# 2025 INSC 754

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 754
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-22
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2025-insc-754-38682
- **Pages:** 85

## Headnote

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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1481
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 r

## Text

_Characters 0–39,777 of 168,026. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39777 for what follows._

[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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1481
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1483
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1485
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; Nonforestry 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 RegionNagpur, 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1487
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1489
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
CEC .....................................................................................
47
d.
Social and Economic Justice ...........................................
48
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1490
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
e.
Inter-relationship between DPSP and Fundamental
Rights ..................................................................................
55
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1491
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 amicus curiae, 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1493
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/EClass 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(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,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1495
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1497
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.