Supreme Court directs consolidated clearance route for pre‑1996 Zudpi allotments but upholds Zudpi lands as forest; gives detailed remedial and monitoring directions

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard applications arising from Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 concerning the status of Zudpi Jungle lands in six districts of eastern Vidarbha (Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli). The Court considered I.A. No.12465 of 2019 filed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur seeking that 86,409 ha of Zudpi land “unfit for Forestry Management” be excluded from the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, interventions by Mr. Prasad Khale and reports submitted by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in 2019 and 2025.

Decision Summary The Supreme Court largely accepted the CEC’s 2025 recommendations while reaffirming that Zudpi Jungle lands were to be treated as “Forest Lands” for all purposes in line with the Court’s order of 12.12.1996. As an exception in the peculiar facts of the case, the Court directed that the State of Maharashtra could submit consolidated district‑wise proposals under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for Zudpi lands allotted by competent authority up to 12.12.1996 and for which land classification had not been changed; such proposals were to be processed without imposing conditions for compensatory afforestation or NPV levies. The Court imposed stringent safeguards: fragmented unallotted parcels under 3 ha were to be declared Protected Forests; a Special Task Force in each district was to remove post‑1980 encroachments and commercial allotments within two years; allotments after 12.12.1996 would be processed only after punitive action, where appropriate, against officers responsible; and the Revenue Department was directed to hand over remaining Zudpi areas to the Forest Department for afforestation within one year. The Court, however, rejected the CEC’s proposal to allow Zudpi land to be used for compensatory afforestation without a Chief Secretary’s certificate and held that compensatory afforestation on Zudpi could occur only where the Chief Secretary certified non‑availability of non‑forest land, and then on double area as per MoEF&CC guidelines.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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. ... 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.”

Background The dispute arose from long‑standing revenue records that classified extensive tracts in eastern Vidarbha as “Zudpi Jungle” (Marathi for bushy or scrub growth). Maharashtra submitted that many parcels had been used for decades for residential, agricultural and public purposes and that their classification as forest in revenue records was historical and erroneous. The State relied on executive orders, committee reports (Mahajan, Joshi, HPC) and FAC recommendations seeking remedial classification and consolidated clearance procedures. The Union issued a 1992 notification and this Court’s 12.12.1996 decision had held that “the word ‘forest’ must be understood according to its dictionary meaning” and that areas recorded as forest in Government records would attract the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; consequently on‑going non‑forest activity without Central approval had to cease.

The CEC conducted extensive data collection, site visits and verification with District Collectors and submitted the 2019 and 2025 reports. The 2025 CEC recommended (inter alia) that Zudpi lands be treated as forest lands, that pre‑12.12.1996 allotments lacking classification change be considered via consolidated district proposals (with site‑specific activity recognition and waiver of NPV/compensatory conditions), and that fragmented unallotted parcels be declared Protected Forests. The State and intervenor advanced competing ecological and socio‑economic arguments on wildlife, livelihoods and slum dwellers; the Court weighed Article 38/39 Directive Principles, settled precedents on sustainable development and right to shelter and livelihood, and the potential impact on lakhs of residents and public infrastructure.

The Court accepted the CEC’s balanced approach in large part, but preserved environmental safeguards by requiring Chief Secretary certification for any use of Zudpi for compensatory afforestation and by mandating transfer of reserved forest holdings to Forest Department custody, time‑bound demarcation and monitoring by the CEC. The Court rejected the intervenor’s locus‑based objections and directed institutional steps to prevent future misuse.

Case No.: I.A. No.12465 of 2019 (in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995); 2025 INSC 754 Case Title: IN RE: ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS (In Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 — T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri K. Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent(s): Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Counsel for State of Maharashtra; Smt. Madhavi Divan, Senior Counsel for Intervenor Mr. Prasad Khale; Union of India and others (respondent parties represented as per record)