# 2025 INSC 701

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 701
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-15
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih, K. Vinod Chandran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2025-insc-701-38676
- **Pages:** 67

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the subject land is a Forest Land; whether
the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending
the allotment of subject land in favour of C family and as to
whether the State Government was justified in accepting the
said recommendation; whether the doctrine of desuetude and
the doctrine of public trust would be applicable to the facts of the
case; whether the Housing Society could be said to be bona fide
purchaser of the subject land; and whether the Housing Society
would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land.
Headnotes†
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - s.2 - Restriction on the
dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest
purpose - Certain land notified as a reserved forest under the
1878 Act, and a portion was de-reserved but remaining land
of village Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune continued to be
forest land - Different parcel of land acquired from C family
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1383
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
and as an alternative for their resettlement, subject land
allotted to family for cultivation on Eksaali-yearly basis, which
was never renewed - In 1988, C family applied for permanent
release of subject land - Recommendation of the Divisional
Commissioner to allot the entire land in favour of C and no
necessity to obtain prior approval of Central Government -
Thereafter, Minister of Revenue, State Government on advise
by the legal department sanctioned the allotment to C -
Issuance of allotment order by the Collector - Thereafter, the
Divisional Commissioner granted permission to C family to
sell land to promoter of the Housing Society for residential
purposes - Allotment of reserved forest land to private persons
for construction of buildings in violation of 1980 Act - Legality:
Held: Allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land of village
Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune for agriculture purposes in 1998
and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of Housing
Society totally illegal - Said land was notified as Reserved Forest
and which reservation continues to be so till date - Nothing on
record to show that land was permitted to be used by State for
any non-forest purposes prior to 1980 - After the 1980 Act came
into effect, no forest land could be de-reserved without the prior
approval of the Central Government, also the Forest land could not
be assigned either by way of lease or any other mode to any private
person without the approval - Opinion given by Law Department,
the order approving allotment in favour of the family issued by State
Government, and the order of allotment by the Collector took place
well after directions were issued by Supreme Court - Decision of the
State Government of allotting the land and implementing the same
by the Collector not sustainable in law - Furthermore, the doctrine
of desuetude not applicable - Subject land has continuously been
recorded as 'Reserved Forest' in forest records - Forest Authorities
through a number of communications had requested Revenue
Authorities to correct the revenue entries and transfer the land to
the Forest Department - It cannot be said that notification issued
under 1878 Act has been put to disuse for a long time - Nothing
on record to show that a practice contrary to the provisions of
the Act was being applied - Also, the Minister for Revenue and
Divisional Commissioner gave a total go-bye to the doctrine of public
trust - Furthermore, entries in revenue records do not confer title
to property - Much prior to actual allotment of land in the favour of
the Housing Society, C family had already entered into transactions
with builders - Housing Society could not be said to be a bonafide
purchaser of the subject land - C family was only set up as a front
1384
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for the benefit of the Developers - Agricultural land of C family
was acquired, was being misused by the developers as a pretext
for grabbing t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,212 of 134,783. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39212 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1382 : 2025 INSC 701
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest
Land Maharashtra
[(I.A. No. 2079 of 2007, I.A. No(s). 2301-2302 of 2008,
I.A. No(s). 3044-3045 of 2011, I.A. No. 254946 of 2023 and
I.A. No. 39711 of 2024)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)
With
(Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008)
With
(I.A. No. 9108 of 2024)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008)]
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad
v.
Union of India & Ors.
15 May 2025
[B.R. Gavai,* CJI, Augustine George Masih and
K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the subject land is a Forest Land; whether
the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending
the allotment of subject land in favour of C family and as to
whether the State Government was justified in accepting the
said recommendation; whether the doctrine of desuetude and
the doctrine of public trust would be applicable to the facts of the
case; whether the Housing Society could be said to be bona fide
purchaser of the subject land; and whether the Housing Society
would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land.
Headnotes†
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - s.2 - Restriction on the
dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest
purpose - Certain land notified as a reserved forest under the
1878 Act, and a portion was de-reserved but remaining land
of village Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune continued to be
forest land - Different parcel of land acquired from C family
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1383
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
and as an alternative for their resettlement, subject land
allotted to family for cultivation on Eksaali-yearly basis, which
was never renewed - In 1988, C family applied for permanent
release of subject land - Recommendation of the Divisional
Commissioner to allot the entire land in favour of C and no
necessity to obtain prior approval of Central Government -
Thereafter, Minister of Revenue, State Government on advise
by the legal department sanctioned the allotment to C -
Issuance of allotment order by the Collector - Thereafter, the
Divisional Commissioner granted permission to C family to
sell land to promoter of the Housing Society for residential
purposes - Allotment of reserved forest land to private persons
for construction of buildings in violation of 1980 Act - Legality:
Held: Allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land of village
Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune for agriculture purposes in 1998
and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of Housing
Society totally illegal - Said land was notified as Reserved Forest
and which reservation continues to be so till date - Nothing on
record to show that land was permitted to be used by State for
any non-forest purposes prior to 1980 - After the 1980 Act came
into effect, no forest land could be de-reserved without the prior
approval of the Central Government, also the Forest land could not
be assigned either by way of lease or any other mode to any private
person without the approval - Opinion given by Law Department,
the order approving allotment in favour of the family issued by State
Government, and the order of allotment by the Collector took place
well after directions were issued by Supreme Court - Decision of the
State Government of allotting the land and implementing the same
by the Collector not sustainable in law - Furthermore, the doctrine
of desuetude not applicable - Subject land has continuously been
recorded as 'Reserved Forest' in forest records - Forest Authorities
through a number of communications had requested Revenue
Authorities to correct the revenue entries and transfer the land to
the Forest Department - It cannot be said that notification issued
under 1878 Act has been put to disuse for a long time - Nothing
on record to show that a practice contrary to the provisions of
the Act was being applied - Also, the Minister for Revenue and
Divisional Commissioner gave a total go-bye to the doctrine of public
trust - Furthermore, entries in revenue records do not confer title
to property - Much prior to actual allotment of land in the favour of
the Housing Society, C family had already entered into transactions
with builders - Housing Society could not be said to be a bonafide
purchaser of the subject land - C family was only set up as a front
1384
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for the benefit of the Developers - Agricultural land of C family
was acquired, was being misused by the developers as a pretext
for grabbing the valuable piece of Forest Land for the purposes
of commercial development - Transactions between the Housing
Society and C family totally illegal and contrary to the conditions on
which the land was allotted to C family - Housing Society not entitled
to allotment of alternative piece of land, as that would amount to
granting a premium to Housing Society for illegalities committed by
them - Allotment of the subject land to C family in blatant disregard
to the provisions of the law as well as the directions issued by this
Court from time to time, as also ignoring the communications of the
Forest Department that the said land could not be allotted inasmuch
as, the same was classified as a Forest Land - In view thereof,
the environmental clearance granted to Housing Society illegal and
is quashed and set aside - Possession of the land, reserved as
Forest Land, and are in possession of Revenue Department, to be
handed over to Forest Department - Special Investigation Teams to
be constituted to examine if any of the reserved Forest Land in the
possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to any
private individuals/institutions for the purpose other than the forestry
purpose - Government to take steps to take back the possession of
such land and handover the same to the Forest Department, and in
case, taking back not in the larger public interest, the governments to
recover the cost of the said land from the allottees and use the said
amount for development of forests - Special Teams to ensure that all
such transfers take place within the stipulated period and such land
to be used only for the purpose of afforestation - Forest Act, 1878.
[Paras 20-22, 24, 28, 37, 38, 43, 44, 47, 52, 64, 71, 73, 77, 90, 91, 95]
Doctrines - Doctrine of desuetude - Applicability:
Held: For applicability of the doctrine of desuetude, the statute must
not only be required to be in disuse for long duration but instead
a contrary practice must also be prevalent. [Para 42]
Case Law Cited
State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Others, 1985 INSC 126 :
[1985] Supp. 1 SCR 345 : (1985) 3 SCC 643 - held inapplicable.
Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and anr v. Bharat Forge
Co. Ltd. and Ors., 1995 INSC 181 : [1995] 2 SCR 716 : (1995)
3 SCC 434; State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik
and Ors., 1982 INSC 78 : [1983] 1 SCR 655 : (1982) 3 SCC
519; Cantonment Board, MHOW and Anr v. M.P. State Road
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1385
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
Transport Corpn., 1997 INSC 401 : [1997] 3 SCR 813 : (1997) 9
SCC 450; Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India and
Others, 2012 INSC 305 : [2012] 7 SCR 644 : (2012) 11 SCC 1;
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land
Maharashtra, I.A. No.2771-2772 of 2009 in WP(C) No.202 of
1995 dt 9th September 2024; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of
Gujarat and Ors., 1986 INSC 267 : [1987] 1 SCR 562 : (1987)
1 SCC 213; Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala, 2009
INSC 371 : [2009] 4 SCR 687 : (2009) 5 SCC 373; Suraj Bhan
and others v. Financial Commissioner and Ors., 2007 INSC 424 :
[2007] 5 SCR 155 : (2007) 6 SCC 186; P. Kishor Kumar v. Vittal
K. Patkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483; In Re: T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., 2024 INSC 178 : [2024]
3 SCR 187 : (2025) 2 SCC 641 - referred to.
List of Acts
Forest Act, 1878; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
List of Keywords
Reserved forest; Nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and
builders; Eksaali; Environmental clearance; Reserved forest land;
Forged Gazette Notification; Prior approval by Central Government;
Non-forest purposes; Doctrine of desuetude; Protection and
conservation of forest; Bona fide purchaser; Illegal transactions;
Doctrine of public trust; Non-forestry purposes; Afforestation; Forest
Land; Allotment of alternate piece of land; Village Kondhwa Budruk
in District Pune; Special Investigation Teams.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Under Article 32 of The
Constitution of India
I.A. No. 2079 of 2007, I.A. No(s). 2301-2302 of 2008, I.A. No(s). 30443045 of 2011, I.A. No. 254946 of 2023 and I.A. No. 39711 of 2024
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008 and I.A. No. 9108 of 2024 In
Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008
1386
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
K. Parameshwar, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dr. Abhishek Manu
Singhvi, Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Advs., M.V. Kunda,
Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji, Srinivas Patil, Ms. Chitransha Singh Shikarwar,
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/s. Plr Chambers And Co., Syed Mehdi
Imam, T. Harish Kumar, Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Ms. Anupama
Dhurve, Ms. Sonal K Chopra, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., M/s. Lawyer
S Knit & Co.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, K. M. Nataraj,
A.S.Gs., Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G., Shiv Mangal Sharma,
Vaibhav Srivastava, Ajay Agarwal, A.A.Gs., Pitambar Acharya,
Advocate General, Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Shekhar Naphade, Aniruddha
Joshi, Ravindra Kumar, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr.
Advs.,, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Chinmoy Khaladkar, B. K. Pal, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Aditya Krishna, Ms.
Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta,
Saurabh Tripathi, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary,
Shibashish Misra, Manav Sabharwal, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K.
Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Jai Prakash Pandey, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,
K. V. Vijayakumar, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Divya Roy, Tarun Johri,
Radha Shyam Jena, Ajit Pudussery, Ashok Mathur, M/s. Parekh &
Co., M/s. K J John And Co, V. Balachandran, S. C. Birla, Ram Swarup
Sharma, T. Mahipal, Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, H. S.
Parihar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P. R. Ramasesh, Ms. Adviteeya, Rakesh
K. Sharma, P. N. Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Mahesh Agarwal,
Nilay Gupta, E. C. Agrawala, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms.
Pratibha Jain, Rajat Joseph, Gopal Prasad, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, S..
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ranjan Mukherjee, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan,
M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Raj Kumar Mehta,
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Rajeev Singh,
Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Surya Kant, E. C. Vidya Sagar, M/s.
M. V. Kini & Associates, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
Prashant Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Kanisk Mor, Mrs.
Shweta Sand, Raju Sonkar, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar,
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, A. Venayagam
Balan, Vishwanath Gadnis, Sudarsh Menon, Ramesh Babu M. R.,
Vikrant Singh Bais, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. Charu Mathur, Rajiv
Mehta, Ejaz Maqbool, Rajesh, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Lakshmi
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1387
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
Raman Singh, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Sufyan Hasan, Ms.
Hema Malik, T. N. Singh, Rajendra Sahu, C. L. Sahu, Ms. Hema
Sahu, Manmohan Sharma, Rishabh Sahu, Ms. Sumita Hazarika,
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Abhishek Chaudhary, B V Deepak, Gopal
Singh, T. V. George, Krishnanand Pandeya, Neeraj Shekhar,
Ujjwal Ashutosh, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
Rajesh Singh, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Punit Dutt
Tyagi, Rathin Das, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Sudhir Kulshreshtha,
Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh, Youkteshwari
Prasad, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Mata Prasad Pathak, Vijay Singh,
Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Ayush Gupta, Rishabh Jain, Chandrakant
Siddarkar, Rajmani Mohanty, Somyadeep Chatterjee, Rajiv Ranjan,
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Sushma Suri, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, A. N.
Arora, Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, E. M. S. Anam, Mrs. Bina Gupta,
P. V. Yogeswaran, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms.
C. K. Sucharita, Ms. Binu Tamta, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Ms. Aditya Krishna,
Adarsh Dubey, M. Yogesh Kanna, Vikash Singh, Abhishek Atrey,
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, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, M/s. D.S.K.
Legal, Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Saurabh
Rajpal, Amogh Bansal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Rajeev
Kumar Dubey, Saurabh Singh Chauhan, M/s. Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Milind Kumar,
Mohit Paul, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ms.
Ankita Sharma, Arjun D Singh, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda,
Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Yash, Ms. Adarsh Nain, Guntur
Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Amrish Kumar,
Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.f. Philip, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin
M. Babichen, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Raghav Sharma, Jagdish
Chandra Solanki, S.s. Rebello, Suhasini Sen, Gaurang Bhushan,
Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Ms. Tannu, Yuvarj Nandal, Sunil Kumar
Verma, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Kumar
Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms. Anzu. K.
Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Sujit Kumar Mishra,
Aldanish Rein, Kunal Mimani, Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Nishanth Patil,
M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra S. Garia,
Karan Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand, Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayak,
Vikas Bansal, Deeptakirti Verma, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Chirag M.
1388
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Shroff, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vivek Jain, Sudeep Kumar, Ms.
Manisha, Ms. Rupali, Ms. Rani Mishra, Pukhrambam Ramesh
Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari
Divyasana, Venkata Raghuvamsy D., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan
Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Somesh Chandra Jha, Tarun Bajaj, 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,
P. S. Sudheer, Sunny Choudhary, Siddhartha Jha, Naved Anwar,
Gurrick Jassar, Naveen .N, N. Nagan Pillai, M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co.,
Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar, Shovan Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar
Sharma, Naveen Kumar, P. K. Manohar, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Surbhi
Mehta, Rajeev Singh, Ms. Parul Shukla, Abhishek Pandey, 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, Yuvrajsinh C. Solanki,
Lareb Habib Ansari, Kanchan Kumar, 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 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, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla
Chang, Prang Newmai, Shishir Deshpande, Yusuf, Mrs. Pragya
Baghel, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Raghvendra Kumar, Sravan
Kumar Karanam, Abhiram Bannur, Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Anant Mann,
Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, 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,
Ashzad Mubarak, Himinder Lal, Ms. Shruti Jose, Kaushik Choudhury,
Aravindh S., Aadithya Aravindh, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Atul Sharma,
Anirudh Sanganeria, Shrey Kapoor, Ms. Anne Mathew, Yash S. Vijay.
Applicant-in-person.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1389
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
I.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................
3*
II.
FACTUAL POSITION ............................................................
3*
a.
Background ...................................................................
3*
b.
Actions of the State Government ...............................
6*
c.
Acquisition and Construction by RRCHS ..................
9*
d.
Proceedings before this Court ................................... 10*
III.
SUBMISSIONS ....................................................................... 15*
IV.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ..........................................
19*
V.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .............................................
20*
a.
As to whether the subject land is a Forest Land. ..... 20*
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. ................................................... 25*
c.
As to whether the doctrine of desuetude would be
applicable to the facts of the present case. ....................... 38*
d.
As to whether the RRCHS could be said to be a bona
fide purchaser of the subject land. ............................. 42*
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 In Re: "Construction of Multi Storeyed
Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra". ......................... 52*
f.
As to whether the doctrine of public trust would be
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. ................................................................. 57*
VI.
CONCLUSION .......................................................................
85*
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1390
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, CJI
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1391
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
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 the Mamlatdar, Taluka-Haveli, District Pune. The relevant
part of the said undertaking reads thus:
"I accept and agree that the said assessment is
allotted to me under the provision of Bombay Land
Revenue Code 1879 and rules thereunder and shall
be subjected to following terms and conditions.
1. That, no part of the said land shall be leased
out, mortgaged, sold, excavated or no lien shall
be created by me (the term includes self, heirs,
executers, assignees, administrators) without prior
written approval of the Collector.
2. That, I will handover the possession of the land to
any person nominated by the Collector without any
hassle on or before 15/12/1967.
3. That, I will not use the said assessment for any
purpose other than cultivation.
4. That, I do not have any right of the trees standing
on the land and I will behave as per the rules annexed
herewith."
2.8 It is pertinent to note that a perusal of the record would reveal
that the said Eksali (yearly) lease was never renewed thereafter.
2.9 It further appears from the record that on 22nd March 1969, the
State Government took a decision that the Forest Land given
on lease for cultivation on Eksali basis should be permanently
released for cultivation to the Eksali leaseholders after
de-reservation.
1392
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.10 It appears that in pursuance of this resolution, the 'Chavan
Family' made an application for permanent release of the
subject land in the year 1988.
2.11 It is relevant to note that in the meanwhile, the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1980
FC Act") came into force with effect from 25th October 1980.
Under the provisions of Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act, no
Forest Land could be de-reserved or used for any non-forest
purposes without the permission of the Central Government.
b.
Actions of the State Government
2.12 A perusal of the record would reveal that there was a lot of
inter-departmental correspondence between the different
authorities. It appears that the District Collector vide his letter
dated 19th June 1991 found that the members of the 'Chavan
Family' were cultivating only 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas and,
therefore, recommended that the said area which was under
actual cultivation be allotted to them in view of the Government
Resolution dated 22nd March 1969. He further recommended
that the possession of the remaining land be handed over to
the Forest Department.
2.13 However, surprisingly, the Divisional Commissioner vide his
recommendation to the State Government dated 30th November
1994, though, specifically recorded that as per the Collector's
report, the members of the 'Chavan Family' were in cultivation
only in 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas, recommended allotment of the
entire subject land to the 'Chavan Family'. It is further surprising
to note that the Divisional Commissioner also observed that
there is no necessity to obtain the prior approval of the Central
Government for allotment of the said land. It is also surprising
to note that the Divisional Commissioner also noted that the
subject land was a Reserved Forest.
2.14 It appears that thereafter the file was pending before the State
Government. At that stage, the then Minister for Revenue
opined that the said land was granted by the Government
for Agricultural purpose and that the applicants (the 'Chavan
Family') were using the said land continuously for such purpose
and, therefore, the provisions of the 1980 FC Act were not
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1393
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
applicable in the said case. He therefore sought legal advice
on the point from the Law and Judiciary Department of the
Government of Maharashtra. This could be gathered from
the reply given by the Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Revenue and Forest Department dated 8th April 2008 to the
Central Empowered Committee ("CEC" for short) in response
to certain queries.
2.15 It would further appear that thereafter on 27th July 1998,
the Deputy Secretary to Government, Law and Judiciary
Department, gave his opinion that there is no necessity for
obtaining prior sanction of the Government of India if the
Forest Land is already broken up and acquired before coming
into force of the 1980 FC Act. Accordingly, the Minister for
Revenue, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the
allotment of the subject land and an order came to be issued
by the Government of Maharashtra vide Memorandum dated
4th August 1998 to that effect.
2.16 In pursuance to the order passed by the State Government, the
Collector issued an order of allotment of land on 28th August
1998. The said allotment, however, was subject to certain
conditions. It will be relevant to refer to Condition Nos. 2, 4,
5 and 7 of the said allotment order dated 28th August 1998,
which read thus:
"2) The allottee shall not be entitled to mortgage,
donate, sell, partition or exchange in any other
manner without the prior permission of the
District Collector, Pune. Similarly, shall not sell
or transfer the said land or any part thereof.
xxx
xxx
xxx
4)
The allotee shall not lease the aforesaid land
granted to him to any other person.
5)
It is necessary for the allottee to bring the said
land under cultivation within a period of two
years from the date of this order.
xxx
xxx
xxx
1394
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7)
The said land shall be used for agricultural
purposes. Except agriculture, it shall not be
used for any other purpose."
c.
Acquisition and Construction by RRCHS
2.17 It would further appear from the record that immediately after
the land was allotted, the Divisional Commissioner vide order
dated 30th October 1999 granted permission to the 'Chavan
Family' to sell the land in question to one Mr. Aniruddha P.
Deshpande, the Chief Promotor of Richie Rich Cooperative
Housing Society Limited ("RRCHS" for short) for residential
purposes.
2.18 However, a perusal of the material on record would reveal that
much prior to the said permission or even much prior to the
actual allotment of the subject land to the 'Chavan Family', the
transactions were entered into by the members of the 'Chavan
Family' with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter,
RRCHS. We will be referring to those documents when we
discuss the rival submissions.
2.19 The District Collector, Pune thereafter vide order dated 8th
July 2005 granted permission for use of the subject land for
Non-Agricultural purposes i.e. for construction of the residential
buildings.
2.20 On 27th February 2006, the Pune Municipal Corporation issued
a Commencement Certificate and sanctioned the Building Plan.
2.21 Thereafter, on 3rd July 2007, the Ministry of Environment
and Forest (MoEF) granted environmental clearance for
construction of "Raheja Richmond Park", a Residential,
Shopping and IT Complex.
d.
Proceedings before this Court
2.22 After noticing the aforesaid aspects, one Nagrik Chetna
Manch filed I.A. No. 2079-2080 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 202 of 1995 before this Court challenging the allotment
of Reserved Forest Land to private persons and its use for
construction of multi-storeyed buildings in violation of the
1980 FC Act.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1395
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
2.23 In the said proceedings, this Court vide order dated 23rd
November 2007, directed the CEC to enquire into the matter
and submit its report.
2.24 In pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, the CEC
started conducting enquiries into the matter and held various
meetings. When the CEC started conducting enquiries, various
queries were made to the State Government. The Revenue
and Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra issued
a notice dated 2nd July 2008 to the RRCHS and one of the
members of the 'Chavan Family' thereby informing them about
the Government's decision to review the Government Order
dated 4th August 1998 vide which the land was allotted to the
'Chavan Family'.
2.25 It would further appear that the Forest Department issued a
notice to the RRCHS dated 4th July 2008, notifying the RRCHS
that the possession of the subject land was required to be taken
back. Aggrieved thereby, the RRCHS filed I.A. No.2301-2302
of 2008 in I.A. No.2079 of 2007 praying for impleadment as
well as challenging the aforementioned notices dated 2nd July
2008 and 4th July 2008.
2.26 The said RRCHS also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition
(Civil) No.301 of 2008, praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ order or direction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the notice
dated 2.7.2008 bearing no. Land-3408/1025/
PKP 935/Part 2/J-5, issued by the State
Government; and/or
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ order or direction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the notice
dated 4.7.2008 bearing no. 57 of 2008-09,
issued by the Forest Department, Government
of Maharashtra; and/or
(c)
Pass such other of further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
1396
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.27 After an elaborate enquiry, the CEC submitted its report dated
27th November 2008 and recommended thus:
i)
the allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land in Survey
No.21 (old Survey No.20A) Kondhwa Bk in District Pune
for agriculture purposes and subsequent permission given
for its sale in favour of M/s Richie Rich Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. and construction of buildings should
be cancelled.
ii)
the area should be restored back as forest;
iii) the senior functionaries and officers of the Government of
Maharashtra responsible for the allotment/use of the said
Reserve Forest land in violation of the provision of the
FC Act and this Hon'ble Court's order dated 12.12.1996
should be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust and other
provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is imperative that
amongst others the then Revenue Minister, Maharashtra,
who approved the land allotment along with the then
Divisional Commissioner, Pune who granted the permission
for the sale of the land in favour of private person for the
construction of buildings, Mr. Ashok Khadse, the then
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Pune who has issued "No
Objection Certificate" not only in this case but in many
other cases facilitating illegal use of the forest land for
private gains and Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Developer,
who entered into various Development Agreements for
purchase and use of the Reserve Forest for construction
of buildings are prosecuted.
iv) Mr. Khadse who is presently under suspension should
not be reinstated without obtaining permission of this
Hon'ble Court;
v) the Chairman, Central Empowered Committee may be
authorized to constitute a multi disciplinary "Special
Investigation Team" to examine the details of all the Reserve
Forest under the administrative control of the Revenue
Department in Pune and which have been allotted/allowed
to be used in the past without obtaining approval under
the FC Act. All such allotment/uses should be treated as
null and void and the Government of Maharashtra should
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1397
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
be directed to cancel all such orders. State functionaries/
officers who are found to be responsible for allotment/use
of the forest land in all such cases, should be prosecuted
for criminal breach of trust; and
vi) the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra should be
directed to ensure immediate compliance of this Hon'ble
Court's order dated 22.9.2006 in IA No.1483 regarding
transfer of forest land in charge of the Revenue Department
to the Forest Department. Till the entire exercise is
completed, he should be directed to file fortnightly Action
Taken Report before the Hon'ble Court as well as the CEC."
2.28 Subsequent reports have been filed by the CEC on 1st
November 2010 and 14th August 2013.
2.29 I.A. Nos. 3044-45 of 2011 are filed by one Greenfield
Cooperative Housing Society ("GCHS" for short) praying for
impleadment in the matter and for quashing of the order dated
29th September 2008 by which the Divisional Commissioner,
Pune had cancelled the permission to sell by virtue of which the
GCHS had purchased the land from the original leaseholder.
2.30 I.A. No.254946 of 2023 for directions has been filed by RRCHS
contending that the Gazette Notification dated 9th March 1944
did not show the subject land as the Forest Land and, therefore,
prayed for disposal of the present proceedings in view of the
said Gazette Notification.
2.31 I.A. No.39711 of 2024 has been filed by the State to place on
record the original Gazette Notification dated 9th March 1944. It
was contended by the State that the Gazette Notification dated
9th March 1944 placed by RRCHS was a fabricated document.
2.32 This Court, therefore, vide order dated 9th May 2024, directed
enquiry to be conducted by the Additional Director General of
State CID, Pune. The Additional Director General of State CID,
Pune conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 16th
August 2024 pointing out therein that the Gazette Notification
dated 9th March 1944 placed by the RRCHS was a forged one
and not genuine one.
2.33 That is how the present proceedings have reached this stage.
1398
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
III.
SUBMISSIONS
3.
We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel
(Amicus Curiae) ably assisted by Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms.
Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel. We have also
heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the RRCHS and Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the GCHS and Shri Aniruddha Joshi,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
4.
Shri K. Parameshwar submitted that the allotment of the Forest
Land to the 'Chavan Family' was in flagrant breach of the orders of
this Court and the provisions of the 1980 FC Act. He submits that
though the record would clearly reveal that the subject land was
recorded as a Forest Land, the land was allotted to the 'Chavan
Family' in flagrant violation of the law. He submits that the record
would reveal that the 'Chavan Family' was only a front, while, in
fact, the allotment was made by the State Government in favour of
a Builder. He submits that the record would reveal that much prior
to 1998 when the land was actually allotted in favour of the 'Chavan
Family', the 'Chavan Family' had already entered into a deal with Mr.
Aniruddha P. Deshpande, the Chief Promoter of RRCHS.
5.
The learned Amicus submits that in the present case it would clearly
reveal that the then Revenue Minister and the then Divisional
Commissioner of Pune had acted in total breach of the doctrine of
public trust and misused their power to aid the illegal activities of the
Builder. The learned Amicus further submits that, considering for a
moment that the allotment of the subject land in favour of the 'Chavan
Family' was legal, it is clear that the subsequent allocation thereof
in favour of RRCHS was totally in contravention of the conditions
on which the land was allotted to the 'Chavan Family'. He further
submits that the record would reveal that the subject land was in
fact used for the purposes of plantation.
6.
The learned Amicus, therefore, would submit that this Court should
accept the report of the CEC and set aside the allotment in favour
of the 'Chavan Family'.
7.
Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that
the subject land was not used as a Forest Land for a long period.
It is submitted that the land in question was allotted to the 'Chavan
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1399
In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings
in Forest Land Maharashtra
Family' in lieu of compensation for acquisition of their land. It is
submitted that the subject land lost its character as a Forest Land
on account of non-use of it for a long time for the said purpose. It
is therefore submitted that in view of the doctrine of desuetude, the
subject land no longer remained a Forest Land and, therefore, the
allotment of the subject land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' was
totally valid in law. In this respect, he relied on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and
another v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and others1
8.
The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the RRCHS
is the bona fide purchaser of the subject land from the 'Chavan
Family'. It is submitted that the records viz., the revenue records as
well as the Final Regional Plan of Pune Region would show that
the land in question was shown in a Public/Semi Public Zone which
could be used for residential purposes. It is submitted that the Final
Regional Plan of Pune Region was published in accordance with
the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966, which is a complete code in itself. It is submitted that since
the subject land was not shown in a green zone, the RRCHS was
the bona fide purchaser and, therefore, it cannot be penalized for
purchasing the said land.
9.
An alternative submission made by the learned Senior Counsel
is that, as held by this Court in In Re: "Construction of Multi
Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra2", the RRCHS
should be allotted an alternate piece of land inasmuch as the land
allotted to the 'Chavan Family' was in lieu of their land acquired by
the Government.
10. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus, in rejoinder, submitted that
the doctrine of desuetude would not be applicable to the facts of
the present case. He relied on the following judgments of this Court
in this regard:
(i)
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik
and Others3;
1
1995 INSC 181 : (1995) 3 SCC 434
2
I.A. No.2771-2772 of 2009 etc. dated 9th September 2024
3
1982 INSC 78 : (1982) 3 SCC 519
1400
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(ii)
Cantonment Board, MHOW and Another v. M.P. State
Road Transport Corpn.4; and
(iii) Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v.