KRISHNADEVI MALCHAND KAMATHIA & ORS.versusBOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP & ORS.
2011 INSC 8531 January 2011Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined contempt applications arising from the appellants' (Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors.) alleged violation of a conditional order permitting them to repair an old bund on land classified as CRZ‑1 and notified as a reserve forest. The Court found that the appellants, under the pretext of repa…
GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
2014 INSC 6830 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed
Godrej & Boyce acquired a 133-acre parcel in Vikhroli, which was declared waste land and cultivated before 1951. The State later issued a show‑cause notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (notice No. WT/53) in 1956‑57, but never served it or took possession, while repeatedly granting building permiss…
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2021 INSC 79629 November 2021Directions issued
The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation's (DMRC) request to proceed with Phase‑IV of the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) through areas of the Delhi Ridge, South‑Central and Morphological Ridges, which are either notified forest or deemed forest lands. The petitioners argued that the project would c…
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKARversusUNION OF INDIA
2019 INSC 43429 March 2019Disposed off
The Union Government approved a greenfield international airport at Mopa, Goa, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) granted environmental clearance (EC) under the 2006 notification after the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) recommended it. Petitioners Hanuman Laxman Aroskar and the Federation of Rainbow W…
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
2020 INSC 61428 October 2020Disposed off
The appellants, holders of mining leases in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, sought extension of their leases for periods during which mining was prohibited by orders of the National Green Tribunal and subsequent state notifications. The State argued that neither the Uttar Pradesh Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 nor …
IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2023 INSC 44228 April 2023Rejected
The Court was asked to clarify whether mining could be carried out beyond one kilometre from the boundary of a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary when the proposed site lies within an Eco‑Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The petitioner argued that his mining lease, granted in 2005, was situated 2.26 km from the Radhanagari Wildl…
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusUDAY SINGH
2019 INSC 40126 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Madhya Pradesh seized a tractor and trolley used for illegal sand excavation from the Chambal river under Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927 (as amended by MP Act 25 of 1983) and initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 52(3). The respondent sought interim release of the seized vehicle under CrPC S…
IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
2024 INSC 5924 January 2024Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined the challenge by the Goa Foundation to the criteria adopted by the State of Goa for identifying private forest land, specifically the canopy density threshold of 0.4 and a minimum area of 5 hectares. The Court traced the historical development of these criteria from the 1991 guidelines, the 1…
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 …
NARINDER SINGH & ORS.versusDIVESH BHUTANI & ORS.
2022 INSC 73721 July 2022Disposed off
The case concerned several civil appeals and writ petitions challenging National Green Tribunal orders that restrained non‑forest activities on lands in three villages of Faridabad district, Haryana, on the ground that these lands were covered by special orders issued under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act…
B.S. SANDHUversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. & ETC.
2014 INSC 40121 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether land in village Karoran, notified under Section 3 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and regulated by Sections 4 and 5, automatically qualifies as "forest land" under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The High Court had held that the entire 3,700‑acre village wa…
RAMGARH FARMS AND INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
2015 INSC 34021 April 2015Dismissed
Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd. held land under a lease dated 25 January 1951, which was later deemed invalid as a tenure holder under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 initially declared 5,446 acres surplus in 1962 and…
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR.versusMATHIAS ORAM & ORS.
2010 INSC 40919 July 2010Hearing Adjourned
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., sought relief from an order of the Orissa High Court directing payment of compensation for lands acquired in 1987 under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The lands, belonging to tribal owners, had never been compensated despite the…
M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULLversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
2015 INSC 57917 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Bihar initiated acquisition of land belonging to M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull in 1981 under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking possession but failing to publish an award. Subsequent notifications in 1995‑96 attempted a fresh acquisition. The High Court held that the 1981 acquisition remained…
HANUMAN LAXMAN AROOSKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2020 INSC 4916 January 2020Disposed off
The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of the 40th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated 23 April 2019 be placed on record so that the Supreme Court's embargo on the environmental clearance (EC) for the Mopa greenfield airport could be lifted. The Court examined whether the EAC had adequ…
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.versusM/S. KUMAON STONE CRUSHER
2017 INSC 91215 September 2017Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals concerning the levy of transit fees on forest produce under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It held that crushing stone boulders into grits, marble slabs, limestone, coal and related minerals does not change their character as forest produce, and that the Forest Act and its 19…
M/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULLversusSRI BRIJESH MEHROTRA & ORS.
2021 INSC 88914 December 2021Dismissed
The petitioner’s 29.38‑acre land in Bihar was initially acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a 1981 notification and possession taken, later declared a protected forest. An award was passed in 2006, but the Supreme Court in August 2015 held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed and directed the Stat…
HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION OF MUDUMALAIversusIN DEFENCE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ANIMALS AND ORS. ETC.
2020 INSC 59714 October 2020Disposed off
The Hospitality Association of Mudumalai and other private land owners challenged the Tamil Nadu Government's notification of an elephant corridor on the Sigur Plateau, arguing that the corridor was not scientifically justified and that the State lacked statutory authority to create it. The High Court had upheld the no…
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2014 INSC 18212 March 2014Disposed off
The Supreme Court disposed of several interlocutory applications filed by various States seeking greater releases from the Ad‑hoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA). The Court modified its earlier order of July 2009, directing the National CAMPA Advisory Council (NCAC) to issue gu…
MAHARASHTRA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
2010 INSC 76811 November 2010Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined whether a 53‑acre portion of Survey No. 345‑A in Dahisar was a "private forest" under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 on the appointed day of 30 August 1975, and whether the State’s acquisition of that land was proportionate and lawful. The Court held that the land was…
M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2018 INSC 80411 September 2018IA disposed
The Supreme Court examined whether land in Kant Enclave, notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLP) on 18 August 1992, should be treated as forest land and thus subject to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It held that the notification unequivocally designates the area as forest, rendering any constructio…
GALI JANARDHAN REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
2022 INSC 105910 October 2022Disposed off
Gali Janardhan Reddy, accused of several serious offences under the IPC, Indian Forest Act and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2015 with a condition that he not visit Bellary (Karnataka) and Ananthapuram and Cuddapah (Andhra Pradesh). He later applied to…
ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC
2021 INSC 8599 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed
Electrosteel Steels Ltd. obtained environmental clearance (EC) and consent to establish a steel plant at a specified site in Bokaro, but later shifted the plant 5.3 km away, allegedly encroaching forest land. The Ministry of Environment and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) revoked the EC, leading the…
RAJIV SARIN & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
2011 INSC 5539 August 2011
The appellants, heirs of a zamindar, challenged a Gazette notification under Section 4‑A of the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (KUZALR Act) that vested their 1,600 acres of forest land in the State on 1 January 1978. They argued that the vesting was unconstitutional, repugnant to …
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusSMT. KALLO BAI
2017 INSC 12878 May 2017Dismissed
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai, the owner of a tractor and trolley used to transport teak without a permit was seized and a confiscation order was made under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. The lower courts held that confiscation could not occur until the accused’s g…
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…
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAGversusARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
2021 INSC 6155 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether 162 acres of land in Kasmandi Khurd, Uttar Pradesh, vested in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and was subsequently declared a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It held that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to grant a lease to the…
HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
2023 INSC 6005 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, Bhoomidars, were in possession of land that had been declared a reserved forest under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1927, leading to an eviction drive by the Forest Department. The Forest Settlement Officer, after hearing the parties, held that the appellants had a rightful claim dating back to before 13…
ABDUL VAHABversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2022 INSC 2634 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant’s truck carrying 17 cow progeny was seized and the driver and others were arrested under the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding no evidence of intent to slaughter, but the District Magistr…
SANJAY DUTT & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
2025 INSC 341 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The Range Forest Officer alleged that the directors and office bearers of a company illegally uprooted trees using a JCB, violating Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, and sought prosecution under Section 19. The Special Environment Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the …