 3-B of
the FC Act, 1980.
123. It can be seen from the letter dated 19
th/22
nd September
2003 addressed by the MoEF&CC to the Secretaries of all the
State Governments and Union Territories clarifying therein that
the NPV will be charged in all those cases which have been
granted in-principle approval after 30
th October 2002. The said
letter stated that NPV will be realized before Stage-II (Final)
approval.
124. It is thus clear that even according to MoEF&CC, the NPV
has to be charged where in-principle approval has been granted
after 30
th October 2002. A perusal of the record would reveal
that in the present case Stage-I approval has been granted
much prior to 30
th October 2002. In this background, the FAC
in its meeting dated 26
th October 2017 has favourably
considered the request of the Government of Maharashtra for
83
exemption from payment of NPV. In this background, the
contention that the NPV should be charged from the persons
who were in possession of the said lands, in our view, would not
be tenable. In any case, the ground realities would not permit
the same to be done. As already discussed hereinabove, the
land admeasuring 33391.43 hectares has been largely utilized
for residential purposes, for agricultural purposes by the
landless persons to whom it was allotted and for public utilities
as well as public purposes like cemeteries, cremation grounds,
government offices, schools, primary health centres, anganwadi
centres etc.
125. As we have already held hereinabove, the said land has
been utilized to take further the avowed object of the
Constitution of distributive justice. It could have been a
different matter had the said land been utilized in order to
promote the vested interest of a few individuals. In any case,
the CEC itself has recommended that insofar as allotment for
commercial purposes and encroachment is concerned, the said
recommendation would not be applicable.
126. It has been recommended by the FAC that the NPV shall
not be collected from the State Government for diversion
84
proposals submitted under the FC Act, 1980 where Zudpi land
has been put to non-forestry use before 12
th December 1996.
The CEC after considering the larger public interest in this
respect has given its recommendations. The said
recommendations depict a balanced approach.
127. The CEC, given the peculiar circumstances and
significance of Zudpi Jungle lands, discussed the issue in
detail and recommended that the State Government in respect
of Zudpi Jungle lands allotted by the competent authority
before 12
th December 1996 shall seek approval under Section
2(i) of the FC Act, 1980 for their deletion from the “List of the
Forest Areas”. It has been recommended that a consolidated
proposal shall be submitted by the Government of
Maharashtra for each district. It has been recommended that
the Central Government would take a decision on the said
proposal on its own merits. It has further been recommended
that all activities for which lands have been allotted by the
competent authority would be deemed to be site specific and
no condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV
levies may be imposed by the Central G overnment while
processing such proposals.
85
128. It is further to be noted that there is not much change
between the recommendations as made in the 2019 CEC
Report and 2025 CEC Report except the payment of NPV. It is
further to be noted that the FAC itself in its meeting dated 26
th
October 2017 had favourably accepted the request of the State
Government for exemption from payment of NPV.
129. As already discussed hereinabove, the Report of the CEC
has been prepared after undertaking a huge exercise of site
inspections, collection of huge data from all the districts and
verification thereof by the District Collectors. The
recommendations also balance the rights of the citizens
accrued for past several decades much prior to 1980 or 1996,
the developmental activities already undertaken and the need
to provide a larger green coverage.
130. Though we are largely in agreement with the other
recommendations of the CEC, we are not inclined to accept the
recommendation of the CEC that the Zudpi land can be used for
compensatory afforestation instead of non-forest land without
insisting on the Chief Secretary’s certificate regarding the non-
availability of non-forest land. Though the CEC has
recommended that in such cases compensatory afforestation
86
must be carried out on double the area of Zudpi Jungle land as
per the existing guidelines of MoEF&CC, we are not inclined to
accept the said recommendation. Accepting such a
recommendation would amount to deviating from the order
passed by this Court dated 12
th December 1996 and the specific
directions issued by this Court on 4
th March 2025 in the case
of Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd.) and
Others v. Union of India and Another
29.
131. We therefore reject the said recommendation and hold that
the Zudpi Jungle land can be considered for the purposes of
compensatory afforestation only if there is a Chief Secretary’s
certificate regarding non-availability of non-forest land. Only in
such cases, the compensatory afforestation would be carried
out on double the area of Zudpi Jungle land as per the existing
guidelines of MoEF&CC.
132. We further find that the interest of providing a larger green
cover can be taken care of by issuing stringent directions to the
State of Maharashtra.
133. In this regard, we reproduce the following chart which is a
29
Writ Petition (C) No. 1164 of 2023
87
part of the Report of the CEC:
S.N. Description Area in hectare
i. Already been handed over to the
Forest Department
6,55,619
ii. Zudpi jungle land was reclassified
by the Revenue Department into
other categories up to 12.02.1992
89,768.39
iii. Zudpi jungle land for which
notifications u/s 4 of IFA, 1927 have
been issued
92,116
iv. The total area allotted by the
revenue department for various
non-forestry activities
33,391.43
v. The total area of fragmented land
parcels (each plot having an area
less than 3 ha. and not adjoining
any forest area)
29,032.622
vi. Total area under encroachment 10,827.532
Total 9,10,754.974
134. The chart would show that out of an area of 9,23,913
hectares, an area of 6,55,619 hectares has already been handed
over to the Forest Department and an area of 89,768.39
hectares was reclassified by the Revenue Department into other
categories up to 12
th February 1992. A notification under
Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has already been issued
in respect of the land admeasuring 92,116 hectares. The CEC
88
has also recommended that the total area of land admeasuring
29,032.622 hectares that is the plots having an area of less than
3 hectares and not adjoining any forest area to be transferred
to the Forest Department. The various non-forestry activities for
the lands admeasuring 33,391.43 hectares allotted by the
Revenue Department have already been discussed hereinabove.
We find that the interest of providing larger green coverage can
be achieved by directing the State Government to utilize the
aforesaid area of 7,76,767.622 hectares for the purposes of
afforestation within a specified period.
135. We find that the concern for providing larger green
coverage can be ensured by directing the Revenue Department
of the State of Maharashtra to hand over the remaining area out
of the aforesaid area of 7,76,767.622 hectares to the Forest
Department which would be utilized by the State Government
for afforestation. We further find that a direction to the State
Government to complete the process of handing over the
possession from the Revenue Department to the Forest
Department in respect of the aforesaid land would ensure the
use of the said land for afforestation in an expeditious manner.
89
136. Insofar as the concern expressed by Smt. Divan that if
the recommendations of CEC are accepted, it will lead to
denotifying forest areas where the forests have been degraded
is concerned, the said apprehension is not correct. The CEC
has itself recommended that Zudpi Jungle land shall be
considered as “Forest Lands” on account of peculiarity of the
circumstances. It has also recommended that the
recommendations shall not be permitted to be treated as
precedent. In any case after 12
th December 1996, no forest
could be denotified or used for non-forestry purpose except
with the permission of the Central Government under the FC
Act, 1980.
137. Before we part with this judgment, we will also reiterate
the issue that we had covered in our recent judgment dated
15
th May 2025 in the present proceedings in the case of In Re:
Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land
Maharashtra
30. In the said case, we had noticed that various
parcels of land which were notified as forest lands were still in
possession of the Revenue Department. We noticed that the
Revenue Department despite resistance from the Forest
30
2025 INSC 701
90
Department had allotted the lands to the private
individuals/institutions for non-forestry purposes. We had
noticed that this had the effect of reducing vital green cover.
We therefore issued directions to all the States and the Union
Territories to hand over the possession of such lands to the
Forest Department. We had further directed that if on account
of such lands already being converted for non-forest activities,
it was found that taking back the possession of the land would
not be in larger public interest, then the States/Union
Territories should recover the cost of the land from such
individuals/institutions and use the said amount for the
purpose of afforestation, restoration and conservation of the
forest. At the cost of repetition, in order to emphasize the need
for protection and enhancement of green coverage, we will
reiterate the said directions in the present matter also.
VI. CONCLUSION:
138. In the result, the present IAs are disposed of in the
following terms:
(i) It is directed that the Zudpi Jungle lands shall be
considered as Forest lands in line with the order of
91
this Court dated 12
th December 1996 in the present
proceedings;
(ii) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, we direct that as an exception, and
without the same being treated as a precedent
whatsoever for any matter, the Zudpi Jungle lands
allotted by the competent authority up to 12
th
December 1996 and for which land classification
has not been changed, the State of Maharashtra
shall seek approval under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 for their deletion from the
“List of Forest Areas”;
(iii) We direct that the State of Maharashtra shall
submit a consolidated proposal for each district. We
clarify that all activities for which lands have been
allotted by the competent authority will be deemed
to be site-specific. We further clarify that the State
Government shall ensure that the land used is not
changed in the future under any circumstances and
transfer is made only by inheritance;
92
(iv) We direct that on receipt of such proposals, the
Union of India shall consider and approve the same
without imposing any condition for compensatory
afforestation or depositing NPV levies;
(v) We direct that the Union Government and the State
of Maharashtra shall with mutual consultation and
with prior approval of the CEC, devise a format for
processing the proposal of diversion of Zudpi Jungle
land for non-forestry activities within a period of
three months from the date of this judgment;
(vi) For proposal regarding the allotments of Zudpi
Jungle lands made post 12
th December 1996, the
State of Maharashtra shall give reasons in the
proposal as to why such allotments were made
along with the list of officers who had made such
allotments in violation of the order of this Court. We
clarify that the processing of proposal for such
allotments shall be done by the Union Government
only after ensuring that punitive action has been
taken against the concerned officers under Sections
3A and 3B of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
93
(vii) We direct that the State of Maharashtra shall
declare all the unallotted “fragmented land parcels”
(each having an area of less than three hectare and
not adjoining any forest area) as “Protected Forests”
under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927;
(viii) We further direct the State of Maharashtra to issue
directions to all the concerned Sub -Divisional
Magistrates (SDMs) to ensure that no such land
parcel is encroached upon hereinafter. It is further
directed that if any such encroachment takes place
after the date of this judgment, the concerned SDM
shall be made responsible for the same;
(ix) We clarify that, as and when these lands are
required for non-forestry purposes by the State
Government, the proposal shall be submitted as per
the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980. We further clarify that, in no case any such
land shall be diverted to any non-governmental
entity for any purpose whatsoever;
94
(x) We further direct that a Special Task Force
comprising of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Conservator
of Forests and a Taluka Inspector of Land Revenue
of land records should be constituted in each
district to remove encroachments within a period of
two years from the date of this judgment. We clarify
that these officials will be posted only for this
purpose and will not be assigned any other duty.
We further clarify that all allotments for commercial
purpose post 25
th October 1980 must be treated at
par with encroachments;
(xi) We further direct that the Revenue Department of
the State of Maharashtra shall hand over the
possession of the remaining area, if any, from the
aforesaid area of 7,76,767.622 hectares, which is
still in possession of the Revenue Department to the
Forest Department. The same shall be done within
a period of one year from the date of this judgment.
We clarify that the said land shall be utilized only
for the purpose of compensatory afforestation;
95
(xii) We direct the CEC to monitor the progress of the
aforesaid transfer of the forest land. We further
direct that the Zudpi land will not be permitted to
use for compensatory afforestation unless there is a
certificate of the Chief Secretary regarding the non-
availability of non-forest land for the purposes of
afforestation. However, in such cases,
compensatory afforestation must be carried out on
double the area of Zudpi Jungle land, as per the
existing guidelines of the MoEF&CC;
(xiii) As already directed in the recent case of In Re:
Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in
Forest Land Maharashtra (supra) dated 15
th May
2025, we reiterate our direction to the Chief
Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators
of all the Union Territories to constitute Special
Investigation Teams for the purpose of examining
as to whether any of the Forest Land in the
possession of the Revenue Department has been
allotted to any private individuals/institutions for
any purpose other than the forestry purpose; and
96
(xiv) We further reiterate our directions to the State
Governments and the Union Territories to take
steps to take the possession of the land from the
persons/institutions in possession of such lands
and hand over the same to the Forest Department.
In case, it is found that taking back the possession
of the land would not be in the larger public
interest, the State Governments/Union Territories
should recover the cost of the said land from the
persons/institutions in occupation thereof and use
the said amount for the purpose of development of
forests.
139. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus
curiae ably assisted by Ms. Kanti, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Raji
Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel, Smt.
Madhavi Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
intervenor and Shri Sidharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel
appearing for the State. We direct the State of Maharashtra to
pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Shri K. Parameshwar,
learned amicus curiae and Rs.2,50,000/- each to Ms. Kanti,
97
Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil,
learned counsel as a token for the valuable services rendered
by them.
140. We also place on record our deep appreciation for the
voluminous exercise undertaken by the CEC and in assisting
this Court to arrive at a solution that would balance the rights
of the citizens at large on one hand and the interest of the
environment on the other hand.
Encl: Annexure-1 to the Report of the Committee for
suggesting changes required in simplified procedure for
diversion of Zudpi Jungle Land under Forest Conservation Act,
1980 titled as “Resolving Zudpi Jungle Land Issue : A
Development Perspective” chaired by Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur.
..............................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
NEW DELHI;
MAY 22, 2025.
98
Annexure – I
Tahsil - Nagpur
Sr.
No.
Name of
Village
Survey No. Area
of S.
No.
(in ha)
User Name Type of Use
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Ajni 8 0.40 Mhada Mhada Quarter
Since 1970
9 9.79 Mhada House, Play
Ground
2 Jat Tarodi 14 0.63 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
16 0.35 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
22 0.11 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
3. Dhantoli 305/5 0.05 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
4. Lendra 79/5 15.52 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
83/4 12.64 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agriculture
83/4/1 0.47 MSRTC Bust Stand
89/1 3.92 Govt. Building Govt. Building
142/2 0.60 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Residential Area
178 0.06 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
RCF Building
217/1 27.65 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agriculture
219/1 4.02 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agriculture
226 0.12 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agriculture
Market
303 1.83 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Open Space,
Water Body
26 B 0.02 Govt. Land Nazul Building
91/2 0.77 Hadas High School Education
Institute
99
228/2 0.45 Cotton Research
Centre
Residential Area
229/1 0.95 Cotton Research
Centre
Residential Area
232/2 1.81 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Girls Hostel
233/1 2.15 ICAR Residential Area
245/2 0.04 ICAR Residential Area
246/1 0.70 ICAR Residential Area
248/1 0.23 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
256 0.65 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Office
257/1 2.13 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Education
Institute
279 0.05 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Education
Institute
78/2-3 0.38 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Education
Institute
80/1 0.01 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Maharaj Bag
80/2 0.12 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Maharaj Bag
89/8 7.69 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Commercial
Building
91/3 0.35 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
In possession of
NIT
217/4,219/2 2.71 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Diksha Bhumi
221/1, 22/2 3.77 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Diksha Bhumi
220/1,
224/1
6.86 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
ITI Building
234/2 0.07 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
244 0.80 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
247/2 0.81 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
302/2 0.92 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Forensic Lab
100
242 0.07 Govt. Body Garden
243/1 0.11 Govt. Body Garden
243/2 0.10 Forest Deptt. Garden
79/1 2.81 Govt. Nazul Building
67 1.97 Somalwar High
School
Education
Institute
5 Khamla 72/4 2.69 Private land Pandey Layout
73/4 7.37 Private land Pandey Layout
88/2 0.40 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
75/12,13
78/8,9,10
0.76 Residential Nagpur
Improvement
Trust Layout
6. Ambazari 29 1.66 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
8/3 0.04 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Boundary of
Water Body
24 1.94 VNagar Improvement
Trust Univ
Education
Institute
37/2 2.37 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Sweeming Pool
40 0.96 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Building of
Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
42/1 2.19 Dharampeth High
School
Education
Institute
44/2 0.15 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Ambazari Garden
53/2 1.05 Residential Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
52/2 7.11 Residential Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
7. Binaki 16 0.21 Grave Yard /
Cemetery
For public use
32 0.07 Grave Yard /
Cemetery
For public use
44 0.65 Grave Yard /
Cemetery
For public use
101
91 0.05 Grave Yard /
Cemetery
For public use
103 0.44 Grave Yard /
Cemetery
For public use
154 0.29 Grave Yard /
Cemetery
For public use
77 0.33 Grave Yard /
Cemetery
For public use
26 0.85 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
8. Shivangaon 134/2 0.29 MIHAN Grave Yard For
public use
171 0.87 MIHAN Grave Yard For
public use
172 0.14 MIHAN Grave Yard For
public use
9 Chichbhuwan 236 1.65 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard For
public use
153 0.03 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Residential
Purpose
154 0.04 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Residential
Purpose
10 Jaitala 22/2 0.21 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
34/2 2.83 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
103 2.17 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
11 Bhamti 60/2 0.71 Railway Deptt. Railway Line &
Ring Road
12 Dhabha 168 9.34 Police Deptt. Govt. Building
175/1 23.86 Police Deptt. Govt. Building
175/2 10.43 Defence Ministry Air Force Building
177 0.77 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
178/1 13.94 Agriculture Deptt. Agri. Research
178/2 2.09 Defence Ministry Air Force Building
13 Hajari Pahad 54 0.17 Khadan Khadan
83 0.25 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
102
87 0.05 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
91/2 0.93 Houses Grave Yard /
Cemetery
91/3 3.16 Houses
109/1 25.30 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
109/2 55.77 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
111 0.05 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
113 30.40 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
14 Telangkhedi 10/1 28.42 Mah. Animal
Husbendry &
Fishries Universiy
Education
Institute
10/2 0.93 Defence Ministry Air Force Building
12/1 6.77 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
12/2 1.22 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
13 23.20 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
53 0.09 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
54/2 1.55 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
64/1 0.48 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
64/3 0.01 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
67/6 29.71 Central Govt. T.V. Office, Work
shop of IBM
69 1.12 Central Govt.
70/2 0.25 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline &
Houses
71 0.57 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline &
Borgaon Road
73 3.17 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline &
Houses
77/2 part 0.27 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline &
Houses
103
90 0.16 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline &
Houses
92 10.95 SSC Collage, Church Education
Institute
95 1.04 C.P. Club Club
98/1 0.50 Nazul Deptt. Govt. Building
98/2 8.85 Nazul Deptt. Mother Diary
107 0.61 Health Deptt. Govt. Building
110 0.09 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
112/1 4.1 Govt. Deptt. Govt. Building
112/2 0.93 C.P. School Education
Institute
112/3 0.48 C.P. School Education
Institute
112/4 0.60 C.P. School Education
Institute
65/1 0.45 Govt. Deptt. Residential Area
65/3 0.02 Govt. Deptt. Residential Area
65/4 6.25 Central Govt. MECL
15 Futala 2/1 79.11 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
2/2 44.51 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
2/3 20.00 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
14/1 11.00 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
14/1 A 0.06 Rev. Deptt Religious
Stracture
14/4 0.01 Police Deptt. Police Station
15/1 1.66 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
15/4 1.48 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
17/3 0.64 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
17/7 0.30 School Education
Institute
13/3 23.06 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
13/1 13.19 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
104
14/2 0.01 Electricity Deptt
(MSEB)
Transformer
14/3, 15/6 0.30 School Education
Institute
16 Kachimate 6,7,8 2.15 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
11 5.02 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
13,14 11.91 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
17,18 0.80 Dr. Punjabrao Agr.
University
Agri. Research
40 3.37 Central Govt. Staff Quarter
BSNL
44/1 26.88 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Ambazari Lake
44/2 4.86 Nagpur University Education
Institute
44/3 100.00 Central Govt. Cirtus Research
Centre
17 Takli Sim 2 14.00 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Ambazari Lake
18 Pandhabodi 29 1.98 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
13/1 0.49 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
14 0.02 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
32 0.28 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
19 Dharampeth 2/4 0.80 Central Govt. Govt. Building
2/5 0.04 Central Govt. Govt. Building
17/2 0.05 PWD Deptt. High Judges
Bungalow
19/3 0.06 Central Govt. Residential Area
20/2 0.19 Agriculture Deott. Office
23 7.41 Nazul Deptt. Tiger Camp
Ground
19/2 5.81 Agriculture Deptt. Office
27 1.13 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
29 0.81 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
105
33/1-3-5 3.16 Forest Deptt. Garden
35/1-2 0.36 C.P. Club Club
35/3 2.52 Irrigation Deptt. Rest House
50 0.78 PWD Deptt. Office
67 0.08 PWD Deptt. Judial Officer
Resedence
72 1.82 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
73/1 1.44 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
73/2 0.85 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
75/2 0.79 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
78/2 0.11 Z.P. Govt. Building
78/4 0.19 PWD Deptt. Road
80 0.11 PWD Deptt. MLA Hostel
82/4 1.00 PWD Deptt. Residential Area
77/1 0.97 PWD Deptt. Residential Area
20 Gadga 27/11 0.11 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
31 0.19 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
32 0.38 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
35 1.94 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
21 Borgaon 4 0.53 Defence Ministry Firing Range
5 0.08 Defence Ministry Firing Range
6 0.53 Defence Ministry Firing Range
7 0.24 Defence Ministry Firing Range
8 7.58 Defence Ministry Firing Range
9 4.66 Defence Ministry Firing Range
10 2.60 Defence Ministry Firing Range
11 3.69 Defence Ministry Firing Range
12 2.79 Defence Ministry Firing Range
13 1.57 Defence Ministry Firing Range
14 5.42 Defence Ministry Firing Range
15 13.77 Defence Ministry Firing Range
16 0.72 Defence Ministry Firing Range
17/1-2 5.44 Defence Ministry Firing Range
106
19/1 0.12 Defence Ministry Firing Range
63/1 1.67 Defence Ministry Firing Range
64 5.71 Defence Ministry Firing Range
65 3.14 Defence Ministry Firing Range
66/1 0.28 Defence Ministry Firing Range
67/2 0.96 Defence Ministry Firing Range
68 3.36 Defence Ministry Firing Range
69 0.45 Defence Ministry Firing Range
70 0.49 Defence Ministry Firing Range
71 5.09 Defence Ministry Firing Range
72/2 8.59 Defence Ministry Firing Range
73/2 3.64 Defence Ministry Firing Range
74/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range
77/2 0.70 Defence Ministry Firing Range
78/2 0.02 Defence Ministry Firing Range
110/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range
121/1 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range
140/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range
141/2 0.49 Defence Ministry Firing Range
142/2 0.17 Defence Ministry Firing Range
143/2 0.13 Defence Ministry Firing Range
144/1 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range
145 0.19 Defence Ministry Firing Range
148/2 3.30 Defence Ministry Firing Range
149 3.20 Defence Ministry Firing Range
150 2.26 Defence Ministry Firing Range
151 6.21 Defence Ministry Firing Range
152 2.91 Defence Ministry Firing Range
153 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range
154 3.28 Defence Ministry Firing Range
22 Gorewada 58/1-2-3 2.30 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard /
Cemetery
102/2,
103/1,
103/2K,
103/3K,
103/4Kh
6.32 Defence Ministry Firing Range
107
106 19.55 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Water Work
110 6.58 Forest Deptt. Forest Use
112 8.47 Forest Deptt. Forest Use
113 0.65 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Gorewada Water
Tank
115 1.68 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Gorewada Water
Tank
121 10.44 Forest Deptt. Forest Use
23 Police Line
Takli
8 5.99 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
9 35.14 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
17 7.41 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
15 1.45 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
19 3.05 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
20 2.19 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
21 0.03 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
23 2.17 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
26 0.85 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
28 0.85 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
32 1.18 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
36 1.38 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
39 0.31 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
40 14.62 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
43 0.39 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
45 3.30 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
108
46 0.25 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
47 1.62 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
49 1.93 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
52 2.31 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
54 0.93 Home Deptt / Police
Deptt
Police Head
Quarter
57/2 2.87 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
60/1 0.85 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
60/3 0.04 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
61/2 1.15 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
24 Nari 161 0.78 Govt. Zudpi Jungle house
163 1.83 Power greed office office
166 0.07 Power greed office office
167 3.54 Power greed office Office
66/1 8.16 Govt. Zudpi Jungle house
66/2 2.75 Govt. Zudpi Jungle house
25 Indora 6 0.79 J E Nazul Govt Road & houses
38/3, 40/1,
46/2, 47,
49/1, 50,
51, 63
21.81 J E Nazul Govt Houses
53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58,
59, 60, 61,
62/1, 98,
99, 100,
101, 102,
103, 104,
105, 106,
107
65.86 J E Nazul Govt Houses
65, 66/, 2 0.27 J E Nazul Govt Houses
68, 69 1.17 J E Nazul Govt Houses
84, 85 0.77 J E Nagpur
Improvement Trust
Houses
97/2 0.37 J E Nazul Govt Houses
97/3 0.01 J E Nazul Govt Houses
109
112, 113,
114, 115,
116, 119/1,
120/1, 121,
122, 126/1,
127/1
26.24 J E Nazul Govt Houses
26 Mankapur 51 0.10 Residential Nagpur
Improvement Trust
Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
48 0.03 Residential Nagpur
Improvement Trust
Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
53 0.18 Residential Nagpur
Improvement Trust
Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
27 Jaripatka 26/1 0.79 Residential Nagpur Municipal
Corp School
27/4 6.15 Nazul Residential
35 0.94 Nazul Residential
40/52 9.08 Nazul Residential on
lease
41/1 1.80 Residential Nagoba temple
27/1, 35/4 12.66 Residential Houses
27/2 3.30 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Buried ground
27/3 0.24 Residential Residential
29/2, 31/2,
32/2
0.78 Nazul Residential
purpose
38 0.34 Road Road
40/1 1.54 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Cementry Buried
gournd
41/2 0.97 Nazul Residential
purpose
43, 44, 44/1 6.77 Nazul Residential
purpose
48, 49, 50 2.39 Education Dept Education
purpose
51/1 0.28 Central Govt Railway line
59 0.38 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Education
purpose
67 2.02 Central Govt Railway
residential
quarters
110
94 0.46 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Plantation
98 0.28 Nazul Religious
structure
102/2 0.03 Nazul Plantation
117 0.28 Nazul Plantation
29/1 0.11 Nazul Residential
purpose
96/1 0.45 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Road
28 Wanjara 96/3 0.09 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Road
29 Wanari 42 0.24 Nagpur Improvement
Trust
Residential Area
30 Bhandewadi 7 0.32 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Edgah/Grave
Yard/Cemetery
13 1.31 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Edgah/Grave
Yard/Cemetery
31 Punapur 7 0.06 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard/
Cemetery
32 Pardi 81/1 0.29 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Bed of Nag River
81/3 0.01 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Bed of Nag River
33 Hiwari 32/3 0.05 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Bed of Nag River
34 Babulkheda 18 0.46 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Main Road
36 0.53 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
School &
Dispensary
35 Manewada 20, 21 0.81 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Grave Yard/
Cemetery
36 Sakkardara 82/2 7.94 Nazul Residencial Area
37 Bidpeth 9.08 1.78 Nazul Religious
Stracture
39, 40, 41/2 1.49 Nazul Residential Area
38 Harpur 29 0.39 Nagpur Municipal
Corp
Road
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....