SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India And Others – Respondents
In The Matter of: State of Maharashtra – Applicant
Prasad Khale – Intervenor/Applicant
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. 44062 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
Decided On : 22-05-2025
Prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is essential for the establishment (or running) of saw mills in Zudpi Jungle lands or any other forest land.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issue concerning zudpi forest lands usage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. impact of historical context on land classification. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 3. decision on land classification under forest (conservation) act. (Para 138) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
| INDEX | |
| I. | INTRODUCTION |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS |
| III. | FACTUAL POSITION |
| a. | Meaning of the term Zudpi |
| b. | Forest Conservation Act, 1980 |
| c. | Steps taken by the State Government |
| (i) | Government Order dated 6th November 1987 |
| (ii) | Mahajan Committee and Joshi Committee |
| (iii) | Expert Committee |
| d. | HPC constituted by the Central Government |
| e. | Remedial measures by Central and State Government |
| f. | IAs concerning Zudpi Jungle |
| (i) | IA No.176 of 1997 |
| (ii) | IA No.12465 of 2019 |
| g. | Recommendations in the 2025 CEC Report |
| IV. | ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION |
| V. | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| a. | Locus of the intervenor in IA No.127871 of 2020 |
| b. | Efforts taken by CEC |
| c. | Consequences of not accepting recommendations of CEC |
| d. | Social and Economic Justice |
| e. | Inter-relationship between DPSP and Fundamental Rights . 55 |
| f. | Case Laws on clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 |
| g. | Right to Shelter |
| h. | Right to Livelihood |
| i. | Sustainable Development |
| j. | Effect of CEC’s recommendations |
| VI. | CONCLUSION |
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 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 bee
Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Limited and Others
State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India
H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior v. Union of India and Another
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another
Minerva Mills Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others
Waman Rao and Others v. Union of India and Others
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India and Others
State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Others
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Others
Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Thana Electric Supply Company and Others
Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and Others
Chameli Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Others
Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others
In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures
Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others v. Union of India and Others
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and Others
In Re (Court on its own Motion) v. Union of India and Others
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others
S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others
Consumer Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra
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.