IN RE: ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS versus (22/05/2025) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Maharashtra sought a declaration that 86,409 hectares of 'Zudpi Jungle' lands in six Eastern Vidarbha districts, recorded as forest but long used for housing, agriculture by landless allottees and public and defence establishments, fall outside the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Court's order of 12.12.1996. Largely accepting the Central Empowered Committee's 2025 report, the Court held that Zudpi lands remain forest land, but, as a non-precedential exception grounded in the right to shelter and livelihood, the Directive Principles and sustainable development, directed the State to seek deletion of parcels allotted up to 12.12.1996 from the list of forest areas under Section 2 of the FC Act, to be approved without compensatory afforestation or NPV, with protection of fragmented parcels, removal of encroachments and transfer of over 7.76 lakh hectares for afforestation.

Issues

Whether the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee in its 2025 report regarding the status and regularisation of Zudpi Jungle lands in the six districts of Eastern Vidarbha should be accepted.
Whether Zudpi Jungle lands recorded as forest in revenue records are 'forest land' attracting the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in view of the Court's order dated 12.12.1996.
Whether Zudpi lands allotted by competent authorities before 12.12.1996 and used for decades for residential, agricultural and public purposes can be deleted from the list of forest areas without compensatory afforestation or payment of Net Present Value.
Whether Zudpi Jungle land may be used for compensatory afforestation in place of non-forest land without a Chief Secretary's certificate of non-availability of non-forest land.
How the right to shelter and livelihood under Article 21, the Directive Principles in Articles 38 and 39, and the principle of sustainable development bear on the balance between forest protection and the interests of lakhs of residents.

Provisions considered

Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980Since 25.10.1980 no State may de-reserve forest, permit non-forest use of forest land or clear trees without prior Central approval. Read with the 12.12.1996 order (forest in its dictionary sense plus any area recorded as forest irrespective of ownership), Zudpi lands are forest land. The Court directed the State to seek approval under Section 2 for deletion of pre-12.12.1996 allotments from the list of forest areas, to be granted without compensatory afforestation or NPV, and required FC Act proposals for any future non-forestry use of fragmented parcels. (¶¶ 20, 21, 29, 59, 127, 136, 138)
Sections 3A and 3B, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980Proposals concerning allotments made after 12.12.1996 are to be processed by the Union only after punitive action under these penal provisions has been taken against the officers who made allotments in violation of the Court's order. (¶¶ 122, 138)
Sections 4, 20 and 29, Indian Forest Act, 1927About 6,55,619 ha of Zudpi land with tall tree growth was notified as reserved/protected forest in 1955-59 and 92,116 ha has been notified under Section 4; the Court directed that all unallotted fragmented parcels (under 3 ha and not adjoining forest) be declared protected forests under Section 29. (¶¶ 28, 42, 47, 134, 138)
Sections 2(m), 2(n) and 3, Central Provinces Grazing and Nistar Act, 1948Defined 'right of nistar' and 'scrub jungle' (forest growth of four years or less) and regulated villagers' grazing and jungle-produce rights while protecting customary rights; these rights, settled under the MPLR Code 1954 and MLR Code 1966, were effectively withdrawn once the FC Act and the 1996 order applied to Zudpi lands. (¶¶ 14, 15, 53, 54, 56)
Articles 38 and 39(b) and (c), Constitution of IndiaThe Directive Principles oblige the State to strive for social and economic justice and distribution of material resources for the common good; abolition of the Malguzari system and allotment of Zudpi lands to the landless were steps in furtherance of these principles. Following Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills and the Article 39(b)-(c) cases, Parts III and IV are complementary, and the Court asked whether such steps taken before 1980 or 1996 should be frustrated. (¶¶ 54, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 93, 94, 100, 103)
Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to shelter and the right to livelihood are facets of the right to life (Chameli Singh, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Olga Tellis, In Re Demolition of Structures); lakhs of residents in houses built decades ago and agriculturists allotted land for livelihood cannot be dishoused or deprived of their livelihood on account of a bureaucratic failure to correct revenue records. (¶¶ 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116)
Article 31C, Constitution of IndiaCases such as Basantibai Khetan, Thana Electric Supply and Tinsukhia Electric Supply held that a law's nexus with Article 39(b) may be shown independently of any express legislative declaration; cited to illustrate the wide interpretation given to Directive Principles. (¶¶ 99, 100, 101, 102)
Protection of slum dwellers, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971Slum dwellers protected under this Act who have resided on Zudpi lands since before 1980-1996 would be dishoused if the CEC recommendations were not accepted; one of the consequences weighed by the Court. (¶ 68)

Held

Zudpi Jungle lands, a Central Provinces revenue classification for bushy wasteland of poor murmadi soil used for grazing and nistar, continued to be recorded as forest only because settlement operations were not undertaken after 1912-1917 and records were not corrected after States reorganisation; nevertheless, under the order dated 12.12.1996, which treats any area recorded as forest in government records as forest land, Zudpi Jungle lands shall be considered forest lands and attract the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (¶¶ 11, 13, 52, 55, 59, 136, 138)
The Court declined to decide the intervenor's locus, since environmental protection was involved, but noted that no resident or environmental organisation from the affected districts had ever opposed the CEC's recommendations, and that the matter had to be considered in its historical perspective. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51)
Between 1980 and 1996 there was uncertainty whether Zudpi lands were covered by the FC Act, the Central Government having first agreed in 1987 that scrub forests would not attract the Act and then reversed its stand in 1992; by 12.12.1996 the lands had long been used for irrigation dams, schools, hospitals, government buildings and allotments to the landless, and rights conferred in 1954-55 under the Nistar Act stood withdrawn. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59)
The CEC's 2025 recommendations, the outcome of site visits, repeated meetings with the Union and State and collection of 141 GB of data verified by the District Collectors, carry weight as the work of experts in forest management, and must be considered against the historical background. Non-acceptance would dishouse lakhs of residents including protected slum dwellers and require demolition of government offices, schools, hospitals, agricultural universities, defence and Air Force facilities and even High Court buildings. (¶¶ 46, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 120)
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary and together form the conscience of the Constitution; the Directive Principles in Articles 38 and 39(b) and (c), which the State must 'strive' to achieve even in adverse circumstances, have been given the widest interpretation in upholding measures of distributive justice. Steps taken by the State before 1980 or 1996 in furtherance of social and economic justice, such as allotment of Zudpi lands to the landless, should not be frustrated. (¶¶ 73, 75, 78, 84, 91, 94, 98, 103, 125)
The right to shelter and the right to livelihood are fundamental rights under Article 21. Citizens residing for decades in houses on Zudpi lands cannot be dishoused, agriculturists allotted land for their livelihood cannot be deprived of it, and citizens cannot be deprived of essential public amenities, because of a bureaucratic failure at the time of reorganisation of States. The chart of land use across the six districts (33,391.43 ha largely residential, agricultural and public utility) fortified this conclusion. (¶¶ 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116)
Sustainable development is a balancing concept between ecology and development accepted as part of customary international law (Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum, Uday Education and Welfare Trust); the developmental activities already undertaken on these lands and the public utilities necessary for residents must be weighed against the need for forest protection. (¶¶ 117, 118, 119, 120)
Net Present Value need not be charged: MoEF&CC's own circular of September 2003 applies NPV only where in-principle approval was granted after 30.10.2002, Stage-I approval here predated that, the FAC in 2017 had itself recommended exemption for pre-12.12.1996 non-forestry use, and the ground realities of land used for distributive justice rather than private vested interests would not permit recovery; the CEC's recommendations, differing from its 2019 report only on NPV, reflect a balanced approach. (¶¶ 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129)
The CEC's recommendation that Zudpi land be used for compensatory afforestation in place of non-forest land without a Chief Secretary's certificate of non-availability of non-forest land was rejected as a deviation from the order of 12.12.1996 and the directions in Ashok Kumar Sharma (04.03.2025); Zudpi land may be so used only on such certificate, and then on double the area as per MoEF&CC guidelines. (¶¶ 130, 131, 138)
Accepting the recommendations does not open the door to denotifying degraded forests generally: the dispensation is an exception not to be treated as precedent, Zudpi lands remain forest lands, and after 12.12.1996 no forest can be denotified or put to non-forest use without Central approval under the FC Act. The larger green cover is secured by directing the Revenue Department to hand over the remaining part of 7,76,767.622 ha to the Forest Department for afforestation within one year and by reiterating the directions in In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra for all States and Union Territories. (¶¶ 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138)

Result

Interim applications disposed of: Zudpi lands remain forest lands; Maharashtra to submit district-wise proposals under Section 2 of the FC Act for deletion of allotments made up to 12.12.1996, to be approved without compensatory afforestation or NPV, with no future change of use; post-1996 allotments processed only after punitive action against erring officers; fragmented parcels declared protected forests; task forces to remove encroachments within two years; remaining land of 7,76,767.622 ha to be handed to the Forest Department within one year; SIT directions to all States reiterated.