BINDU KAPUREAversusSUBHASHISH PANDA & ORS.
2025 INSC 78428 May 2025
The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) unauthorised felling of over a thousand trees in the Delhi Ridge and its failure to disclose this during a hearing, despite pending applications for permission. The Court held that these actions amounted to wilful disobedience of its 1996 order in M.C. …
A. JOHN KENNEDY ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC.
2025 INSC 44324 March 2025Directions issued
The petitioners, displaced tea estate workers, and public interest litigants sought the removal of long‑standing encroachments and restoration of forest lands in the Agasthyamalai landscape, which includes the Singampatti Zamin forest leased to Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited for tea cultivation for over 95 ye…
IN RE: ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS versus
2025 INSC 75422 May 2025Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the status of Zudpi Jungle lands in six districts of Maharashtra, which, although recorded as forest lands, have been used for residential, agricultural, and governmental purposes for decades. The State of Maharashtra sought to treat these lands as non‑forest to avoid the restrictions of the …
THE AUROVILLE FOUNDATIONversusNAVROZ KERSASP MODY & ORS
2025 INSC 34716 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The Auroville Foundation appealed against the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) directions that required it to prepare a new township plan and to obtain environmental clearance before completing the Crown Road and other roads in Auroville, alleging that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction. The respondents, residen…
IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST LAND MAHARASHTRA versus
2025 INSC 70115 May 2025
The case concerned 11.89 ha of land in Kondhwa Budruk, Pune, notified as Reserved Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1878, which was later allotted to the Chavan family in 1998 for agricultural purposes without Central Government approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Chavan family subsequently sold the…
ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
2025 INSC 12967 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, private landowners in Maharashtra, challenged revenue annotations and mutation entries that labelled their lands as private forests and vested in the State, arguing that the statutory requirements for acquisition were not fulfilled. The State contended that notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Indi…
IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2024 INSC 1786 March 2024Directions issued
The Supreme Court examined whether tiger safaris can be treated like zoos under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and whether the proposed tiger safari at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger Reserve was lawful. It held that a zoo, as defined in s.2(39), is an ex‑situ conservation establishment and tiger safaris, as envisioned b…