Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1301
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
I.A. No. 191387 of 2025 In I.A. No.12465 of 2019 In W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995
Decided On : 25-08-2025
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Vijay S. Khamkar, Adv. Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)/Non-Applicant(s): Ms. Madhavi Diwan,Sr.Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri,AOR Ms. Aishani Narain,Adv. Atharva Kotwal,Adv. Mr. D.P. Singh,Adv. Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurian,Adv. Ms. Anchal Kanthed,Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K Verma, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
Headnote:(A) The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - Section 3(2) - Modification of judgment regarding fragmented land parcels for public use and encroachments - The Court clarifies the procedure for declaring land as a protected forest and allows certain prior encroachments to remain. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 9)
(B) Forest Rights - The court affirms that fragmented lands can be utilized under specific conditions as per statutory provisions, while also recognizing the need for preserving existing structures used for public utilities. (Paras 3, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The State of Maharashtra sought modifications to a previous order regarding land usage, specifically concerning the declaration of fragmented lands as protected forest and exemptions for encroachments in agricultural and public use.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the designation of fragmented lands as protected but allowed exemptions for certain encroachments existing prior to a specified date.
Issues: The primary issues addressed were the modification of a previous judgment regarding land usage and encroachments and their implications under the Forest Rights Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's reasoning centered on statutory provisions allowing the State to utilize fragmented land while ensuring existing encroachments for public utilities could be preserved if they met specific conditions.
Result: Application disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. state's application for modification of judgment (Para 1) |
| 2. court's reasoning on fragmented land use (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. clarification on protected forest declarations (Para 5) |
| 4. consideration of previous land usage (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. approval of regularization of encroachments prior to 1996 (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. disposal of the application (Para 10) |
ORDER
1. The State of Maharashtra has filed the present application with the following prayers:-
“(i) It is most respectfully prayed that the judgment and final order dated 22.05.2025 may kindly be modified as follows:-
(a) That the Direction in para 138(vii) may kindly be modified to the extent that ‘Fragmented Land Parcels’ instead of being declared as protected forest each having an area of less than 3 hectares and not adjoining any forest area may be used for the purposes referred to in Section 3(2) in Forests Rights Act, 2006 or other public uses required by the concerned village, Goathan etc.
(b) That the Direction in para 138(x) may be modified to the extent that the encroachments which are in use for the purposes of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, govt. employee colonies, govt. or Z.P. Schools, private schools to the extent of 10365.049 hectares may kindly be saved in the manner provided under para 138(ii) of the present judgment.
(ii) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Insofar as prayer clause (i)(a) is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain the same. However, it is clear from sub- section (2) of Section 3 of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) that the provisions therein begin with a non obstante clause.
3. If the State desires to use any of the fragmented land parcels, which we have directed to be declared as protected forest, the State can always take recourse to the provisions of sub-Section(2) of Section 3 of the said Act.
4. We are therefore not inclined to accept the prayer clause (i) (a) and reject the same.
5. Accordingly, with respect to the direction in para 138(vii) of the judgment and order dated 22nd May 2025 is concerned, we direct that all such fragmented land parcels shall be declared as protected forest. We, however, clarify that if the State desires to use the said land for any of the purposes mentioned under sub- Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, the same can be done only after following the procedure prescribed therein and subject to fulfillment of the conditions specified therein.
6. Insofar as prayer clause (i)(b) is concerned, a perusal of the judgment and order dated 22nd May 2025 would reveal that one of the main reasons why we were inclined to grant a one time exemption was that over the years and on account of apathy of revenue officials, the necessary revenue entries could not be made. For a long period of time, the land under consideration has been used for the purpose of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, Govt. employees colonies, Govt. or Z.P. Schools, private schools and other public utilities.
7. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in its report itself had recommended the protection of such structures to the extent of 10,365.049 hectares.
8. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow prayer clause (i)(b).
9. Accordingly, we direct that after clause (x) in paragraph 138 of the Judgment and order dated 22nd May 2025 passed in I.A. No.12465/2019 etc. in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 the following paragraph is treated to to be added as paragraph (x-a).
“(x-a) We, however, clarify that the directions made in paragraph (x) would not be applicable to the encroachments made prior to 12th December 1996 for the purposes of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, govt. employees colonies, govt. or Z.P. Schools, private schools and other public utilities to the extent of 10365.049 hectares, as has been observed in
