Holding

The Court held that the CEC’s recommendations must be accepted, except the provision allowing compensatory afforestation without a Chief Secretary’s certificate, and directed that Zudpi Jungle lands be treated as forest lands but may be deleted from the forest list for pre‑1996 allotments without NPV or compensatory afforestation, subject to the detailed scheme outlined.

Summary

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 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, while an intervenor opposed the Central Empowered Committee's (CEC) 2025 recommendations. The Court considered the historical meaning of "Zudpi", prior Supreme Court orders, the social and economic rights of occupants, and the potential devastation of displacing lakhs of people if the recommendations were rejected. Balancing environmental protection with constitutional rights to shelter and livelihood, the Court accepted the CEC's recommendations except the provision allowing compensatory afforestation without a Chief Secretary’s certificate. It directed that pre‑1996 allotted lands be deleted from the forest list without NPV or compensatory afforestation, mandated consolidated proposals, and issued extensive procedural and enforcement directions.

Issues considered

The appropriate classification of Zudpi Jungle lands under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Whether the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in its 2025 report should be accepted.
Whether the State can seek deletion of Zudpi lands from the forest list without imposing compensatory afforestation or NPV levies.
Whether compensatory afforestation can be undertaken without a Chief Secretary’s certificate of non‑availability of non‑forest land.
The impact of the Court's decision on the right to shelter and livelihood of occupants.
The status and treatment of land allotments made after 12 December 1996.
The designation of fragmented land parcels as Protected Forests.
The authority of the Union Government to waive NPV for lands used before 12 December 1996.

Legislation cited

Central Province Grazing and Nistar Act, 1948s. 2(m), s. 2(n), s. 3
Central Province Settlement Code, 1889
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. 2(i), s. 2(ii), s. 3(a), s. 3(b)
Forest Rights Act, 2006
Indian Forest Act, 1927s. 20, s. 29, s. 4
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971

Headnote

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 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 –

Subjects

ZudpiZudpi Forest/JungleZudpi landsReserved forestTraditionally grazing landsGairan/Gurcharan/E-Class landEx Central Province DistrictsRights of grazing and NistarNon-forestry purposeScrub ForestsMahajan CommitteeJoshi CommitteeHigh Powered CommitteeInaction of bureaucratsCompensatory afforestationNet Present ValueNagpur Quarry Owners Welfare AssociationRecorded forestsLocus of intervenorMalguzari systemNistar OfficersSocial and economic justiceTerm “strive”Parliamentary democracyEconomic democracyDirective Principles of the State PolicyInter-relationship between Directive Principles of the State Policy and Fundamental RightsConscience of the ConstitutionRight to shelterRight to livelihoodSustainable developmentCustomary International LawDistributive justiceLarger green coverStatus of the parcels of lands known as Zudpi Jungle or Zudpi ForestSix districts of Eastern Vidarbha Region‑Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur and GadchiroliRecommendations by the CEC in its 2025 ReportForest landsSuitable for forestry management, development and conservationForest Advisory CommitteeCertain area of Zudpi lands unfit for Forestry ManagementCentral Empowered CommitteeDefence MinistryAir ForceBuildings, offices of the Central Government and the State GovernmentAgricultural UniversitiesList of Forest AreasNon-forestry activitiesFragmented land parcelsProtected ForestsSub-Divisional MagistratesSpecial Task ForceNon-forest land for afforestationSpecial Investigation TeamsDevelopment of forestsMeaning of the term ‘Zudpi’Bushes/ShrubsInferior type of unoccupied lands with bushy growthMurmadi soilGrazing landsSocial and Economic Justice

Judgment

[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 Policy-
DPSP 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; Non-
forestry 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 Region-
Nagpur, 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 47
CEC .....................................................................................
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 55
Rights ..................................................................................
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/E-
Class 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. However, for
this, it was necessary that the said lands were classified as “Scrub
Forests” and the Deputy Commissioner/District 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 that the
lands had remained in possession of the Revenue Department at
the time of settlement operation.
25. The said Government Order dated 6th November 1987 came to be
challenged by Bombay Environmental Action Group and one other
before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench by
filing a Writ Petition being WP No. 2840 of 1988.
26. When the said Writ Petition was pending, it appears that the
Government of India changed its earlier stand and issued a notification
dated 12th February 1992 clarifying therein that the Zudpi Jungle in
revenue records would continue to be treated as “Forest Lands”
under the FC Act, 1980. However, by the said notification, the
Central Government also provided that the land which was a part of
the Zudpi Jungle and which was also used for certain non-forestry
purpose (for example land used for Gaothan, land falling in Nagpur
City used for urban buildings etc.) but for which the corresponding
mutation entries had not been made in the revenue records, specific
proposals would be sent by the State Government for approval of
the Central Government under the FC Act, 1980.
27. It appears that in view of the stand taken by the Union of India in its
notification dated 12th February 1992, the Government of Maharashtra
1498 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

vide Resolution dated 17th March 1994 withdrew its earlier Government
Order dated 6th November 1987.

(ii) Mahajan Committee and Joshi Committee
28. To address the challenges arising out of the said situation, the
Government of Maharashtra appointed a Committee known as the
“Mahajan Committee”. The said Committee after studying the village
records found that out of the 9,23,913 hectares of Zudpi Jungle lands,
an extent of 6,55,619 hectares had already been notified as “Forest”
during the period 1955-56 to 1959 as protected/reserved forest under
the provisions of the Indian Forest Act 1927. It, therefore, found
that only 2,68,293 hectares of land remained as Zudpi Jungle land.
Another committee known as “Joshi Committee” was also appointed
to provide a possible solution to the problem of Zudpi Jungle.
29. In the meanwhile, this Court, in the present proceedings, vide an
order dated 12th December 19961 defined the term “Forest” as under:
“4. ….The word “forest must be understood according
to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all
statutorily recognised forests, whether designated
as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose
of Sec 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term
“forest land”, occurring in the Section 2, will not
only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary
sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the
Government record irrespective of the ownership.
This is how it has to be understood for the purpose
of the Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in
the Forest Conservation Act 1980 for the conservation
of forests and the matters connected therewith must
apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective
of the ownership or classification thereof…
5. We further direct as under:
1. In view of the meaning of the word “forest”
in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval
of the Central Government is required for
any non forest activity within the area of

1 1996 INSC 1477 : (1997) 2 SCC 267
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1499

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

any “forest”. In accordance with Section 2
of the Act, all on-going activity within any
forest in any State throughout the country,
without the prior approval of the Central
Government, must cease forthwith. It is,
therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of
any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and
mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes
and are, therefore, not permissible without prior
approval of the Central Government….”
[Emphasis supplied]

(iii) Expert Committee
30. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the State of
Maharashtra constituted an Expert Committee comprising of the
following:

1. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chairman
Maharashtra State
2. Chief Conservator of Forests (Conservator), Member
Maharashtra State
3. Director, Social Forestry, Maharashtra State Member
4. Settlement Commissioner and Director of Member
Land Records, Pune
5. Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Revenue and Member
Forests Department
6. Representative of Private Company indulging Member
in raising of plantation of tree species
7. Representative of the NGO, Fr. Krispino Lobo Member
of Indo-German Watershed Development
Programme, Ahmednagar
8. Nodal Officer in the o/o of the Principal Chief Member –
Conservator of Forests Secretary

31. The Expert Committee submitted its report and on the basis of the
said report, an affidavit came to be filed by the State of Maharashtra
before this Court on 20th August 1997. In the said affidavit, three
categories were made i.e., (i) forest; (ii) areas which were earlier
1500 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

forest which degraded, denuded or cleared; (iii) areas covered by
plantation of trees belonging to government and those belonging
to private persons. Further, the details of the areas identified in all
the three categories including areas which could be construed as
forests were stated. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant part
of the said affidavit which reads thus:
“Even as we are seeking to include areas covered by
the dictionary meaning of the word ‘forest’, in the areas
already notified as forests 2680 sq.km of Zudpi lands are
also included. In these, there are vast stretches which have
no attributes of forest. The Government of Maharashtra
has been persistently requesting the Union Government
to exclude such areas from the application of the Forest
(Conservation) Act 1980. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may issue suitable directions to the Union Government
for exclusion of such Zudpi areas from the purview of the
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980.”
32. It can thus be seen that the said affidavit shows that in the areas
already notified as forests, 2680 sq. km of Zudpi lands were also
included. The affidavit stated that there were vast stretches which had
no attributes of forest. Further, the Government of Maharashtra had
been persistently requesting the Union Government to exclude such
areas from the application of the FC Act, 1980. The Government of
Maharashtra thus prayed that this Court issues suitable directions
to the Union of India for exclusion of such Zudpi areas from the
purview of the FC Act, 1980.

d. HPC constituted by the Central Government
33. To address these problems, the Government of India vide notification
dated 21st September 1998 constituted a High Powered Committee
(hereinafter, “HPC”). It will be relevant to refer to the following
observations of the said HPC:
“Though the term “Zudpi” has not been defined specifically
in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, it is in use in
Vidarbha area of the ex-Madhya Pradesh State since
1954-55 indicating the classification of land owned by and
normally covered by scrub (bush growth) and not by big
trees. The meaning is obvious since ‘Zudpi’, a Marathi
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1501

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

word, means bushy growth in inferior type of lands on
unoccupied lands in a village.
In fact the term “Zudpi Jungle” in common parlance over the
years has come to be used for all such wastelands, as were
not occupied by the individuals for cultivation and other
purposes. Actually these lands are of very low murmadi
soil where tree is not possible or the tree growth is very
low like scrub jungle and hence these land were knows
as scrub jungle and grazing lands in English terminology.”
34. It will also be apposite to refer to the analysis and the recommendations
made by the HPC which read thus:
“Analysis by the HPC
High Powered Committee (hereinafter referred as HPC)
constituted by Government of India vide its notification No.4B-87/
FC (pt.) dated 21/9/98 held 4 meetings: Nagpur (11/12/1998),
Delhi (8/1/1999, 19/2/1999, and)
HPC examined the reports of the two Committees mentioned in
paragraph in details and the survey work of Zudpi Jungle area
undertaken by Government of Maharashtra during 1993-94.
Its observations are as follows:
(i) Application of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation)
Act 1980 to Zudpi Jungle has given a severe jolt to the
cultivators and villagers in Vidarbha in meeting their
communal and day to day needs.
It was felt by the HPC that Zudpi Jungle lands cater to
the communal and day to day needs of villagers and were
complimentary to agriculture, dairy, cottage & small-scale
industries in the villages. This was in consonance with
the developmental policies of the Government which
emphasized that the villagers should not be required to go
outside their villages for their needs of fodder, firewood,
minor minerals, clay, murrum, boulders, wood etc.
However the sodden interpretation covering these
communal village lands under the Forest (Conservation) Act
1980 adversely affected the cultivators and the villagers in
1502 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the 5 districts of Vidarbha Area where Forest Department
started refusing permission for non forest uses of these
lands which were guaranteed by the Government since
1954-55 under the Nistar Patraks framed under the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1955 and Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Unfortunately, the legal provisions already in force
guaranteeing rights of grazing, firewood, minor minerals,
etc. to cultivators and landless labours from “Zudpi
Jungle” lands in the vicinity of the villages has been
unceremoniously withdrawn without amending the
provisions under the Maharashtra land revenue code.
Major problems faced by the villagers and various Central/
State government departments in implementing the
developmental schemes/works in the Villages are primarily
due to the above impediments created in respect of “Zudpi
Jungle”. In fact the entire issue has been made so sensitive
that the implementing agencies are being prosecuted if
they remove minor minerals like murrum, small stones,
etc. and MSEB or Telephone Department fix a pole even.
(ii) The procedure envisaged under the Forest (Conservation)
Act has led to slowing down of development projects
including even those requiring minimal Zudpi Jungle land
like school buildings, laying of electrical poles, pipe lines
etc.
(iii) Since Zudpi Jungle lands have traditionally been used for
communal and day to day needs by the villagers, they
should have been kept out of the purview of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. The application of the Forest
(Conservation) Act intends to negate the benefits, which
were flowing and were intended to flow in future also to
the community and the villagers.
(iv) It was felt that these lands though referred to as ‘Jungle’
should not have been treated as forest under the Forest
Conservation Act, since the term was used very loosely
since early 1900 when there was no idea of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. In fact such lands are not known
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1503

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

as Jungle in other parts of Maharashtra at all. Instead they
are known as gairon, parampok etc. Therefore it would be
desirable that the Forest (Conservation) Act is not made
applicable to such lands though known as Zudpi Jungle.
(v) It may not be possible to take Zudpi Jungle out of purview
of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in view of the
Supreme Court Judgment of 1996.
(vi) The problem of Zudpi Jungle is primarily confined to
Vidarbha area alone.
(vii) The Committee analysed the results of the survey and
demarcation done by the Government of Maharashtra
during 1993 to 1998 and observed that:
(a) 92115 Ha. Of Zudpi Jungle (out of 178525 Ha.
With Revenue Department) is suitable for forestry
management, development and conservation.
(b) 86409 Ha. Of land is unsuitable for forest management
due to encroachment, fragmented holding, and
existing non-forestry use.
(c) Government of India should give permission for 86409
ha. Land, unsuitable for forest management under
the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 in bulk without
insisting on individual proposals. Government of India
should also waive the conditions of compensatory
afforestation and equivalent non-forest land.
(viii) Slowing down of the development projects coupled with
restrictions of Nistar rights has led to discontent and unrest
amongst the villagers in Vidarbha region. This has the
potential of taking serious turn if not attended to urgently.
(ix) It is pertinent to point out here about the area of 89768.39
ha of Zudpi Jungle as point out in para 11(ii) above.
This area needs to be located, surveyed and proposals
for regularization under FCA 1980 be submitted to
the Government of India, if these areas cannot be put
to forestry use as per principles of discussions and
recommendations.
1504 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Recommendations
1. 92,115 Ha. of Zudpi Jungle, which is found to be suitable
for forestry management, development and conservation
should be notified as protected/reserved forest under
Forest Act, 1927.
2. 86,409 Ha. Zudpi Jungle land, which is not suitable for
forest management, as mentioned below, should be
denotified and be allowed for any purpose including non-
forestry as decided by the Revenue Department.
A) Land under encroachment 27507 Ha.
B) Land already under non-forestry use 26672 Ha.
C) Fragmented land etc.32229 Ha.
3. Government of India should give permission under Forest
(Conservation) Act to the above land 86,409 Ha. Through
a consolidated proposal without insisting on individual
proposals.
4. Government of India should not insist on compensatory
afforestation because during 1955-59, 6,55,619 ha and in
this report as per recommendation No.1 above, an area
of 92,115 ha totalling to 7,47,734 ha of all Zudpi Jungle
has been taken to be forests out of a total of 9,23,913 ha
of land which had the status of Zudpi Jungle.
5. The area of 89,768.39 ha which has already been diverted
to non-forestry purpose (upto 1992) needs to be located,
surveyed ad proposals for its regularization under FCA
1980 be sent to Government of India provided these
areas cannot be put to forestry use as per principles of
discussions and recommendations.”
35. It can be seen from the Report of the HPC that on account of the
inaction of certain bureaucrats a huge problem has arisen. It was
emphasized that Zudpi Jungle lands cater to the community and
day-to-day needs of villagers and were complimentary to agriculture,
dairy, cottage and small-scale industries in the villages. It was further
emphasized that the villagers should not be required to go outside
their villages for their needs of fodder, firewood, minor minerals, clay,
murrum, boulders, wood etc. It was further emphasized that the major
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1505

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

problems faced by the villagers and various Central/State Government
Departments in implementing the developmental schemes/works in
the villages are primarily due to the above impediments created in
respect of Zudpi Jungle. It was also emphasized that in the other parts
of the State, similar lands instead of being referred to as “Jungle”,
were known as gairon, parampok etc. The said Committee, therefore,
recommended that 92,115 hectares of Zudpi Jungle, taking all these
factors into consideration which was found to be suitable for forestry
management, development and conservation should be notified as
protected/reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It also
recommended that 86,409 hectares of Zudpi Jungle land, which
was not suitable for forest management, should be denotified and
be allowed for any purpose including non-forestry as decided by
the Revenue Department. The said Committee also recommended
that the Government of India should not insist on compensatory
afforestation.
36. The Report of the HPC along with the proposal of the State
Government for denotification of 35,010.89 hectares Zudpi Jungle
land was considered by the Forest Advisory Committee (hereinafter
referred to as, “FAC”) of the Ministry of Environment and Forest
& Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as, “MoEF&CC”) in its
meeting dated 24th April 2001. The FAC recommended a site visit.
After the site visit and the recommendation of FAC, the MoEF&CC
granted Stage-I approval on 20th November 2001 for the diversion
of 31,192.34 hectares subject to compliance of certain prescribed
conditions.

e. Remedial measures by Central and State Government
37. Subsequently, a meeting was chaired by the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra and through a letter dated 18th July 2011, the following
suggestions were made to the MoEF&CC:
i. “To drop the condition of notifying 92,115 ha Zudpi Jungle land
which is suitable for forestry management as Reserved Forest/
Protected Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927
ii. An extent of 92,116 ha Zudpi Jungle land as recommended by the
HPC, may be kept as land bank for compensatory afforestation
iii. To de-notify 86,409 ha of Zudpi Jungle lands, recommended by
the Committee as unsuitable for forestry management, break
1506 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

up being 27,507 ha under encroachment and 26,672 ha under
various non forestry use and 32,229 ha of fragmented land
available in patches of less than 3.00 ha
iv. Simplification of procedure under the Forest (Conservation) Act
for submission of proposals as at present it entails an enormous
amount of paperwork.”
38. Thereafter, a Joint Meeting of Secretary of MoEF&CC and
representative of State of Maharashtra was held on 18th April 2013.
In the said meeting, the following decisions were taken:
i) In accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment, Zudpi
Jungle will have to be treated as a forest.
ii) Out of 92,115 ha. of Zudpi Jungle land an extent of 16,309.99
ha has already been notified as forest. The balance 75,806.78
ha will be notified by the State Government at the earliest.
The proposal of the State Government to use these lands as
land bank for compensatory afforestation will be favourably
considered. However, double the area will have to be taken
up and this will be admissible only for proposal of the State
Government and for other projects it will be as provided in the
guidelines.
iii) The proposals for the diversion of forest land as at (a) (b), and
(c) below will be examined by the MoEF&CC and considered
favorably within the framework of prevailing laws and the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(a) Proposals for diversion of 32,229 ha. Fragmented Zudpi
Jungle Lands for public purpose/infrastructure will be
submitted by the State Government Departments/
Undertakings in a consolidated form giving details of the
area of each of the fragmented lands.
(b) Proposals for Zudpi Jungle Lands under encroachment
(27,507 ha.) and land under non-forest use (26,672 ha)
will be submitted in the following manner:
(i) State Government will identify the area under
encroachment/non-forestry use prior to 12.12.1996
and post 12.12.1996.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1507

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

(ii) The Slate Government will identify the area under
non-forestry use for commercial purposes.
(iii) Proposals for pre-12.12.1996 non-forestry uses/
encroachment and post-12.12.1996 non-forest
uses/encroachments will be submitted separately in
accordance with the prevailing law and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s directions.
(c) The special dispensation for submission and consideration
of diversion proposals will not be considered for the
diversion of forest land under commercial use.
iv) The Government of India will prescribe simplified procedures for
the submission of proposals of Zudpi Jungle lands under FCA.”
39. It will also be pertinent to note that the request of the State Government
for exemption from payment of Net Present Value (hereinafter referred
to as “NPV”) was considered by the FAC in its meeting dated 26th
October 2017. The FAC recommended that since the concept of
NPV was introduced by this Court in its order dated 29th October
2002 in the present proceedings, it recommended that NPV shall
not be collected from the State Government for diversion proposals
submitted under the FC Act, 1980 where Zudpi Jungle Land has been
put to non-forestry use before 12th December 1996. It will also be
relevant to refer to the following recommendations made by the FAC:
“15. The proposal was considered by the FAC on
26.10.2017 and following recommendations were made:
1. The recommendation of the state government that the
86,409 Ha. Zudpi Jungle land with following present land
use should be de-notified for any purpose including non-
forestry as decided by the Revenue Department is not
according to the legal provisions.
(a) Land under encroachment 27507 Ha.
(b) Land already under non-forestry use 26,672 Ha.
(c) Fragmented land etc. 32,229 Ha.
2. The judpi jungle under encroachment (27507 ha) and under
non-forestry use (26672 ha) which has been put to non-
forestry use without FC clearance before judgement dated
1508 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12.12.1996 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad be considered for post facto approval under
section 2(ii) of FC Act subject to mitigation measures.
3. District wise comprehensive proposal, where zudpi jungle
is recorded in the land record and the same has been put
to non-forestry use before 12.12.1996 will be submitted
providing the details of each piece of judpi jungle land with
names of owner of the land and its present land use duly
certified by District collector and the respective Divisional
Forest Officer of the concerned district along with the
maps. If the present land use of the judpi jungle is still a
forest having jungle jhar and tree growth, as certified by
the DFO and revenue authority, the same piece of landwill
be retained and maintained as forest and developed as
village or urban forest as the case may be.
4. 33229 ha of fragmented piece of judpi jungle which
are being treated as small patches of forest should be
maintained as forest land and developed and maintained
as village or urban forest by the state government. If any
of these land is required for non-forestry purpose by the
state government then the approval under section 2(ii) of
FC Act will be mandatorily required on payment of NPV and
Compensatory afforestation and other mitigation measures.
5. Since the concept of NPV was introduced by Supreme
Court judgment on 29th October 2002 for future diversion
proposals, NPV shall not be collected from the state
Government for the diversion proposal submitted under
section 2(ii) of FC Act as referred above in para 15(3) of
the recommendation.”

f. IAs concerning Zudpi Jungle
(i) IA No.176 of 1997
40. It will also be relevant to note one other development. After the order
dated 12th December 1996 was passed by this Court in the present
proceedings, an IA being IA No.176 of 1997 came to be filed by one
Nagpur Quarry Owners Welfare Association seeking permission to
continue quarrying in the Zudpi Jungle in Nagpur District as they had
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1509

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

been refused permission for stone quarrying on the ground that the
area falls within a Zudpi Jungle which attracted the provisions of FC
Act, 1980. This Court called upon the CEC for its recommendations
in this regard. The CEC recommended that the said area would be
a forest area in view of the order passed by this Court dated 12th
December 1996. The said recommendation of the CEC was accepted
by this Court vide order dated 6th May 2003 and the applicant therein
was relegated to take appropriate recourse by making an application
through the State Government for obtaining prior approval from the
Central Government.

(ii) IA No.12465 of 2019
41. In this background, IA No.12465 of 2019 came to be filed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur with the prayers which we have
already reproduced hereinbefore.
42. This Court, vide order dated 8th March 2019, sought the opinion of
the CEC. Pursuant to the order dated 8th March 2019, the CEC filed
its Report being 2019 CEC Report. The conclusions recorded by
CEC in the said Report are as under:
i. “Zudpi Jungle lands are recorded forests and not notified forests;
ii. Out of 9,23,913 ha. of originally recorded Zudpi Jungle lands,
6,55,619 ha. of land with tall tree growth has already been
notified as Reserved Forest/Protected Forest between 1955
and 1959;
iii. Another 93,293.18 ha. of land has been notified under Section
4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and it is proposed to declare
the same as Reserve Forest;
iv. Change in land use in respect of 45056.14 ha. (33,739.40 ha.
before 25.10.1980 and 11,316.74 ha. between 25.10.1980 and
12.12.1996) out of 170212.37 ha. has taken place prior to the
order dated 12.12.1996 of this Hon’ble Court but corresponding
changes in land records are yet to be made;
v. Secretary, MoEFF&CC in its meeting dated 18.04.2013 has
requested the State of Maharashtra to submit separate proposals
under FC Act 1980 for pre 12.12.1996 and post 12.12.1996
non-forestry use;
1510 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

vi. The FAC in its meeting held on 26.10.2017 recommended that
since the concept of NPV was introduced by this Hon’ble Court
in its judgment dated 29.10.2002 NPV shall not be collected
from the State Government for diversion of Zudpi Jungle lands
which have been put to non-forestry use before 12.12.1996;
vii. Revenue Department does not have any other land at its
disposal to meet the residential needs of the poor sections of
the society in Nagpur Revenue Division;
viii. Most of the Zudpi Jungle lands which are not notified as
Reserved forest/Protected forest or under Section 4 of the Indian
Forest Act 1927 are spread over 6919 villages and are highly
fragmented and are not suitable for management as forests; and
ix. The Government of India on 12.02.1992 conveyed to the State
of Maharashtra that lands shown as “Zudpi Jungle” in revenue
records will continue to be treated as forest land under the
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980.”
43. The CEC also recommended thus:
“A. Permitting the Applicant, Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur to make suitable changes in the revenue records
with a view to change the classification/ nomenclature of the
“Zudpi Jungle” lands to actual land use class/nomenclature
in respect of “Zudpi Jungle” lands which have been put
to non-forest use prior to 12.02.1992. However, the Zudpi
Jungle lands which have not been put to non-forest use
prior to 12.02.1992 will attract the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 and the State of Maharashtra
therefore will be required to take forest clearance from
MoEF&CC and make payment of NPV and undertake
compensatory afforestation; and
i. transfer all the Section 4 notified forest lands to the
Forest Department latest by 31.03.2020; and
ii. complete the forest settlement proceedings in respect
of all the Section 4 notified Zudpi Jungle Lands latest by
December 2021.
B. The balance extent of Zudpi Jungle land out of 86,409 ha
identified as unfit for forestry management be considered
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1511

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

for approval under FC Act, 1980 by MoEF&CC only after
ensuring that the possession of entire 15,485.74 ha of
reserve forest land in Ahmednagar District and 51,032.59
ha of reserve forest land in Sholapur District (total 66,518.33
ha) referred to in para 34 of above is transferred from
the Revenue Department to the Forest Department in
compliance of this Hon’ble Court order dated 22.09.2006
in IA No.1483 of 2006.”
44. The State of Maharashtra filed its reply to the 2019 CEC Report.
The matter was thereafter heard by this Court from time to time.
45. When the matter was heard by this Court on 14th February 2024, it
was noted that there were some issues that could be resolved by
the CEC and the representatives of the State Government and the
MoEF&CC. This Court, therefore, directed the CEC to have a joint
meeting with representatives of the State Government & MoEF&CC
and file a fresh report.
46. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the CEC
carried out a fresh exercise for data collection. The CEC had several
rounds of meetings with the officials of the MoEF&CC as well as State
Government. It also made various site visits even to the remotest
parts of the districts. Huge data was collected by the CEC and the
said data was also verified by the respective District Collectors. It is
pertinent to note that the total data collected by the CEC amounts to
141 GB comprising of 76,907 files distributed across 8,826 folders. It
is further to be noted that the District Collectors of Nagpur, Wardha,
Bhandara, Chandrapur, Gondia and Gadchiroli Districts have issued
certificates authenticating the Zudpi Jungle data of their respective
districts.

g. Recommendations in the 2025 CEC Report
47. After considering all the aspects of the matter, the CEC has made the
following recommendations vide its Report being 2025 CEC Report:
“46. In view of the available facts and analysis of various
documents as highlighted in the preceding paragraphs,
the CEC recommends that:
i. the Zudpi Jungle lands shall be considered as Forest
Lands for all purposes, whatsoever and the Forest
1512 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(Conservation) Act, 1980 is applicable on Zudpi
Jungle lands;
ii. given the peculiar circumstances and significance
of Zudpi Jungle lands, as an exception and without
treating it as a precedent by whatsoever for any
matter, for the Zudpi Jungle lands allotted by
competent Authority upto 12.12.1996 and for which
land classification has not been changed, the State
of Maharashtra shall seek approval under section
2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for
their deletion from the “list of the forest areas”. A
consolidated proposal shall be submitted by the State
Government of Maharashtra for each district and the
Central Government may take a decision on that as
per the extant norms/rules. All activities for which
lands have been allotted by the competent Authority
will be deemed to be site-specific and no condition
for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV
levies may be imposed by the Central Government
while processing such proposals. Moreover, the State
Government shall necessarily ensure that the land use
is not changed in the future under any circumstances
and transfer is made only by inheritance;
iii. the Central Government and the State Government
shall with mutual consultation, and with prior approval
of the CEC, devise a simpler format and process
for processing the proposals of diversion of Zudpi
Jungle land for non-forestry activities under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This task shall be
completed within the next three months. Liberty may
please be granted to the CEC to decide the issue
in case any conflicting stand is taken by both the
Governments;
iv. it has been observed that certain allotments of Zudpi
Jungle lands have been done post 12.12.1996 also.
The State Government shall give reasons as to why
such allotments were done along with the list of
officers who made such allotments in violation of the
orders of this Hon’ble Court. The Central Government
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1513

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

shall process such proposals under the provisions of
section 2(ii) of the Forest {Conservation) Act, 1980
only after ensuring that suitable punitive action has
been taken against the concerned officials under
sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980;
v. all the unallotted ‘fragmented land parcels’ (each plot
having an area of less than 3 ha and not adjoining
any forest area), shall be declared as ‘Protected
Forests’ under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act
1927 by the State Government. The concerned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall be responsible for
ensuring that no such land parcel is encroached
upon. As and when these lands are required for
non-forestry purposes by the State Government, the
proposal may be submitted under the provisions of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the same
shall require prior approval of the Central Government
for diversion of such land. However, in no case any
such land shall be diverted to any nongovernment
entity for any purpose, whatsoever;
vi. the detailed data of Zudpi jungle land admeasuring
13,158.026 ha as mentioned in para 44 above shall
be collected by the revenue authorities within the next
six months. All such land parcels with an area less
than 3 ha and not adjoining any forest area shall be
treated as ‘fragmented land parcels’ and the remaining
shall be transferred to the Forest Department under
intimation to the CEC;
vii. in Zudpi jungle land, for settlement of rights under
the provisions of the Forest Rights Act 2006, apart
from other required documents, the historical satellite
imagery shall also be used as a tool in the decision-
making process;
viii. any government order issued by the State Government
of Maharashtra regarding the regularisation of
encroachments on any land shall not be applicable
to Zudpi Jungle lands. All encroachments prior
1514 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to 25.10. 1980 shall be removed except in the
cases where ex-post facto approval of the Central
Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 is permissible and granted;
ix. all allotments for commercial purpose post 25.10.1980
must be treated at par with encroachments. An
exercise of removal of all allotments for commercial
purpose post 25.10.1980 and all encroachments post
25.10.1980 shall be started immediately. A special
task force comprising of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Assistant
Conservator of Forests and a Taluka Inspector of
Land Records should be constituted in each district to
remove encroachments. These officials will be posted
only for this purpose and will not be assigned any
other duty. This entire exercise shall be completed
within a period of two years;
x. all the proceedings regarding notification u/s 20 of
the Indian Forest Act 1927 concerning Zudpi Jungle
lands notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest
Act, shall be completed within the next six months.
Any further delay shall call for fixing of responsibility
and punitive action against the concerned officers;
xi. in the five districts of Vidarbha, viz. Chandrapur,
Gadchiroli, Nagpur, Wardha, and Bhandara, the
Central Government shall consider Zudpi jungle
lands for compensatory afforestation instead of non-
forest land, without insisting on the Chief Secretary’s
Certificate regarding the non-availability of non-
forest land. However, in such cases, compensatory
afforestation must be carried out on double the area
of Zudpi Jungle land, as per the existing guidelines
of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change; and
xii. the State Government shall fix a timeline to transfer
all the Reserve Forest Lands in the custody of the
Revenue Department to the Forest Department within
the next three months. Liberty may please be granted
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1515

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

to the CEC to monitor the progress of the aforesaid
transfer of the Reserve Forest Lands and submit
periodic reports to this Hon’ble Court.”

IV. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
48. We are, therefore, called upon in the present lis to consider as to
whether the recommendations made by the CEC in its 2025 Report
should be accepted or not?

V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
a. Locus of the intervenor in IA No.127871 of 2020
49. The intervenor, who is a resident of Dombivli East, Maharashtra
which is around 800 kms away from the area of the six districts in
respect of which the issue arises, has opposed the recommendations
of the CEC.
50. At the outset, we clarify that we do not propose to go into the question
regarding the locus of the intervenor inasmuch as the present matter
involves concern with regard to environmental protection. However,
at the same time, it is also required to be noticed that though the
present lis is pending before this Court for a number of years, there
is not a single application of intervention from any of the residents or
organizations working for protection of environment from the aforesaid
area opposing the recommendations of the CEC.
51. Having said that, we are of the opinion that the present batch of
applications are required to be considered by us from a historical
perspective.
52. As discussed hereinabove, the term Zudpi Jungle was used under the
erstwhile 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 erstwhile Central Province Districts during
the years 1912-1917. The said term of Settlement was for a period
of 30 years. Therefore, ideally, the next round of settlement ought to
have been undertaken between 1942-1947. However, during the said
period, the Settlement could not be undertaken on account of Second
World War. It further appears that after India became independent in
the year 1947, the Settlement could not be undertaken on account
of apathy on the part of bureaucrats.
1516 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

53. It is further to be noted that the Nistar Act, 1948 conferred certain
rights on the residents of villages in certain matters including grazing
of cattle and collection of jungle produce from the “Scrub Jungle”. It
also protects the customary rights relating to grazing of cattle and
collection of jungle produce.
54. The term Zudpi Jungle or Scrub Jungle was thereafter used in
Vidarbha after Nistar rights were settled and incorporated in the
MPLR Code, 1954. It is to be noted that in order to take forward
the avowed principle of social and economic equality as enshrined
in the Constitution of India, the erstwhile Malguzari system was
abolished in 1951. Under the said Malguzari system, the ownership
of land was vested with the Malguzars. It is clear that in order to
give effect to the Directive Principles under clauses (b) and (c) of
Article 39 of the Constitution, the Malguzari system was abolished
in the year 1951 when the country was undergoing the process of
agrarian reforms and as a part of it Zamindari system and the likewise
systems were abolished. After the abolition of Malguzari system, 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 Nistar Officers,
who were appointed for identifying the lands, classified the lands
into 2 categories: (1) Zudpi Jungle and (2) Mothe Zadancha Jungle.
These Zudpi Jungle would mean the Shrub Jungle i.e., the land with
bushes and shrubs whereas Mothe Zadancha Jungle would mean
the forest containing big trees.
55. It is further to be noted that though in the other parts of the State of
Maharashtra, after reorganization of States, the similar lands were
known as Gairan/Gurcharan/E-Class land, however, on account
of certain bureaucrats not taking steps at the right time, the lands
continued to be recorded in the revenue record as Zudpi Jungle.
56. It is further to be noted that the effect of the FC Act, 1980 and the
order of this Court dated 12th December 1996 was that the rights in
the lands which were granted to the citizens as early as in 1954-
55 under the Nistar Act, 1948 issued under the MPLR Code, 1954
and MLR Code, 1966 came to be withdrawn. Till 1996, the lands
in question were already put in use for various purposes. Various
government projects including the irrigation dams, schools, hospitals,
primary health centres and the government buildings were already
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1517

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

existing thereon. The lands were allotted to landless people for
agricultural purposes.
57. Faced with this difficulty, the State of Maharashtra took up the issue
with the Central Government. The Central Government, as is evident
from the communication dated 6th November 1987, discussed the
issue with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and the concerned
Senior Officials of the Central and State Governments. In the said
meeting, it was decided that the lands classified as “Scrub Forests”
in the erstwhile Districts of Vidarbha would not attract the provisions
of the FC Act, 1980. The Government of Maharashtra therefore
issued the Government Order dated 6th November 1987 directing
therein that the “Scrub Forests” would not attract the provisions of
FC Act, 1980. It was clarified that the said Government Order was
applicable only to “Scrub Forests” of the Districts of Vidarbha and
would not affect any other lands.
58. Further, it appears that the said Government Order came to be
challenged before the High Court of Bombay by filing of a Writ Petition.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Government of
India issued a notification dated 12th February 1992 stating therein
that the Zudpi Jungle would be continued to be treated as “Forest
Land” under the FC Act, 1980. The Government of Maharashtra
consequently withdrew its earlier Government Order dated 6 th
November 1987 vide Resolution dated 17th March 1994. Thereafter,
the position came to be clarified by this Court vide its order dated
12th December 1996 in the present proceedings.
59. It can thus be seen that between the period from 1980 to 1996,
there was a situation of uncertainty as to whether the said land
would be covered by the FC Act, 1980. It is for the first time on 12th
December 1996 the position became clear that the said lands i.e.
Zudpi Lands would also be treated as “Forest Lands” for the purpose
of FC Act, 1980. Thereafter, various Committees were constituted
by the State Government to find out the solution. Finally, the HPC
consisting of various Senior Officers of the Central Government and
the State Government was constituted to submit its report. The HPC,
accordingly, submitted its Report.
60. Thereafter, the matter was pending between the State Government
and the Central Government for a long time.
1518 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

61. Thereafter, though on the basis of the recommendations of the FAC
given in its meeting dated 24th April 2001, the MoEF&CC granted
Stage-I approval on 20th November 2001 for the diversion of 31,192.34
hectares subject to compliance of certain prescribed conditions, the
Government of Maharashtra through a letter dated 18th July 2011
made various requests to MoEF&CC. Again, a Joint Meeting of
officials of MoEF&CC and the State of Maharashtra was held on
18th April 2013. Certain decisions were taken in the said meeting to
which we have already referred to hereinabove.
62. Thereafter, the request of the State Government for exemption from
payment of NPV was considered by the FAC in its meeting dated
26th October 2017. The FAC recommended that since the concept
of NPV was introduced by this Court in its order dated 29th October
2002 in the present proceedings, the NPV shall not be collected
from the State of Maharashtra for diversion, where Zudpi Jungle
land has been put to non-forestry use before 12th December 1996.
63. Faced with this grave situation, the State of Maharashtra preferred
I.A. No.12465 of 2019 for clarification that the directions of this Court
dated 12th December 1996 issued in the present proceedings were
not applicable in respect of 86409 hectare of Zudpi lands being unfit
for Forestry Management.
64. This Court sought the Report of the CEC and the CEC filed its Report
being 2019 CEC Report.
65. The matter thereafter was heard from time to time and this Court vide
order dated 14th February 2024 noted that there were some issues
that could be resolved by joint deliberation between the CEC and the
representatives of the State Government so also that of the MoEF&CC.

b. Efforts taken by CEC
66. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the CEC conducted site visits
and several rounds of meetings with the officials of MoEF&CC as
well as the State Government and also collected a huge amount of
data which was verified by the respective District Collectors.
67. It can thus be seen that the aforesaid recommendations are an
outcome of a huge exercise undertaken by the CEC. The CEC
consists of various experts having vast experience in the field of
forest management and protection. As already stated hereinabove,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1519

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

the said recommendations contained in the 2025 CEC Report will
have to be considered in the background of the historical perspective
as stated hereinabove.

c. Consequences of not accepting recommendations of CEC
68. It can also be seen that if the recommendations made by the CEC
are not accepted, it will have a devastating effect and lakhs of people
who are residing on the said lands for a number of decades will be
dishoused. The slum dwellers, who have constructed the slums on
the said lands and after protection under the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 have
continued to reside on the said lands decades prior to the period from
1980-1996 will have to be dishoused. Huge government buildings
which are existing on the said lands for decades including government
offices, schools, hospitals etc. will also have to be demolished.
69. The effect of non-acceptance of the recommendations as made by the
CEC would lead to demolition of the facilities in use by the Defence
Ministry, the Air Force, the buildings, offices of the Central Government
and the State Government. It would also affect the establishments
of the Agricultural Universities constructed in the said area.
70. We are annexing along with this judgment as an illustration, Annexure-1
to the Report of the Committee for suggesting changes required in
simplified procedure for diversion of Zudpi Jungle Land under Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 chaired by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur,
which would show the number of establishments only in the city
of Nagpur which would be affected if the Report of the CEC is not
accepted.
71. We are annexing the said list only to show as to how many institutions/
buildings/residences etc. would be affected on non-acceptance of
the 2025 CEC Report. This is only pertaining to the area in Nagpur
Municipal Corporation. One can imagine as to what would be the effect
in the entire 6 districts including various cities, towns and villages!

d. Social and Economic Justice
72. There is another aspect to be considered in the present matter.
73. The Constitution of India promises social and economic justice along
with political justice. It will be relevant to refer to Articles 38 and 39
1520 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the Constitution of India which are included in the Constitution
as an instrument for bringing out social and economic equality, and
which read thus:
“38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of
welfare of the people.- (1)The State shall strive to promote
the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social,
economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of
the national life.
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize
the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate
inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only
amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people
residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the
State. - The State shall, in particular, direct its policy
towards securing-
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right
to an adequate means of livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources
of the community are so distributed as best to subserve
the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result
in the concentration of wealth and means of production to
the common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and
women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women,
and the tender age of children are not abused and that
citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter
avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to
develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom
and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected
against exploitation and against moral and material
abandonment.”
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1521

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

74. It will also be relevant to note that there was a debate even with
regard to use of the word “strive” used in clause (1) of Article 38
of the Constitution.
75. It will be apt to refer to the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his speech
in the Constituent Assembly on 19th November 1948. While explaining
as to what was the fundamental position taken in the Constitution,
Dr. Ambedkar observed thus:
“The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Mr. Vice-President,
I see that there is a great deal of misunderstanding as
to the real provisions in the Constitution in the minds of
those members of the House who are interested in this
kind of directive principles. It is quite possible that the
misunderstanding or rather inadequate understanding
is due to the fact that I myself in my opening speech in
support of the motion that I made, did not refer to this
aspect of the question. That was because, not that I did
not wish to place this matter before the House in a clear-
cut fashion, but my speech had already become so large
that I did not venture to make it more tiresome than I had
already done; but I think it is desirable that I should take a
few minutes of the House in order to explain what I regard
as the fundamental position taken in the Constitution.
As I stated, our Constitution as a piece of mechanism
lays down what is called parliamentary democracy. By
parliamentary democracy we mean ‘one man, one vote’.
We also mean that every Government shall be on the anvil,
both in its daily affairs and also at the end of a certain
period when the voters and the electorate will be given an
opportunity to assess the work done by the Government.
The reason why we have established in this Constitution
a political democracy is because we do not want to install
by any means whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any
particular body of people. While we have established
political democracy, it is also the desire that we should
lay down as our ideal economic democracy. We do not
want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to
come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to
lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the
Government. That idea is economic democracy, whereby,
1522 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

so far as I am concerned, I understand to mean, ‘one man,
one vote’. The question is : Have we got any fixed idea as
to how we should bring about economic democracy? There
are various ways in which people believe that economic
democracy can be brought about; there are those who
believe in individualism as the best form of economic
democracy; there are those who believe in having a
socialistic state as the best form of economic democracy;
there are those who believe in the communistic idea as
the most perfect form of economic democracy.
Now, having regard to the fact that there are various ways
by which economic democracy may be brought about,
we have deliberately introduced in the language that we
have used, in the directive principles, something which is
not fixed or rigid. We have left enough room for people
of different ways of thinking, with regard to the reaching
of the ideal of economic democracy, to strive in their own
way, to persuade the electorate that it is the best way of
reaching economic democracy, the fullest opportunity to
act in the way in which they want to act.
Sir, that is the reason why the language of the articles
in Part IV is left in the manner in which this Drafting
Committee thought it best to leave it. It is no use giving
a fixed, rigid form to something which is not rigid, which
is fundamentally changing and must, having regard to
the circumstances and the times, keep on changing. It
is, therefore, no use saying that the directive principles
have no value. In my judgment, the directive principles
have a great value, for they lay down that our ideal is
economic democracy. Because we did not want merely a
parliamentary form of Government to be instituted through
the various mechanisms provided in the Constitution,
without any direction as to what our economic ideal, as
to what our social order ought to be, we deliberately
included the Directive Principles in our Constitution. I
think, if the friends who are agitated over this question
bear in mind what I have said just now that our object
in framing this Constitution is really two fold : (i) to lay
down the form of political democracy, and (ii) to lay
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1523

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

down that our ideal is economic democracy and also to
prescribe that every Government whatever, it is in power,
shall strive to bring about economic democracy, much
of the misunderstanding under which most members are
labouring will disappear.
My friend Mr. Tyagi made an appeal to me to remove
the word ‘strive’, and phrases like that I think he has
misunderstood why we have used the ‘strive’. The word
‘strive’ which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in my
judgment, is very important. We have used it because
our intention is even when there are circumstances
which prevent the Government, or which stand in
the way of the Government giving effect to these
Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and
unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the
fulfillment of these Directives. That is why we have
used the word ‘strive’. Otherwise, it would be open
for any Government to say that the circumstances are
so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we
cannot even make an effort in the direction in which
the Constitution asks us to go. I think my friend Mr.
Tyagi will see that the word ‘strive’ in this context is
of great importance and it would be very wrong to
delete it.”
[Emphasis supplied]

76. Dr. Ambedkar stated that our Constitution as a piece of mechanism
lays down what is called parliamentary democracy. According to him,
we established parliamentary democracy by employing the principle
of ‘one man, one vote’. He further stated that by parliamentary
democracy, it is meant that every Government should be on the
anvil, both in its daily affairs and also at the end of a certain period
when the voters and the electorate would be given an opportunity
to assess the work done by the Government. According to him,
the purpose of the political democracy was not to install by any
means whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of
people. According to him, when we establish political democracy, it
was also the desire that we should lay down as our ideal economic
democracy.
1524 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

77. According to Dr. Ambedkar, the Constitution does not lay down a
mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. It also
wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the
Government and that ideal is economic democracy. After referring
to various ideologies, he stated that the Drafting Committee has
not deliberately used any principle which is fixed or rigid. He stated
that the Drafting Committee has left enough room for people of
different ways of thinking, with regard to the reaching of the ideal of
economic democracy, to strive in their own way. They will persuade
the electorate that it is the best way of reaching economic democracy.
78. Criticizing the argument that the Directive Principles have no value,
Dr. Ambedkar stated that the Directive Principles have a great value,
for they lay down that our ideal is economic democracy. In his view,
no fixed or rigid formula would be laid down in the Constitution as
to what our economic ideal or as to what our social order ought to
be. He stated that one of the objects in framing the Constitution
was also to prescribe that every Government, whoever is in power,
shall strive to bring about economic democracy. Justifying the use of
term “strive”, he stated that the intention of the Drafting Committee
was that even when there are circumstances which prevent the
Government, or stand in the way of the Government giving effect to
the Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious
circumstances, always strive in the implementation of the Directive
Principles. He stated that if this was not done, it would be open for
any Government to say that the circumstances are so bad and that
the finances are so inadequate that we cannot make an effort in the
direction in which the Constitution asks us to go.

e. Inter-relationship between DPSP and Fundamental Rights
79. It is to be noted that after the Constitution came into effect on 26th
January 1950, on several occasions, an issue arose for consideration
before this Court with regard to the conflict between Directive
Principles and Fundamental Rights.
80. Initially, this Court in a catena of judgments including State of West
Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Others2, Dwarkadas Shrinivas

2 1953 INSC 89 : (1953) 2 SCC 688
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1525

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Limited and Others3
and State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee4 took the view that
whenever there was a conflict between the Directive Principles and
the Fundamental Rights, the Fundamental Rights would prevail over
the Directive Principles.
81. An 11-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of I.C. Golak Nath
and Others v. State of Punjab and Another5, by a majority of 6:5,
went to the extent of holding that the importance attached to the
fundamental freedoms was so transcendental that a bill enacted by a
unanimous vote of all the members of both the Houses was ineffective
to derogate from its guaranteed exercise. The view with regard to
untouchability of the Fundamental Rights was again reiterated by the
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rustom
Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India6 commonly known as the Bank
Nationalization Case and another Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji
Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior v. Union of India and Another7
commonly known as Privy Purse Case.
82. However, this conflict came to be resolved by a 13-Judges
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of His Holiness
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and
Another8.
83. Though the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court Kesavananda
Bharati (supra) is widely known for laying down the Basic Structure
Doctrine which view is taken by the thin majority; insofar as the equal
treatment of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights is
concerned, there is almost a uniformity.
84. The said judgment recognises that both the Fundamental Rights
and the Directive Principles of the State Policy are equally important
and that there is no conflict amongst them. It recognises that they
are complementary to each other, and that they together are the

3 1953 INSC 92 : (1953) 2 SCC 791
4 1953 INSC 85 : (1953) 2 SCC 648
5 1967 INSC 45 : [1967] 2 SCR 762
6 1970 INSC 18 : (1970) 1 SCC 248
7 1970 INSC 250 : (1971) 1 SCC 85
8 1973 INSC 91 : (1973) 4 SCC 225
1526 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

conscience of the Constitution. It will be appropriate to refer to some
of the observations made by this Court in the said case. J.M. Shelat
and A.N. Grover, JJ., observed as under:
486. ....Parts-III and IV which embody the Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy have been
described as the conscience of the Constitution...

X X X X
489. …..The Directive Principles of State Policy set forth
the humanitarian socialist precepts that were the aims of
the Indian social revolution…… The Fundamental Rights
and the Directive Principles were designed by the members
of the Assembly to be the chief instruments in bringing
about the great reforms of the social revolution…….
They have helped to bring the Indian society closer to
the Constitution’s goal of social, economic and political
justice for all in the affirmative….”.
85. K. S. Hegde and A. K. Mukherjea, JJ., observed thus:
“634. ….The Directive Principles embodied in Part-IV of the
Constitution or at any rate most of them are as important
as the rights of individuals….

X X X X
712. ….The fundamental rights and the Directive Principles
constitute the ‘conscience’ of our Constitution. The purpose
of the Fundamental Rights is to create an egalitarian
society, to free all citizens from coercion or restriction by
society and to make liberty available for all. The purpose of
the Directive Principles is to fix certain social and economic
goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a non-
violent social revolution….”
86. A. N. Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed thus:
“1015. …The directive principles are also fundamental. They
can be effective if they are to prevail over Fundamental
Rights of a few in order to subserve the common good
and not to allow economic system to result to the common
detriment….
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1527

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

1044. …Part III and IV of the Constitution touch each
other and modify. They are not parallel to each other...”
87. P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J., observed thus:
“1161. …What is implicit in the Constitution is that there is
a duty on the Courts to interpret the Constitution and the
laws, to further the Directive Principles which under Article
37, are fundamental in the governance of the country….”
88. H. R. Khanna, J., observed thus:
“1480. …The Directive Principles embody a commitment
which was imposed by the Constitution-makers on the
State to bring about economic and social regeneration of
the teeming millions who are steeped in poverty, ignorance
and social backwardness. They incorporate a pledge to
the coming generations of what the State would strive to
usher in....
1482. …There should be no reluctance to abridge or
regulate the fundamental right to property if it was felt
necessary to do so for changing the economic structure and
attain the objectives contained in the Directive Principles.”
89. K.K. Mathew, J., observed thus:
“1714. ……..Therefore, the moral rights embodied in Part-
IV of the Constitution are equally an essential feature of it,
the only difference being that the moral rights embodied
in Part-IV are not specifically enforceable as against the
State by a citizen in a Court of law in case the State fails to
implement its duty but, nevertheless, they are fundamental
in the governance of the country and all the organs of the
State, including the judiciary, are bound to enforce those
directives...”
90. Y. V. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed thus:
“2002. …Our decision of this vexed question must depend
upon the postulate of our Constitution which aims at
bringing about a synthesis between “Fundamental Rights”
and the “Directive Principles of State Policy”, by giving
to the former a pride of place and to the latter a place
1528 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of permanence. Together, not individually, they form the
core of the Constitution. Together, not individually, they
constitute its true conscience.”
91. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, in the
case of Minerva Mills Limited and Others v. Union of India and
Others9, observed thus:
“56. ….Parts-III and IV are like two wheels of a chariot,
one no less important than the other. You snap one
and the other will lose its efficacy. They are like a twin
formula for achieving the social revolution, which is the
ideal which the visionary founders of the Constitution set
before themselves. In other words, the Indian Constitution
is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts-III
and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is
to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony
and balance between fundamental rights and directive
principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of
the Constitution.”
92. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations made by Justice
P.N. Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Minerva
Mills Limited (supra), who partly disagreed and held that though
the amendment to Article 368 of the Constitution taking away the
power of judicial review was invalid, the amendment to Article 31C
of the Constitution expanding the scope was valid. Justice Bhagwati
(as His Lordship then was) observed thus:
“107. ……The Directive principles therefore, impose an
obligation on the State to take positive action for creating
socio-economic conditions in which there will be an
egalitarian social order with social and economic justice to
all, so that individual liberty will become a cherished value
and the dignity of the individual a living reality, not only for
a few privileged persons but for the entire people of the
country. It will thus be seen that the Directive Principles
enjoy a very high place in the constitutional scheme and
it is only in the framework of the socio-economic structure

9 1980 INSC 142 : (1980) 3 SCC 625
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1529

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

envisaged in the Directive Principles that the Fundamental
Rights are intended to operate, for it is only then they
can become meaningful and significant for the millions
of our poor and deprived people who do not have even
the bare necessities of life and who are living below the
poverty level.”
93. The importance given to the Directive Principles by the Higher
Judiciary of the country could also be seen in the case of Waman
Rao and Others v. Union of India and Others10 wherein the validity
of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1975
was challenged. Rejecting the challenge, Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.
stated thus:
“54. ...In fact far from damaging the basic structure of the
Constitution, laws passed truly and bona fide for giving
effect to directive principles contained in clauses (b) and
(c) of Article 39 will fortify that structure. We do hope that
the Parliament will utilise to the maximum its potential to
pass laws, genuinely and truly related to the principles
contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39…”

f. Case Laws on clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39
94. The cases to which we are referring to hereinbelow would reveal as to
how a widest possible interpretation has been given by this Court with
regard to importance of Directive Principles while upholding various
enactments and steps taken by the Legislature or the Executive for
bringing social and economic justice.
95. In the case of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India
and Others11, the validity of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976, which provided for compulsory acquisition of the land beyond
a particular ceiling limit, came up for consideration before a 5-Judges
Bench of this Court, wherein, the majority of 3:2 upheld the enactment.
Again V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the majority, stated as under:
“10. …It needs no argument to conclude that the objective of
the legislation as set out in the long title and in the statutory

10 1980 INSC 216 : (1981) 2 SCC 362
11 1980 INSC 219 : (1981) 1 SCC 166
1530 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

scheme is implementation of Part-IV of the Constitution.
The directive principles of State Policy being paramount
in character and fundamental in the country’s governance,
distributive justice envisaged in Article 39(b) and (c) has
a key role in the developmental process of the socialist
republic that India has adopted...”
96. However, in the said case of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji
(supra), a note of caution was put by Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., as
under:
“3. …..It shows that the Act was passed with the object of
preventing concentration of urban land in the hands of a
few persons and with a view to bringing about an equitable
distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve
the common good. “Common good” being the writing on
the wall, any disposal which does not serve that purpose
will be outside the scope of the Act and therefore lacking
in competence in diverse senses. Private property cannot
under our Constitution be acquired or allotted for private
purposes though an enabling power like that contained in
sub-section (1) of Section 23 may be exercised in cases
where the common good dictates the distribution of excess
vacant land to an industry, as defined in clause (b) of the
Explanation to Section 23.”
97. Again, before a 5-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of State
of Tamil Nadu and Others v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Others12,
the nationalisation of transportation in the State of Karnataka was
challenged on the ground that the compensation so provided was
inadequate and there was no distribution of resources as provided
under Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. S.M. Fazal Ali, J.,
speaking for the Bench, stated as under:
“11. …although the directive principles are not enforceable
yet the court should make a real attempt at harmonising
and reconciling the directive principles and the fundamental
rights and any collision between the two should be avoided
as far as possible. ”

12 1983 INSC 168 : (1984) 1 SCC 515
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1531

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

98. Insofar as the term “distribution” is concerned, this Court gave a
wider meaning. It held that distribution cannot be given a narrower
meaning of collecting from someone and distributing to others. This
Court held that insofar as private transporters are concerned, their
main aim would be to earn profit and, therefore, they would only
provide transport services on the profit earning routes. However,
on nationalization, the vehicles would go to remote villages even
if the State did not earn any profit there from. It therefore held that
providing facilities to the citizens residing in the remotest part of the
country, would also amount to “distribution” within the meaning of
Article 31(b) and (c) of the Constitution.
99. Then in the case of State of Maharashtra and Another v. Basantibai
Mohanlal Khetan and Others13, the provision of Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 which provided for
compulsory acquisition of the land at a meagre compensation and
thereafter using that land for construction of the houses for houseless
persons came to be challenged. An important factor is that in that
enactment, there was no declaration that the law is protected under
Article 31C of the Constitution. In spite of that, this Court rejected
the challenge. It will be appropriate to refer to the words of E.S.
Venkataramiah, J. (as His Lordship then was), which read thus:
“13. …..The question whether an Act is intended to
secure the objects contained in Article 39 (b) or not does
not depend upon the declaration by the legislature but
depends on its contents. We have already dealt with the
objects of the Act with which we are concerned in this
case. It inter alia, makes provision for acquisition of private
lands for providing sites for building houses or housing
accommodation to the community. The title to the lands
of the private holders which are acquired first vests in the
State Government. Later on, the land is developed and
then distributed amongst the people as house sites. It also
provides for reserving land for providing public amenities
without which people cannot live there. Community centres,
shopping complexes, parks, roads, drains, playgrounds,
are all necessary for civic life and these amenities are
enjoyed by all. That is also a kind of distribution…… ”

13 1986 INSC 40 : (1986) 2 SCC 516
1532 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

100. It can thus be seen that in spite of there being no declaration that the
law was protected under Article 31C of the Constitution, this Court
itself examined, as to whether the enactment was taking further the
mandate of Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution and upheld it on
the ground that it is protected under Article 31C of the Constitution.
101. Then in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Thana
Electric Supply Company and Others14, the constitutional validity of
Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976 was discussed.
The issue under consideration was whether compensation should
be awarded based solely on the depreciated value of the property
and not on the basis of the prevailing market value. Again, in this
case also, there was no declaration that the said Act was protected
under Article 31C of the Constitution. M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His
Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held thus:
“28. At the outset the misconception that an express
legislative declaration in the legislation is condition
precedent to the attraction of Article 31-C would, perhaps,
require to be removed. The High Court, we say so with
respect, was under a clear misconception on the point that
an express incantation was necessary in the law itself. The
nexus between the law and the objects of Article 39(b)
could be shown independently of any such declaration by
the legislature……”
“48. We accordingly hold that the provisions of Amending
Act of 1976 have a direct and substantial relationship with
the objects of Article 39(b) and, therefore, are entitled to
the protection of Article 39-C. If the impugned law has such
protection, as we indeed hold that it has, all challenges to
it on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31 must
necessarily fail……”
102. Similarly, in the case of Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v.
State of Assam and Others15, the challenge was to the acquisition
of land on the ground that the compensation provided on the book
value is totally illusory in nature. Again M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as
His Lordship then was), stated as under:

14 1989 INSC 127 : (1989) 3 SCC 616
15 1989 INSC 128 : (1989) 3 SCC 709
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1533

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

“62. On an examination of the scheme of the impugned
law the conclusion becomes inescapable that the legislative
measure is one of nationalisation of the undertakings
and the law is eligible for and entitled to the protection of
Article 31C.”
103. In this background, the question that we will have to ask and answer
is as to whether the steps taken by the State prior to 1980 or 1996
which are in furtherance of the avowed objective of social and economic
justice should be permitted to be frustrated or not.

g. Right to Shelter
104. This Court, in the case of Chameli Singh and Others v. State of
U.P. and Another16, though was considering an issue in the context
of land acquisition, had elaborately discussed on the right to shelter.
It will be apt to refer to the following observations of this Court:
“7. In State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy [(1995) 5
SCC 524 : JT (1995) 6 SC 375] (SCC p. 526, para 7 : JT
at p. 378, para 7), this Court held that right to shelter is a
fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
To make the right meaningful to the poor, the State has to
provide facilities and opportunity to build houses. Acquisition
of the land to provide house sites to the poor houseless
is a public purpose as it is the constitutional duty of the
State to provide house sites to the poor.
8. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is
not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is
secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop
himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his
growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object.
Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies
the right to food, water, decent environment, education,
medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights
known to any civilised society. All civil, political, social and
cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution
of India cannot be exercised without these basic human

16 1995 INSC 906 : (1996) 2 SCC 549
1534 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere
protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has
opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually
and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes
adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean
and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and
water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities
like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily
avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean
a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all
the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and
develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used
as an essential requisite to the right to live should be
deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental
right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State
should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it
for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting.
In a democratic society as a member of the organised
civic community one should have permanent shelter so
as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself
to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined
in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and
equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of
making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person
and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself
into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore,
frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation
of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to
residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring
the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life,
providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the
duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and
constitutional rights.”
[Emphasis supplied]

105. A perusal of the said judgment in the case of Chameli Singh (supra)
would show that this Court has held that in any organised society,
right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the
animal needs of a man. It is secured only when he is assured of all
the facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1535

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

inhibit his growth. It has been held that right to live guaranteed in any
civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment,
education, medical care and shelter. It has been held that these are
basic human rights necessary in order to ensure that a person lives
life with dignity. It has been held that shelter for a human being is
not a mere protection of his life and limb, but it is a home where
he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and
spiritually. It has been held that the State should be deemed to be
under obligation to secure right to shelter for its citizens. However,
this has to be subject to its economic budgeting. This Court has held
that want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object
of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice,
fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live
itself. This Court emphasized that to bring the Dalits and Tribes into
the mainstream of national life, providing of such amenities is the
duty of the State.
106. In another case titled Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab
Khan Gulab Khan and Others17, this Court observed thus:
“13. Socio-economic justice, equality of status and of
opportunity and dignity of person to foster the fraternity
among all the sections of the society in an integrated
Bharat is the arch of the Constitution set down in its
Preamble. Articles 39 and 38 enjoin the State to provide
facilities and opportunities. Articles 38 and 46 of the
Constitution enjoin the State to promote welfare of the
people by securing social and economic justice to the
weaker sections of the society to minimise inequalities in
income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status. In
that case, it was held that to bring the Dalits and the Tribes
into the mainstream of national life, the State was to provide
facilities and opportunities as it is the duty of the State to
fulfil the basic human and constitutional rights to residents
so as to make the right to life meaningful. In Shantistar
Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [(1990) 1 SCC 520]
another Bench of three Judges had held that basic needs
of man have traditionally been accepted to be three —
food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed

17 1996 INSC 1189 : (1997) 11 SCC 121
1536 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in any civilised society. That would take within its sweep
the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent
environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in.
The difference between the need of an animal and a human
being for shelter has to be kept in view. For an animal, it is
the bare protection of the body; for a human being, it has
to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to
grow in every aspect — physical, mental and intellectual.
The surplus urban vacant land was directed to be used
to provide shelter to the poor. In Olga Tellis case [(1985)
3 SCC 545] the Constitution Bench had considered the
right to dwell on pavements or in slums by the indigent
and the same was accepted as a part of right to life
enshrined under Article 21; their ejectment from the place
nearer to their work would be deprivation of their right to
livelihood. They will be deprived of their livelihood if they
are evicted from their slum and pavement-dwellings. Their
eviction tantamounts to deprivation of their life. The right
to livelihood is a traditional right to life, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him
of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such
deprivation would not only denude life of its effective content
and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to
live. The deprivation of right to life, therefore, must be
consistent with the procedure established by law. In P.G.
Gupta v. State of Gujarat [1995 Supp (2) SCC 182 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 782 : (1995) 30 ATC 47] another Bench of
three Judges had considered the mandate of human right
to shelter and read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of
the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Convention of Civic, Economic and Cultural
Rights and had held that it is the duty of the State to
construct houses at reasonable cost and make them easily
accessible to the poor. The aforesaid principles have been
expressly embodied and inbuilt in our Constitution to secure
socio-economic democracy so that everyone has a right
to life, liberty and security of the person. Article 22 of the
Declaration of Human Rights envisages that everyone has
a right to social security and is entitled to its realisation as
the economic, social and cultural rights are indispensable
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1537

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

for his dignity and free development of his personality. It
would, therefore, be clear that though no person has
a right to encroach and erect structures or otherwise
on footpaths, pavements or public streets or any other
place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose, the
State has the constitutional duty to provide adequate
facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth
and resources for settlement of life and erection
of shelter over their heads to make the right to life
meaningful, effective and fruitful. Right to livelihood is
meaningful because no one can live without means of his
living, that is the means of livelihood. The deprivation of
the right to life in that context would not only denude life
of effective content and meaningfulness but it would make
life miserable and impossible to live. It would, therefore,
be the duty of the State to provide right to shelter to
the poor and indigent weaker sections of the society
in fulfilment of the constitutional objectives.”
[Emphasis supplied]

107. This Court in the aforesaid case of Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation (supra), while relying on the case of Olga Tellis and
Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others18 wherein
the surplus urban vacant land was directed to be used to provide
shelter to the poor, reiterated the constitutional duty of State to provide
adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and
resources for settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads
to make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful.
108. This Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid two judgments
of this Court, recently in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter
of demolition of structures19 to which one of us B.R. Gavai, J. (as
he then was) was a Member, wherein this Court in unequivocal terms
reiterated that the Right to Shelter is one of the facets of Article 21
of the Constitution.
109. The question therefore that we are called upon to consider is as to
whether the shelter from the heads of lakhs of people who are living

18 1985 INSC 151 : (1985) 3 SCC 545
19 2024 INSC 866 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291
1538 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in the houses constructed for decades together should be permitted
to be removed or not.

h. Right to Livelihood
110. This Court, in a catena of judgments including in the cases of
Olga Tellis (supra), Consumer Education and Research Centre
and Others v. Union of India and Others20, Common Cause, A
Registered Society v. Union of India and Others21 and Amarnath
Shrine, In Re (Court on its own Motion) v. Union of India and
Others22 has held the Right to Livelihood to be a Fundamental Right.
111. The question that we are also called upon to consider is as to whether
the citizens of this country who have been allotted parcels of land and
are undertaking agricultural activities thereon for decades together
should now be deprived of their livelihood.
112. For a period ranging more than half a century, various public amenities
like schools, government offices, public health centres, graveyards,
cemeteries are existing on these lands for providing services to the
citizens of this country residing in the Zudpi areas. The question that
we will also have to answer is as to whether the citizens should be
deprived of all these facilities on account of some bureaucratic mess
caused by the negligence of the officials of the State Government at
the time of reorganization of the States.
113. In our considered view, the answers to all these questions will have
to be in the negative.
114. Our conclusion in this regard would be fortified by the following chart
which will show the purposes in all the districts for which the aforesaid
land is being utilized:

District Total Land use as per Govt. Record Area
Gat No. Residential Agricultural Public Public under
(hectare) (hectare) Purpose Utility occupation
(hectare) (hectare) (hectare)

Nagpur 6308 55.89 2077.44 3762.09 5046.18 10941.6
Wardha 4687 16.06 1668.38 260.23 3116.36 5061.03

20 1995 INSC 76 : (1995) 3 SCC 42
21 1999 INSC 299 : (1999) 6 SCC 667
22 2012 INSC 593 : (2013) 3 SCC 247
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1539

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

Bhandara 3778 34.61 627.01 337.34 1615.68 2614.64
Gondia 3099 3.87 595.87 105.57 1902.48 2607.79
Chandrapur 4098 24.0 1508.6 298.36 1712.64 3543.6
Gadchiroli 10939 16.72 7451.93 141.68 1012.44 8622.77
Total 32909 151.15 13929.23 4905.27 14405.78 33391.43

115. It is thus clear that the 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
like open ground, burial and burning ground, etc. Vast chunks of land
have been utilized for public utilities such as primary health centres,
schools, anganwadi centres, offices of the Central Government as
well as the State Government and the other establishments belonging
to the State Government and the Central Government or the local
government. Not only that but vast chunks of land have also been
utilized for the purposes of defence services including the Army and
the Air Force.
116. The citizens who are residing in the houses built on these lands
for decades together cannot be permitted to be dishoused. The
agriculturists who have been allotted lands for their livelihood in order
to give effect to the promise of social and economic equality to the
citizens of this country cannot be deprived of their livelihood at this
stage. The citizens cannot be deprived of public amenities which
are essential for living in their day-to-day life in a dignified manner.

i. Sustainable Development
117. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the balance between
environmental protection and the need for sustainable development.
It will be apt to refer to paras 87-88 of the judgment of this Court in
the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education
and Welfare Trust and Others23, which read thus:
“87. It cannot be disputed that Section 20 of the NGT Act
itself directs the learned Tribunal to apply the principles of
sustainable development, the precautionary principle and
the polluter pays principle. Undisputedly, it is the duty of the

23 2022 INSC 1129 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469
1540 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

State as well as its citizens to safeguard the forest of the
country. The resources of the present are to be preserved
for the future generations. However, one principle cannot
be applied in isolation of the other.
88. It is necessary that, while protecting the environment,
the need for sustainable development has also to be taken
into consideration and a proper balance between the two
has to be struck.”
118. Much prior to that, this Court, in the case of Vellore Citizens’
Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others24, had an occasion
to consider the conflict between the development and ecology. This
Court observed thus:
“10. The traditional concept that development and ecology
are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable.
“Sustainable Development” is the answer. In the international
sphere, “Sustainable Development” as a concept came to
be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of
1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite
shape by the World Commission on Environment and
Development in its report called “Our Common Future”.
The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister
of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and as such the report
is popularly known as “Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the
World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment
Programme and Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly came
out with a document called “Caring for the Earth” which
is a strategy for sustainable living. Finally, came the
Earth Summit held in June 1992 at Rio which saw the
largest gathering of world leaders ever in the history —
deliberating and chalking out a blueprint for the survival of
the planet. Among the tangible achievements of the Rio
Conference was the signing of two conventions, one on
biological diversity and another on climate change. These
conventions were signed by 153 nations. The delegates
also approved by consensus three non-binding documents
namely, a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration
of principles on environmental policy and development

24 1996 INSC 952 : (1996) 5 SCC 647
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1541

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

initiatives and Agenda 21, a programme of action into the
next century in areas like poverty, population and pollution.
During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio “Sustainable
Development” has come to be accepted as a viable concept
to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life
while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting
ecosystems. “Sustainable Development” as defined by the
Brundtland Report means “Development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of
the future generations to meet their own needs”. We have
no hesitation in holding that “Sustainable Development” as
a balancing concept between ecology and development
has been accepted as a part of the customary international
law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by
the international law jurists.”
119. The principle of Sustainable Development as a balancing concept
between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of
the Customary International Law by this Court in various judgments
including S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others25, Consumer
Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others26,
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others27 and
Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga
and Others28.
120. As discussed hereinabove, on the land in question, various
developmental activities have already been undertaken viz. irrigation
dams have been constructed, roads have been laid down, schools,
public health centres, other public utilities, facilities have been
provided for the citizens. All these public utilities are necessary
for the citizens living in the areas. We have annexed herewith the
list of various institutions/buildings/residential areas/public utilities
which will be affected in the city of Nagpur. The said list would show
that even the buildings wherein the High Court, the High Court
Judges’ residences, the State Governments’ Secretariat, the Central
Government’s buildings, the Defence Buildings, the Air Force buildings,

25 1996 INSC 1466 : (1997) 2 SCC 87
26 2000 INSC 81 : (2000) 2 SCC 599
27 2006 INSC 101 : (2006) 3 SCC 549
28 2019 INSC 1203 : (2020) 15 SCC 784
1542 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the establishment of Agricultural University, the graveyards etc. are
situated, they all would be affected.

j. Effect of CEC’s recommendations
121. Another reason that persuades us to accept the recommendations
of the CEC is that the CEC has recommended that all allotments for
commercial purposes post 25th October 1980 must be treated at par
with encroachments. It is recommended that a Special Task Force
comprising of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, an Assistant Conservator of Forests and a Taluka Inspector of
Land Records should be constituted in each district so as to demolish
encroachments. It has been recommended that these officials be
posted only for this purpose and that they will not be assigned any
other duty. It has also been recommended that the said exercise
should be completed within a period of two years.
122. The CEC has further recommended that the State Government shall
ensure that the land use is not changed in the future under any
circumstances and that the transfer is permitted only by inheritance.
Insofar as allotment of land post 12th December 1996 is concerned,
the CEC has recommended that the State Government shall give
reasons as to why such allotments were done along with the list of
officers who made such allotments in violation of the orders of this
Court. It has further recommended that the Central Government shall
process such proposals under the provisions of Section 2(ii) of the
FC Act, 1980 only after ensuring that the suitable punitive action has
been taken against the concerned officials under Sections 3-A and
3-B of the FC Act, 1980.
123. It can be seen from the letter dated 19 th/22nd September 2003
addressed by the MoEF&CC to the Secretaries of all the State
Governments and Union Territories clarifying therein that the NPV will
be charged in all those cases which have been granted in-principle
approval after 30th October 2002. The said letter stated that NPV will
be realized before Stage-II (Final) approval.
124. It is thus clear that even according to MoEF&CC, the NPV has to
be charged where in-principle approval has been granted after 30th
October 2002. A perusal of the record would reveal that in the present
case Stage-I approval has been granted much prior to 30th October
2002. In this background, the FAC in its meeting dated 26th October
2017 has favourably considered the request of the Government of
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1543

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

Maharashtra for exemption from payment of NPV. In this background,
the contention that the NPV should be charged from the persons
who were in possession of the said lands, in our view, would not be
tenable. In any case, the ground realities would not permit the same
to be done. As already discussed hereinabove, the land admeasuring
33391.43 hectares has been largely utilized for residential purposes, for
agricultural purposes by the landless persons to whom it was allotted
and for public utilities as well as public purposes like cemeteries,
cremation grounds, government offices, schools, primary health
centres, anganwadi centres etc.
125. As we have already held hereinabove, the said land has been utilized
to take further the avowed object of the Constitution of distributive
justice. It could have been a different matter had the said land been
utilized in order to promote the vested interest of a few individuals. In
any case, the CEC itself has recommended that insofar as allotment
for commercial purposes and encroachment is concerned, the said
recommendation would not be applicable.
126. It has been recommended by the FAC that the NPV shall not be
collected from the State Government for diversion proposals submitted
under the FC Act, 1980 where Zudpi land has been put to non-forestry
use before 12th December 1996. The CEC after considering the larger
public interest in this respect has given its recommendations. The
said recommendations depict a balanced approach.
127. The CEC, given the peculiar circumstances and significance of Zudpi
Jungle lands, discussed the issue in detail and recommended that
the State Government in respect of Zudpi Jungle lands allotted by the
competent authority before 12th December 1996 shall seek approval
under Section 2(i) of the FC Act, 1980 for their deletion from the “List
of the Forest Areas”. It has been recommended that a consolidated
proposal shall be submitted by the Government of Maharashtra for
each district. It has been recommended that the Central Government
would take a decision on the said proposal on its own merits. It
has further been recommended that all activities for which lands
have been allotted by the competent authority would be deemed to
be site specific and no condition for compensatory afforestation or
depositing NPV levies may be imposed by the Central Government
while processing such proposals.
128. It is further to be noted that there is not much change between the
recommendations as made in the 2019 CEC Report and 2025 CEC
1544 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Report except the payment of NPV. It is further to be noted that the
FAC itself in its meeting dated 26th October 2017 had favourably
accepted the request of the State Government for exemption from
payment of NPV.
129. As already discussed hereinabove, the Report of the CEC has been
prepared after undertaking a huge exercise of site inspections,
collection of huge data from all the districts and verification thereof
by the District Collectors. The recommendations also balance the
rights of the citizens accrued for past several decades much prior to
1980 or 1996, the developmental activities already undertaken and
the need to provide a larger green coverage.
130. Though we are largely in agreement with the other recommendations
of the CEC, we are not inclined to accept the recommendation of the
CEC that the Zudpi land can be used for compensatory afforestation
instead of non-forest land without insisting on the Chief Secretary’s
certificate regarding the non-availability of non-forest land. Though the
CEC has recommended that in such cases compensatory afforestation
must be carried out on double the area of Zudpi Jungle land as per
the existing guidelines of MoEF&CC, we are not inclined to accept
the said recommendation. Accepting such a recommendation would
amount to deviating from the order passed by this Court dated 12th
December 1996 and the specific directions issued by this Court on
4th March 2025 in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest
Service (Retd.) and Others v. Union of India and Another29.
131. We therefore reject the said recommendation and hold that the Zudpi
Jungle land can be considered for the purposes of compensatory
afforestation only if there is a Chief Secretary’s certificate regarding
non-availability of non-forest land. Only in such cases, the
compensatory afforestation would be carried out on double the area
of Zudpi Jungle land as per the existing guidelines of MoEF&CC.
132. We further find that the interest of providing a larger green cover
can be taken care of by issuing stringent directions to the State of
Maharashtra.
133. In this regard, we reproduce the following chart which is a part of
the Report of the CEC:

29 Writ Petition (C) No. 1164 of 2023
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1545

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

S.N. Description Area in hectare
i. Already been handed over to the Forest 6,55,619
Department
ii. Zudpi jungle land was reclassified by 89,768.39
the Revenue Department into other
categories up to 12.02.1992
iii. Zudpi jungle land for which notifications 92,116
u/s 4 of IFA, 1927 have been issued
iv. The total area allotted by the revenue 33,391.43
department for various non-forestry
activities
v. The total area of fragmented land parcels 29,032.622
(each plot having an area less than 3 ha.
and not adjoining any forest area)
vi. Total area under encroachment 10,827.532
Total 9,10,754.974

134. The chart would show that out of an area of 9,23,913 hectares, an
area of 6,55,619 hectares has already been handed over to the Forest
Department and an area of 89,768.39 hectares was reclassified by
the Revenue Department into other categories up to 12th February
1992. A notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927
has already been issued in respect of the land admeasuring 92,116
hectares. The CEC has also recommended that the total area of
land admeasuring 29,032.622 hectares that is the plots having an
area of less than 3 hectares and not adjoining any forest area to
be transferred to the Forest Department. The various non-forestry
activities for the lands admeasuring 33,391.43 hectares allotted by
the Revenue Department have already been discussed hereinabove.
We find that the interest of providing larger green coverage can be
achieved by directing the State Government to utilize the aforesaid
area of 7,76,767.622 hectares for the purposes of afforestation within
a specified period.
135. We find that the concern for providing larger green coverage can
be ensured by directing the Revenue Department of the State of
Maharashtra to hand over the remaining area out of the aforesaid
area of 7,76,767.622 hectares to the Forest Department which would
1546 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

be utilized by the State Government for afforestation. We further find
that a direction to the State Government to complete the process of
handing over the possession from the Revenue Department to the
Forest Department in respect of the aforesaid land would ensure
the use of the said land for afforestation in an expeditious manner.
136. Insofar as the concern expressed by Smt. Divan that if the
recommendations of CEC are accepted, it will lead to denotifying forest
areas where the forests have been degraded is concerned, the said
apprehension is not correct. The CEC has itself recommended that
Zudpi Jungle land shall be considered as “Forest Lands” on account
of peculiarity of the circumstances. It has also recommended that the
recommendations shall not be permitted to be treated as precedent.
In any case after 12th December 1996, no forest could be denotified
or used for non-forestry purpose except with the permission of the
Central Government under the FC Act, 1980.
137. Before we part with this judgment, we will also reiterate the issue
that we had covered in our recent judgment dated 15th May 2025 in
the present proceedings in the case of In Re: Construction of Multi
Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra30. In the said case,
we had noticed that various parcels of land which were notified as
forest lands were still in possession of the Revenue Department. We
noticed that the Revenue Department despite resistance from the
Forest Department had allotted the lands to the private individuals/
institutions for non-forestry purposes. We had noticed that this
had the effect of reducing vital green cover. We therefore issued
directions to all the States and the Union Territories to hand over the
possession of such lands to the Forest Department. We had further
directed that if on account of such lands already being converted for
non-forest activities, it was found that taking back the possession of
the land would not be in larger public interest, then the States/Union
Territories should recover the cost of the land from such individuals/
institutions and use the said amount for the purpose of afforestation,
restoration and conservation of the forest. At the cost of repetition,
in order to emphasize the need for protection and enhancement of
green coverage, we will reiterate the said directions in the present
matter also.

30 2025 INSC 701
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1547

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

VI. CONCLUSION:
138. In the result, the present IAs are disposed of in the following terms:

(i) It is directed that the Zudpi Jungle lands shall be considered
as Forest lands in line with the order of this Court dated 12th
December 1996 in the present proceedings;

(ii) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we
direct that as an exception, and without the same being treated
as a precedent whatsoever for any matter, the Zudpi Jungle
lands allotted by the competent authority up to 12th December
1996 and for which land classification has not been changed,
the State of Maharashtra shall seek approval under Section 2
of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for their deletion from
the “List of Forest Areas”;

(iii) We direct that the State of Maharashtra shall submit a
consolidated proposal for each district. We clarify that all activities
for which lands have been allotted by the competent authority will
be deemed to be site-specific. We further clarify that the State
Government shall ensure that the land used is not changed in
the future under any circumstances and transfer is made only
by inheritance;
(iv) We direct that on receipt of such proposals, the Union of India
shall consider and approve the same without imposing any
condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV levies;
(v) We direct that the Union Government and the State of Maharashtra
shall with mutual consultation and with prior approval of the CEC,
devise a format for processing the proposal of diversion of Zudpi
Jungle land for non-forestry activities within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment;
(vi) For proposal regarding the allotments of Zudpi Jungle lands
made post 12th December 1996, the State of Maharashtra
shall give reasons in the proposal as to why such allotments
were made along with the list of officers who had made such
allotments in violation of the order of this Court. We clarify that
the processing of proposal for such allotments shall be done by
the Union Government only after ensuring that punitive action
has been taken against the concerned officers under Sections
3A and 3B of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
1548 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(vii) We direct that the State of Maharashtra shall declare all the
unallotted “fragmented land parcels” (each having an area of less
than three hectare and not adjoining any forest area) as “Protected
Forests” under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927;
(viii) We further direct the State of Maharashtra to issue directions to
all the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) to ensure
that no such land parcel is encroached upon hereinafter. It is
further directed that if any such encroachment takes place after
the date of this judgment, the concerned SDM shall be made
responsible for the same;
(ix) We clarify that, as and when these lands are required for non-
forestry purposes by the State Government, the proposal shall
be submitted as per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980. We further clarify that, in no case any such land shall
be diverted to any non-governmental entity for any purpose
whatsoever;
(x) We further direct that a Special Task Force comprising of Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Deputy Superintendent of Police, an
Assistant Conservator of Forests and a Taluka Inspector of Land
Revenue of land records should be constituted in each district
to remove encroachments within a period of two years from the
date of this judgment. We clarify that these officials will be posted
only for this purpose and will not be assigned any other duty.
We further clarify that all allotments for commercial purpose post
25th October 1980 must be treated at par with encroachments;
(xi) We further direct that the Revenue Department of the State of
Maharashtra shall hand over the possession of the remaining
area, if any, from the aforesaid area of 7,76,767.622 hectares,
which is still in possession of the Revenue Department to the
Forest Department. The same shall be done within a period
of one year from the date of this judgment. We clarify that the
said land shall be utilized only for the purpose of compensatory
afforestation;
(xii) We direct the CEC to monitor the progress of the aforesaid
transfer of the forest land. We further direct that the Zudpi land
will not be permitted to use for compensatory afforestation unless
there is a certificate of the Chief Secretary regarding the non-
availability of non-forest land for the purposes of afforestation.
However, in such cases, compensatory afforestation must be
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1549

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

carried out on double the area of Zudpi Jungle land, as per the
existing guidelines of the MoEF&CC;
(xiii) As already directed in the recent case of In Re: Construction
of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra
(supra) dated 15th May 2025, we reiterate our direction to the
Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all
the Union Territories to constitute Special Investigation Teams
for the purpose of examining as to whether any of the Forest
Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been
allotted to any private individuals/institutions for any purpose
other than the forestry purpose; and
(xiv) We further reiterate our directions to the State Governments
and the Union Territories to take steps to take the possession
of the land from the persons/institutions in possession of such
lands and hand over the same to the Forest Department. In
case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land
would not be in the larger public interest, the State Governments/
Union Territories should recover the cost of the said land from
the persons/institutions in occupation thereof and use the said
amount for the purpose of development of forests.
139. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance
rendered by Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae ably assisted
by Ms. Kanti, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas
Patil, learned counsel, Smt. Madhavi Divan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the intervenor and Shri Sidharth Dharmadhikari, learned
counsel appearing for the State. We direct the State of Maharashtra
to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Shri K. Parameshwar, learned
amicus curiae and Rs.2,50,000/- each to Ms. Kanti, Mr. M.V. Mukunda,
Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel as a token
for the valuable services rendered by them.
140. We also place on record our deep appreciation for the voluminous
exercise undertaken by the CEC and in assisting this Court to arrive
at a solution that would balance the rights of the citizens at large on
one hand and the interest of the environment on the other hand.
Encl: Annexure-1 to 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 Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur.
1550 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Annexure – I
Tahsil - Nagpur
Sr. Name of Survey Area of User Name Type of Use
No. Village No. S. No.
(in ha)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Ajni 8 0.40 Mhada Mhada Quarter
Since 1970
9 9.79 Mhada House, Play
Ground
2 Jat Tarodi 14 0.63 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
16 0.35 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
22 0.11 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
3. Dhantoli 305/5 0.05 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
4. Lendra 79/5 15.52 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
83/4 12.64 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture
University
83/4/1 0.47 MSRTC Bust Stand
89/1 3.92 Govt. Building Govt. Building
142/2 0.60 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Residential Area
University
178 0.06 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. RCF Building
University
217/1 27.65 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture
University
219/1 4.02 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture
University
226 0.12 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture
University Market
303 1.83 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Open Space,
University Water Body
26 B 0.02 Govt. Land Nazul Building
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1551

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

91/2 0.77 Hadas High School Education
Institute
228/2 0.45 Cotton Research Residential Area
Centre
229/1 0.95 Cotton Research Residential Area
Centre
232/2 1.81 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Girls Hostel
University
233/1 2.15 ICAR Residential Area
245/2 0.04 ICAR Residential Area
246/1 0.70 ICAR Residential Area
248/1 0.23 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
256 0.65 Nagpur Improvement Office
Trust
257/1 2.13 Nagpur Improvement Education
Trust Institute
279 0.05 Nagpur Improvement Education
Trust Institute
78/2-3 0.38 Nagpur Improvement Education
Trust Institute
80/1 0.01 Nagpur Improvement Maharaj Bag
Trust
80/2 0.12 Nagpur Improvement Maharaj Bag
Trust
89/8 7.69 Nagpur Improvement Commercial
Trust Building
91/3 0.35 Nagpur Improvement In possession
Trust of NIT
217/4, 2.71 Nagpur Improvement Diksha Bhumi
219/2 Trust
221/1, 3.77 Nagpur Improvement Diksha Bhumi
22/2 Trust
220/1, 6.86 Nagpur Improvement ITI Building
224/1 Trust
234/2 0.07 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
1552 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

244 0.80 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
247/2 0.81 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
302/2 0.92 Nagpur Improvement Forensic Lab
Trust
242 0.07 Govt. Body Garden
243/1 0.11 Govt. Body Garden
243/2 0.10 Forest Deptt. Garden
79/1 2.81 Govt. Nazul Building
67 1.97 Somalwar High Education
School Institute
5 Khamla 72/4 2.69 Private land Pandey Layout
73/4 7.37 Private land Pandey Layout
88/2 0.40 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
75/12,13 0.76 Residential Nagpur
78/8,9,10 Improvement
Trust Layout
6. Ambazari 29 1.66 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
8/3 0.04 Nagpur Improvement Boundary of
Trust Water Body
24 1.94 VNagar Education
Improvement Trust Institute
Univ
37/2 2.37 Nagpur Improvement Sweeming Pool
Trust
40 0.96 Nagpur Improvement Building
Trust of Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
42/1 2.19 Dharampeth High Education
School Institute
44/2 0.15 Nagpur Improvement Ambazari
Trust Garden
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1553

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

53/2 1.05 Residential Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
52/2 7.11 Residential Nagpur
Improvement
Trust
7. Binaki 16 0.21 Grave Yard / For public use
Cemetery
32 0.07 Grave Yard / For public use
Cemetery
44 0.65 Grave Yard / For public use
Cemetery
91 0.05 Grave Yard / For public use
Cemetery
103 0.44 Grave Yard / For public use
Cemetery
154 0.29 Grave Yard / For public use
Cemetery
77 0.33 Grave Yard / For public use
Cemetery
26 0.85 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
8. Shivangaon 134/2 0.29 MIHAN Grave Yard For
public use
171 0.87 MIHAN Grave Yard For
public use
172 0.14 MIHAN Grave Yard For
public use
9 Chichbhuwan 236 1.65 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard For
Corp public use
153 0.03 Nagpur Municipal Residential
Corp Purpose
154 0.04 Nagpur Municipal Residential
Corp Purpose
10 Jaitala 22/2 0.21 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
34/2 2.83 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
1554 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

103 2.17 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
11 Bhamti 60/2 0.71 Railway Deptt. Railway Line &
Ring Road
12 Dhabha 168 9.34 Police Deptt. Govt. Building
175/1 23.86 Police Deptt. Govt. Building
175/2 10.43 Defence Ministry Air Force
Building
177 0.77 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
178/1 13.94 Agriculture Deptt. Agri. Research
178/2 2.09 Defence Ministry Air Force
Building
13 Hajari Pahad 54 0.17 Khadan Khadan
83 0.25 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
87 0.05 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
91/2 0.93 Houses Grave Yard /
Cemetery
91/3 3.16 Houses
109/1 25.30 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
109/2 55.77 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
111 0.05 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
113 30.40 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
14 Telangkhedi 10/1 28.42 Mah. Animal Education
Husbendry & Institute
Fishries Universiy
10/2 0.93 Defence Ministry Air Force
Building
12/1 6.77 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1555

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

12/2 1.22 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
13 23.20 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
53 0.09 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
54/2 1.55 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
64/1 0.48 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
64/3 0.01 Defence Ministry In possession of
Air Force
67/6 29.71 Central Govt. T.V. Office,
Work shop of
IBM
69 1.12 Central Govt.
70/2 0.25 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline
& Houses
71 0.57 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline
& Borgaon
Road
73 3.17 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline
& Houses
77/2 part 0.27 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline
& Houses
90 0.16 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline
& Houses
92 10.95 SSC Collage, Education
Church Institute
95 1.04 C.P. Club Club
98/1 0.50 Nazul Deptt. Govt. Building
98/2 8.85 Nazul Deptt. Mother Diary
107 0.61 Health Deptt. Govt. Building
110 0.09 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
112/1 4.1 Govt. Deptt. Govt. Building
112/2 0.93 C.P. School Education
Institute
1556 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

112/3 0.48 C.P. School Education
Institute
112/4 0.60 C.P. School Education
Institute
65/1 0.45 Govt. Deptt. Residential Area
65/3 0.02 Govt. Deptt. Residential Area
65/4 6.25 Central Govt. MECL
15 Futala 2/1 79.11 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
2/2 44.51 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
2/3 20.00 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
14/1 11.00 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
14/1 A 0.06 Rev. Deptt Religious
Stracture
14/4 0.01 Police Deptt. Police Station
15/1 1.66 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
15/4 1.48 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
17/3 0.64 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
17/7 0.30 School Education
Institute
13/3 23.06 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
13/1 13.19 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
14/2 0.01 Electricity Deptt Transformer
(MSEB)
14/3, 0.30 School Education
15/6 Institute
16 Kachimate 6,7,8 2.15 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
11 5.02 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
13,14 11.91 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1557

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

17,18 0.80 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research
University
40 3.37 Central Govt. Staff Quarter
BSNL
44/1 26.88 Nagpur Municipal Ambazari Lake
Corp
44/2 4.86 Nagpur University Education
Institute
44/3 100.00 Central Govt. Cirtus Research
Centre
17 Takli Sim 2 14.00 Nagpur Municipal Ambazari Lake
Corp
18 Pandhabodi 29 1.98 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
13/1 0.49 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
14 0.02 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
32 0.28 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
19 Dharampeth 2/4 0.80 Central Govt. Govt. Building
2/5 0.04 Central Govt. Govt. Building
17/2 0.05 PWD Deptt. High Judges
Bungalow
19/3 0.06 Central Govt. Residential Area
20/2 0.19 Agriculture Deott. Office
23 7.41 Nazul Deptt. Tiger Camp
Ground
19/2 5.81 Agriculture Deptt. Office
27 1.13 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
29 0.81 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
33/1-3-5 3.16 Forest Deptt. Garden
35/1-2 0.36 C.P. Club Club
35/3 2.52 Irrigation Deptt. Rest House
50 0.78 PWD Deptt. Office
67 0.08 PWD Deptt. Judial Officer
Resedence
1558 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

72 1.82 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
73/1 1.44 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
73/2 0.85 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
75/2 0.79 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building
78/2 0.11 Z.P. Govt. Building
78/4 0.19 PWD Deptt. Road
80 0.11 PWD Deptt. MLA Hostel
82/4 1.00 PWD Deptt. Residential Area
77/1 0.97 PWD Deptt. Residential Area
20 Gadga 27/11 0.11 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
31 0.19 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
32 0.38 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
35 1.94 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
21 Borgaon 4 0.53 Defence Ministry Firing Range
5 0.08 Defence Ministry Firing Range
6 0.53 Defence Ministry Firing Range
7 0.24 Defence Ministry Firing Range
8 7.58 Defence Ministry Firing Range
9 4.66 Defence Ministry Firing Range
10 2.60 Defence Ministry Firing Range
11 3.69 Defence Ministry Firing Range
12 2.79 Defence Ministry Firing Range
13 1.57 Defence Ministry Firing Range
14 5.42 Defence Ministry Firing Range
15 13.77 Defence Ministry Firing Range
16 0.72 Defence Ministry Firing Range
17/1-2 5.44 Defence Ministry Firing Range
19/1 0.12 Defence Ministry Firing Range
63/1 1.67 Defence Ministry Firing Range
64 5.71 Defence Ministry Firing Range
65 3.14 Defence Ministry Firing Range
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1559

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

66/1 0.28 Defence Ministry Firing Range
67/2 0.96 Defence Ministry Firing Range
68 3.36 Defence Ministry Firing Range
69 0.45 Defence Ministry Firing Range
70 0.49 Defence Ministry Firing Range
71 5.09 Defence Ministry Firing Range
72/2 8.59 Defence Ministry Firing Range
73/2 3.64 Defence Ministry Firing Range
74/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range
77/2 0.70 Defence Ministry Firing Range
78/2 0.02 Defence Ministry Firing Range
110/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range
121/1 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range
140/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range
141/2 0.49 Defence Ministry Firing Range
142/2 0.17 Defence Ministry Firing Range
143/2 0.13 Defence Ministry Firing Range
144/1 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range
145 0.19 Defence Ministry Firing Range
148/2 3.30 Defence Ministry Firing Range
149 3.20 Defence Ministry Firing Range
150 2.26 Defence Ministry Firing Range
151 6.21 Defence Ministry Firing Range
152 2.91 Defence Ministry Firing Range
153 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range
154 3.28 Defence Ministry Firing Range
22 Gorewada 58/1-2-3 2.30 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard /
Corp Cemetery
102/2, 6.32 Defence Ministry Firing Range
103/1,
103/2K,
103/3K,
103/4Kh
106 19.55 Nagpur Municipal Water Work
Corp
1560 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

110 6.58 Forest Deptt. Forest Use
112 8.47 Forest Deptt. Forest Use
113 0.65 Nagpur Municipal Gorewada
Corp Water Tank
115 1.68 Nagpur Municipal Gorewada
Corp Water Tank
121 10.44 Forest Deptt. Forest Use
23 Police Line 8 5.99 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Takli Deptt Quarter
9 35.14 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
17 7.41 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
15 1.45 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
19 3.05 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
20 2.19 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
21 0.03 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
23 2.17 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
26 0.85 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
28 0.85 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
32 1.18 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
36 1.38 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
39 0.31 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
40 14.62 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
43 0.39 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1561

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

45 3.30 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
46 0.25 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
47 1.62 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
49 1.93 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
52 2.31 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
54 0.93 Home Deptt / Police Police Head
Deptt Quarter
57/2 2.87 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
60/1 0.85 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
60/3 0.04 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
61/2 1.15 PWD Deptt Govt. Building
24 Nari 161 0.78 Govt. Zudpi Jungle house
163 1.83 Power greed office office
166 0.07 Power greed office office
167 3.54 Power greed office Office
66/1 8.16 Govt. Zudpi Jungle house
66/2 2.75 Govt. Zudpi Jungle house
25 Indora 6 0.79 J E Nazul Govt Road & houses
38/3, 21.81 J E Nazul Govt Houses
40/1,
46/2, 47,
49/1, 50,
51, 63
53, 54, 65.86 J E Nazul Govt Houses
55, 56,
57, 58,
59, 60,
61, 62/1,
98, 99,
100, 101,
102, 103,
104, 105,
106, 107
1562 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

65, 66/, 0.27 J E Nazul Govt Houses
2
68, 69 1.17 J E Nazul Govt Houses
84, 85 0.77 J E Nagpur Houses
Improvement Trust
97/2 0.37 J E Nazul Govt Houses
97/3 0.01 J E Nazul Govt Houses
112, 26.24 J E Nazul Govt Houses
113, 114,
115, 116,
119/1,
120/1,
121, 122,
126/1,
127/1
26 Mankapur 51 0.10 Residential Nagpur Nagpur
Improvement Trust Improvement
Trust
48 0.03 Residential Nagpur Nagpur
Improvement Trust Improvement
Trust
53 0.18 Residential Nagpur Nagpur
Improvement Trust Improvement
Trust
27 Jaripatka 26/1 0.79 Residential Nagpur
Municipal Corp
School
27/4 6.15 Nazul Residential
35 0.94 Nazul Residential
40/52 9.08 Nazul Residential on
lease
41/1 1.80 Residential Nagoba temple
27/1, 12.66 Residential Houses
35/4
27/2 3.30 Nagpur Municipal Buried ground
Corp
27/3 0.24 Residential Residential
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1563

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

29/2, 0.78 Nazul Residential
31/2, purpose
32/2
38 0.34 Road Road
40/1 1.54 Nagpur Municipal Cementry
Corp Buried gournd
41/2 0.97 Nazul Residential
purpose
43, 44, 6.77 Nazul Residential
44/1 purpose
48, 49, 2.39 Education Dept Education
50 purpose
51/1 0.28 Central Govt Railway line
59 0.38 Nagpur Municipal Education
Corp purpose
67 2.02 Central Govt Railway
residential
quarters
94 0.46 Nagpur Improvement Plantation
Trust
98 0.28 Nazul Religious
structure
102/2 0.03 Nazul Plantation
117 0.28 Nazul Plantation
29/1 0.11 Nazul Residential
purpose
96/1 0.45 Nagpur Municipal Road
Corp
28 Wanjara 96/3 0.09 Nagpur Municipal Road
Corp
29 Wanari 42 0.24 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area
Trust
30 Bhandewadi 7 0.32 Nagpur Municipal Edgah/Grave
Corp Yard/Cemetery
13 1.31 Nagpur Municipal Edgah/Grave
Corp Yard/Cemetery
31 Punapur 7 0.06 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard/
Corp Cemetery
1564 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

32 Pardi 81/1 0.29 Nagpur Municipal Bed of Nag
Corp River
81/3 0.01 Nagpur Municipal Bed of Nag
Corp River
33 Hiwari 32/3 0.05 Nagpur Municipal Bed of Nag
Corp River
34 Babulkheda 18 0.46 Nagpur Municipal Main Road
Corp
36 0.53 Nagpur Municipal School &
Corp Dispensary
35 Manewada 20, 21 0.81 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard/
Corp Cemetery
36 Sakkardara 82/2 7.94 Nazul Residencial
Area
37 Bidpeth 9.08 1.78 Nazul Religious
Stracture
39, 40, 1.49 Nazul Residential Area
41/2
38 Harpur 29 0.39 Nagpur Municipal Road
Corp

Result of the case: Interim applications disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain