SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings In Forest Land Maharashtra
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
I.A. No. 2079 of 2007 [Application for Impleadment and Directions], I.A. Nos. 2301-2302 of 2008 [Applications for Impleadment and Directions in I.A. No. 2079 of 2007], I.A. Nos. 3044-3045 of 2011 [Application for Impleadment and Directions in I.A. No. 2079 of 2007], I.A. No. 254946 of 2023 [Application for Directions in I.A. Nos. 2301-2302 of 2008 in I.A. No. 2079 of 2007], I.A. No. 39711 of 2024 [Application for Permission to file Additional Documents in I.A. No. 254946 of 2023], Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995, Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008, I.A. No. 9108 of 2024 in Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008
Decided On : 15-05-2025
The original case number is Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and its context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. issues for consideration by the court. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. analysis of the doctrine of desuetude. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. legal obligations of the state toward forest conservation (Para 30 , 34) |
| 6. observations on the bona fide purchaser argument. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 48 , 49) |
| 7. final conclusion on the allotment and directions. (Para 91 , 92) |
| 8. final ruling on illegal allotment and restoration of land. (Para 96) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
| (I) | INTRODUCTION |
| (II) | FACTUAL POSITION |
| (a) Background | |
| (b) Actions of the State Government | |
| (c) Acquisition and Construction by RRCHS | |
| (d) Proceedings before this Court | |
| (III) | SUBMISSIONS |
| (IV) | ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION |
| (V) | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| (a) As to whether the subject land is a Forest Land | |
| (b) As to whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’ and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation | |
| (c) As to whether the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable to the facts of the present case | |
| (d) As to whether the RRCHS could be said to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject land | |
| (e) As to whether the RRCHS would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land in view of the order passed by this Court in Re: “Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra” | |
| (f) As to whether the doctrine of public trust would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case | |
| (VI) | CONCLUSION |
(I) INTRODUCTION
1. The present matter is a classic example as to how the nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders can result in the conversion of precious Forest Land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose.
(II) FACTUAL POSITION
2. The facts in brief, shorn of unnecessary details, giving rise to present proceedings are as under:
(a) Background
2.1 An area admeasuring 32 Acres 35 Gunthas at Survey No. 20 of Village Kondhwa Budruk in Pune District was notified as a Reserved Forest under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian FOREST ACT , 1878 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1878 Act”) vide Notification dated 1st March 1879.
2.2 A portion of the land admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Gunthas was de-reserved by the State Government vide Notification dated 5th January 1934.
2.3 It is pertinent to note that no further orders for de-reservation were passed post 1934. As a result of which the remaining area of 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas, which was numbered as Survey No. 20-A and subsequently renumbered as Survey No. 21 of Village Kondhwa Budruk remained to be a Forest Land (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”).
2.4 During the 1960s, a different parcel of land in Survey No. 37 of Kondhwa Budruk belonging to one ‘Chavan Family’ was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of construction of “Dr. Bandorwala Leprosy Hospital.”
2.5 It appears from the record that no compensation was paid to the ‘Chavan Family’. As such, a request was made by them for allotment of the subject land as an alternative for their resettlement.
2.6 It further appears from the record that in response to the request made by the ‘Chavan Family’, the Tehsildar, Haveli vide his communication dated 13th May 1968, released the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’ for cultivation for a period of one year. The subject land was allotted on “Eksali” (yearly) basis for the year 1968-69.
2.7 The said allotment was accepted by the ‘Chavan Family’. The members of the ‘Chavan Family’ had also given an undertaking to th
Cantonment Board, MHOW and Another vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation
State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and Others
Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and Another vs. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and Others
Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited vs. Union of India and Others
State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram Modi and Others
Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat and Others
State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram Modi, (1985) 3 SCC 643 [Para 29
Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P.
Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerala
Suraj Bhan and Others vs. Financial Commissioner and Others
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others
M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu
Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.