IN RE- ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS versus

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1480, 2025 INSC 754

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih, J.

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others writ petition this Court vide order dated 12. 12. 1996 stated that the Zudpi Lands would also be treated as Forest Lands for the purpose of the 1980 Act [2025] 5 S. C. R. 1480 : 2025 INSC 754 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands [(I. A. No. 12465 of 2019 with I. A. No. 98194 of 2019, I. A. No. 127871 of 2020, I. A. No. 127874 of 2020, I. A. No. 44062 of 2025, I. A. No. 66986 and 74569 of 2025) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)] In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others In the Matter of: State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Prasad Khale ... Intervenor/Applicant 22 May 2025 [B. R. Gavai,* CJI and Augustine George Masih, J. ] Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to the status of Zudpi Jungle or Zudpi Forest in the six districts of State of Maharashtra; and whether the recommendations made by the CEC in its 2025 Report should be accepted or not.

Headnotes† Forest Act, 1927 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Reserved forest - Zudpi Jungle - Status of Zudpi Jungle/Zudpi Forest in the districts of Eastern Vidarbha Region-Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli of State of Maharashtra - State of Maharashtra's case that though these lands recorded in the revenue records as Zudpi Forest lands, however, these lands are not forest lands and for the past several decades have been put to various non-forestry purpose like residential, agricultural, government offices, public schools, primary health centres - In the present writ petition this Court vide order dated 12. 12. 1996 stated that the Zudpi Lands would also be treated as Forest Lands for the purpose of the 1980 Act - Thereafter, recommendations by the High Powered Committee that 92,115 Ha.

of Zudpi Jungle, found to be suitable for forestry management, development * Author In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands and conservation, to be notified as reserved forest, and 86,409 Ha. Zudpi Jungle land, not suitable for forest management, to be denotified and be allowed for any non-forestry purpose - Subsequently, upon recommendation of Forest Advisory Committee, MoEF&CC granted approval for diversion of certain area - Thereafter, recommendation by FAC that Net Present Value-NPV not to be collected from State for diversion where Zudpi Jungle land has been put to non-forestry use before 12. 12. 1996 - State then filed IA for clarification that the directions of Supreme Court dated 12. 12.

1996 not applicable in respect of certain area of Zudpi lands being unfit for Forestry Management - Pursuant thereto, the Court sought report by the Central Empowered Committee-CEC - Recommendations in the 2025 CEC Report, to be accepted or not: Held: Recommendations made by the CEC to be accepted, else would have a devastating effect - Lakhs of people residing on the said lands for a number of decades would be dishoused and huge government buildings, offices existing on the said lands for decades will also have to be demolished as also the facilities in use by the Defence Ministry, Air Force, and the Agricultural Universities - Thus, the Zudpi Jungle lands to be considered as Forest lands in line with the order of Supreme Court - Zudpi Jungle lands allotted by the competent authority up to 12. 12.

1996 where land classification has not been changed, the State to seek approval for their deletion from the "List of Forest Areas" - State to submit a consolidated proposal for each district, and Union of India to approve the same without imposing any condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV levies - Union Government and the State to devise a format for the proposal of diversion of Zudpi Jungle land for non-forestry activities within the stipulated period - For proposal regarding the allotments of Zudpi Jungle lands made post 12. 12.

1996, the State to give reasons for making such allotments with the list of officers who had made allotments in violation of the order of this Court, and ensure that punitive action is taken against such officers - State to declare all the unallotted "fragmented land parcels" as "Protected Forests", and when required for non-forestry purposes by the State Government, the proposal to be submitted and said land not to be diverted to any non-governmental entity for any purpose - State to issue directions to Sub-Divisional Magistrates to ensure that no land parcel is encroached upon - Special Task Force to be constituted 1482 in each district to remove encroachments within the stipulated period - Allotments for commercial purpose post 25. 10.

1980 to be treated at par with encroachments - Revenue Department of the State to hand over the possession of the remaining area to the Forest Department, and said land to be utilized only for the purpose of compensatory afforestation, only with the certificate of the Chief Secretary regarding the non-availability of non-forest land for afforestation, and compensatory afforestation must be carried out on double the area of Zudpi Jungle land as per the existing guidelines - Special Investigation Teams to be constituted to examine the Forest Land allotted to any private individuals/ institutions for any purpose other than the forestry purpose, and thereafter, to take back the possession of the land from them and hand over the same to the Forest Department - In case, taking back the possession, not in the larger public interest, the State Governments/Union Territories to recover the cost of the said land from the persons in occupation thereof and use the said amount for the development of forests.

[Paras 68, 138] Words and phrases - Meaning of the term 'Zudpi': Held: 'Zudpi' is a Marathi word which literally means Bushes/ Shrubs - Zudpi lands means inferior type of unoccupied lands with bushy growth - 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 - 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 - Central Province Grazing and Nistar Act, 1948. [Paras 11, 14] Constitution of India - Arts. 38, 39 - Social and Economic Justice - Use of term "strive" in Art. 38 - Discussed.

[Paras 73-78] Constitution of India - Directive Principles of the State PolicyDPSP and Fundamental Rights - Inter-relationship between: Held: Both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the State Policy are equally important and that there is no conflict amongst them - They are complementary to each other, and that they together are the conscience of the Constitution - Widest possible interpretation given by Supreme Court with regard In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands to importance of Directive Principles while upholding various enactments and steps taken by the Legislature or the Executive for bringing social and economic justice. [Paras 84, 94] Constitutional of India - Art. 21 - Right to shelter - Meaning.

[Paras 104-108] Constitutional of India - Fundamental right - Right to livelihood - Sustainable Development, as a balancing concept - Explanation: Held: 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 and for the purposes of defence services including the Army and the Air Force - Citizens who are residing in the houses built on these lands for decades together cannot be permitted to be dishoused - Agriculturists allotted lands for their livelihood in order to give effect to the promise of social and economic equality to the citizens cannot be deprived of their livelihood at this stage - Citizens cannot be deprived of public amenities which are essential for living in their day-to-day life in a dignified manner - Balance between environmental protection and the need for sustainable development to be considered.

[Paras 115, 117] Case Law Cited T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. , 1996 INSC 1477 : [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 982 : (1997) 2 SCC 267; State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Others, 1953 INSC 89 : [1954] 1 SCR 587 : (1953) 2 SCC 688; Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Limited and Others, 1953 INSC 92 : [1954] 1 SCR 674 : (1953) 2 SCC 791; State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee, 1953 INSC 85 : [1954] 1 SCR 558 : (1953) 2 SCC 648; I. C. Golak Nath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, 1967 INSC 45 : [1967] 2 SCR 762; Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 INSC 18 : [1970] 3 SCR 530 : (1970) 1 SCC 248; H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior v. Union of India and Another, 1970 INSC 250 : [1971] 3 SCR 9 : (1971) 1 SCC 85; His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another, 1973 INSC 91 : [1973] Supp.

1 SCR 1 : (1973) 4 1484 SCC 225; Minerva Mills Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1980 INSC 142 : [1981] 1 SCR 206 : (1980) 3 SCC 625; Waman Rao and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1980 INSC 216 : [1981] 2 SCR 1 : (1981) 2 SCC 362; Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India and Others, 1980 INSC 219 : [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 862 : (1981) 1 SCC 166; State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Others, 1983 INSC 168 : [1984] 1 SCR 725 : (1984) 1 SCC 515; State of Maharashtra and Another v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Others, 1986 INSC 40 : [1986] 1 SCR 707 : (1986) 2 SCC 516; Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Thana Electric Supply Company and Others, 1989 INSC 127 : [1989] 2 SCR 518 : (1989) 3 SCC 616; Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and Others, 1989 INSC 128 : [1989] 2 SCR 544 : (1989) 3 SCC 709; Chameli Singh and Others v. State of U. P. and Another, 1995 INSC 906 : [1995] Supp.

6 SCR 827 : (1996) 2 SCC 549; Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Others, 1996 INSC 1189 : [1996] Supp. 7 SCR 548 : (1997) 11 SCC 121; Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, 1985 INSC 151 : [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 51 : (1985) 3 SCC 545; In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, 2024 INSC 866 : [2024] 11 SCR 722 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291; Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1995 INSC 76 : [1995] 1 SCR 626 : (1995) 3 SCC 42; Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and Others, 1999 INSC 299 : [1999] 3 SCR 1279 : (1999) 6 SCC 667; Amarnath Shrine, In Re (Court on its own Motion) v. Union of India and Others, 2012 INSC 593 : [2012] 13 SCR 1093 : (2013) 3 SCC 247; State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others, 2022 INSC 1131 : [2022] 19 SCR 781 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469; Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v.

Union of India and Others, 1996 INSC 952 : [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647; S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others, 1996 INSC 1466 : [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 848 : (1997) 2 SCC 87; Consumer Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others, 2000 INSC 81 : [2000] 1 SCR 907 : (2000) 2 SCC 599; Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A. P. and Others, 2006 INSC 101 : [2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC 549; Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga and Others, 2019 INSC 1203 : [2019] 13 SCR 577 : (2020) 15 SCC 784; Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd. ) and Others v. In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (C) No. 1164 of 2023; In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 701 - referred to.

List of Acts Constitution of India; Forest Act, 1927; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Central Province Grazing and Nistar Act, 1948; Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966; Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954; Central Province Settlement Code, 1889; Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

List of Keywords Zudpi; Zudpi Forest/Jungle; Zudpi lands; Reserved forest; Traditionally grazing lands; Gairan/Gurcharan/E-Class land; Ex Central Province Districts; Rights of grazing and Nistar; Non- forestry purpose; Scrub Forests; "Mahajan Committee"; "Joshi Committee"; High Powered Committee; Inaction of bureaucrats; Compensatory afforestation; Net Present Value; Nagpur Quarry Owners Welfare Association; Recorded forests; Locus of intervenor; Malguzari system; Nistar Officers; Social and economic justice; Term "strive"; Parliamentary democracy; Economic democracy; Directive Principles of the State Policy; Inter-relationship between Directive Principles of the State Policy and Fundamental Rights; Conscience of the Constitution; Right to shelter; Right to livelihood; Sustainable development; Customary International Law; Distributive justice; Larger green cover; Status of the parcels of lands known as Zudpi Jungle or Zudpi Forest; Six districts of Eastern Vidarbha Region- Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli; Recommendations by the CEC in its 2025 Report; Forest lands; Suitable for forestry management, development and conservation; Non-forestry purpose; Forest Advisory Committee; Certain area of Zudpi lands unfit for Forestry Management; Central Empowered Committee; Defence Ministry; Air Force; Buildings, offices of the Central Government and the State Government; Agricultural Universities; List of Forest Areas; Compensatory afforestation; Non-forestry activities; Fragmented land parcels; Protected Forests; Sub-Divisional Magistrates; Special Task Force; Non-forest land for afforestation; Special Investigation Teams; Development of forests; Meaning of the term 'Zudpi'; Bushes/Shrubs; Inferior type of unoccupied lands with bushy growth; Murmadi soil; Grazing lands; Social and Economic Justice.

1486 Case Arising From CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India I. A. No(s). 12465 and 98194 of 2019, I. A. No(s). 127871 and 127874 of 2020, I. A. No(s). 44062, 66986 and 74569 of 2025 In Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Appearances for Parties K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. /Amicus Curiae. Advs. for the Petitioner: M. V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Shreenivas Patil, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Ms. Chitransha Singh, M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co. , M/s. Lawyer S. Knit & Co. , Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers And Co. , Syed Mehdi Imam, Tabrez Ahmad, Tashriq Ahmad, T. Harish Kumar. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, K. M. Nataraj, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A. S. Gs. , Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A. A. G. , Shiv Mangal Sharma, Ajay Agarwal, A. A. Gs. , A. N. S. Nadkarni, Ravindra Kumar, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sanjay Upadhyay, Ms. Dr. Monika Gusain, Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Advs. , Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, D. P. Singh, Ms.

Srishti Agnihotri, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Pratibha Singh, Vikram Patralekh, Syed Faizan Ali, Himanshu Gupta, Dhruv Kaushik, Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Shuvodeep Roy, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, E. M. S. Anam, Ms. Sushma Suri, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, A. N. Arora, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mrs. Bina Gupta, P. V. Yogeswaran, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Jai Prakash Pandey, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Shibashish Misra, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K. Sharma, Tarun Johri, Radha Shyam Jena, Ajit Pudussery, K. V. Vijayakumar, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Divya Roy, V. Balachandran, S. C. Birla, Ram Swarup Sharma, Ashok Mathur, M/s. Parekh & Co. , Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Surekha Raman, Shreyash Kumar, Harshit Singh, Yashwant Sanjenbam, Sidharth Nair, M/s. K J John And Co, H. S. Parihar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P. R. Ramasesh, T. Mahipal, Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Kuldip Singh, Ms.

Bina Madhavan, Ms. Adviteeya, Rakesh K. Sharma, P. N. Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Mahesh Agarwal, Nilay Gupta, Ms. Deepti In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands Arya, Salvador Santosh, E. C. Agrawala, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Rajat Joseph, Gopal Prasad, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co, Mrs. Nandini Gore, E. C. Vidya Sagar, M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Rajeev Singh, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Surya Kant, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Prashant Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Vikrant Singh Bais, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. Charu Mathur, A. Venayagam Balan, Sudarsh Menon, Ramesh Babu M. R. , M/s. Corporate Law Group, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Sufyan Hasan, Ms. Hema Malik, Ms. Jayasheela, Rajiv Mehta, Ejaz Maqbool, Rajesh, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Abhishek Chaudhary, B V Deepak, T.

N. Singh, C. L. Sahu, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Neeraj Shekhar, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Rajesh Singh, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Gopal Singh, T. V. George, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh, Youkteshwari Prasad, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Mata Prasad Pathak, Vijay Singh, Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Chandrakant Siddarkar, Rajmani Mohanty, Arvind Kumar Tomar, Soumyadeep Chatterjee, Mayur Raj, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Rathin Das, M. Yogesh Kanna, Vikash Singh, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Shyam Gopal, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Harish Pandey, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Krishna Kant Dubey, Piyush Beriwal, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Shashwat Parihar, Mukesh K Verma, Vinayak Sharma, Raman Yadav, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Saurabh Rajpal, Himinder Lal, Ms.

Shruti Jose, Kaushik Choudhury, Aravindh S. , Ms. Jyoti P, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Atul Sharma, Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Shrey Kapoor, Ms. Anne Mathew, Yash S. Vijay, Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Brijesh Kumar, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Dhaval Mehrotra, Binay Kumar Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Shivam Saksena, Vikas Bharti, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Subhasish Mohanty, Mr Rahul Jain, Sabarish Subramanian, Naveen Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, M/s. D. s. k. Legal, Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Saurabh Rajpal, Amogh Bansal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Yatinder Choudhary, Pankaj Sharma, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Ms. Nidhi 1488 Jaswal, Milind Kumar, Mohit Paul, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D Singh, Sharanagouda Patil, Mrs. Supreeta Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Yash, Ms.

Supreeta Sharanagouda, Ms. Adarsh Nain, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Keshav Singh, B. P. Naidu, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Raghav Sharma, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Suhasini Sen, Gaurang Bhushan, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Sunil Kumar Verma, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Sujit Kumar Mishra, Aldanish Rein, Kunal Mimani, Nishanth Patil, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra S. Garia, Karan Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Deeptakirti Verma, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vivek Jain, Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rani Mishra, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Venkata Raghuvamsy D. , Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Ms. Aditi Mishra, Vinod Kumar, Kamlendra Mishra, Somesh Chandra Jha, Ms.

Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Ms. Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Tarun Gupta, Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Shubham Upadhyay, P. S. Sudheer, Sunny Choudhary, Siddhartha Jha, Naved Anwar, Naveen . N, K Nagan Pillai, M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co. , Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar, Shovan Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Suman Kukrety, Naveen Kumar, P. K. Manohar, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Rajeev Singh, Ms. Parul Shukla, Prashant Kumar Umrao, Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, B. K. Pal, James P. Thomas, S. Gowthaman, A. Karthik, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Anurag Tandon, Akshay Amritanshu, Hariom Yaduvanshi, Arjun Yaduvanshi, Ms. S. Harini, Avi Dhankhar, Vansmani Tripathi, Ms. Aahana Jaiswal, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Omanakuttan K. K. , Ajit Sharma, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Ms.

Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Neha Singh, Siddharth Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Uday Prakash Yadav, Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanium, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S S Rebello, Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Sachin Jaysing Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Nabil Khader, Sachin Patil, Shubhranshu Padhi, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Alim Anvar, Ms. Anu K Hoy, Santhosh K, Nishit Agrawal, Krishna Ballabh Thakur, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shishir Deshpande, Yusuf, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Raghvendra Kumar, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Ms. M. Harshini, Anant Mann, Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Mrs. Samriti Ahuja, Ms. Aditi Prakash, Ms. Divija Mahajan. Applicant-in-person. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 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 6th 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 47 CEC ..................................................................................... d. Social and Economic Justice ........................................... 48 * Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment. 1490 e. Inter-relationship between DPSP and Fundamental 55 Rights .................................................................................. 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 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: "(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 Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, two reports have been submitted by the CEC being CEC Report No. 29 of 2019 dated 22nd October 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "2019 CEC Report") and CEC Report No. 8 of 2025 dated 17th 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 amicuscuriae, 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 1492 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 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. 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands literally means Bushes/Shrubs. Zudpi lands means inferior type of unoccupied lands with bushy growth.

The term Zudpi 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 were 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 and Vidarbha Region of Maharashtra with Nagpur as its capital. 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. 1494 (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. 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, In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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 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 1st 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 25th 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 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.

1496 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 6th November 1987 22. Faced with the peculiar problem arising out of the 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 6th 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 Revenue Department In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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 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 6th 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 12th 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 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 12th February 1992, the Government of Maharashtra 1498 vide Resolution dated 17th March 1994 withdrew its earlier Government Order dated 6th 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 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 12th December 19961 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 1 1996 INSC 1477 : (1997) 2 SCC 267 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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 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, Chairman Maharashtra State 2.

Chief Conservator of Forests (Conservator), Member Maharashtra State 3. Director, Social Forestry, Maharashtra State Member 4. Settlement Commissioner and Director of Member Land Records, Pune 5. Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Revenue and Member Forests Department 6. Representative of Private Company indulging Member in raising of plantation of tree species 7. Representative of the NGO, Fr. Krispino Lobo Member of Indo-German Watershed Development Programme, Ahmednagar 8. Nodal Officer in the o/o of the Principal Chief Member - Conservator of Forests Secretary 31. The Expert Committee submitted its report and on the basis of the said report, an affidavit came to be filed by the State of Maharashtra before this Court on 20th August 1997. In the said affidavit, three categories were made i. e. , (i) forest; (ii) areas which were earlier 1500 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 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 21st 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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. " 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 1502 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. 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 minerals 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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. (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. 1504 Recommendations 1. 92,115 Ha. of Zudpi Jungle, which is found to be suitable for forestry management, development 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 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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 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 24th 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 20th 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 18th 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 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 1506 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 18th 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. (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. In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands (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 with 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 FAC in its meeting dated 26th October 2017. The FAC recommended that since the concept of NPV was introduced by this Court in its order dated 29th 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 12th 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 1508 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. 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 29th 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 12th December 1996 was passed by this 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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 12th December 1996. The said recommendation of the CEC was accepted by this Court vide order dated 6th 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 prayers which we have already reproduced hereinbefore. 42. This Court, vide order dated 8th March 2019, sought the opinion of the CEC. Pursuant to the order dated 8th March 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; 1510 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; 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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 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 14th 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 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 2025 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 1512 (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 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands 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 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 six 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 decisionmaking 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 1514 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 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands to the CEC to monitor the progress of the aforesaid transfer of the Reserve Forest Lands and 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. 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. 1516 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 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 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 12th 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 In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands existing thereon. The lands were allotted to landless people for agricultural purposes. 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 6th 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 6th 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