23-In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands (In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others)

Case Number
WRIT PETITION (C)/202/1995 (with multiple Interlocutory Applications)

Case Title
In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands (In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others)

Headnote
The Supreme Court, addressing the long-standing issue of “Zudpi Jungle” lands in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, accepted the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to resolve the status of these lands. Historically, these lands were not true forests but were erroneously recorded as such. Over decades, they have been used for residential, agricultural, and public purposes, including schools, hospitals, and government offices. The Court, balancing environmental protection with the principles of social and economic justice, directed that Zudpi lands allotted for non-forestry use before December 12, 1996, should be regularized by seeking deletion from the “List of Forest Areas” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, without imposing conditions like compensatory afforestation or NPV levies. The Court emphasized the fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood, stating that dis-housing lakhs of people and demolishing essential public infrastructure due to a historical bureaucratic error would be a travesty of justice. It also issued stringent directions for the protection of remaining Zudpi lands and the removal of post-1980 encroachments.

Short Summary: In a significant judgment concerning “Zudpi Jungle” lands in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court resolved a decades-old conflict between environmental law and human settlement. These lands, though erroneously recorded as forests, have long been used for housing, agriculture, and public infrastructure. Prioritizing social and economic justice, the Court accepted the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). It directed the regularization of lands used for non-forest purposes before December 1996, holding that the fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood of lakhs of citizens cannot be overturned due to a historical bureaucratic error.

Court
Supreme Court of India

Type
Judgment

SCR Citation
NA

Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 754

Disposal Nature
Interlocutory Applications Disposed of

Case Type
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

Law Type
Environmental Law, Constitutional Law, Land Law

Judgment Authored by
Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, CJI*
Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment
May 22, 2025

Case Start Date
NA

Case Arising From
This case arises from a batch of interlocutory applications filed within the long-pending public interest litigation of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. The State of Maharashtra filed applications seeking a declaration that large tracts of land recorded as “Zudpi Jungle” in the Vidarbha region are not, in fact, forest lands and should be exempted from the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The matter was referred to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) by the Supreme Court to examine the issue and submit a report. The present judgment deals with the recommendations made by the CEC in its 2019 and 2025 reports.

Background and Facts
The case concerns the legal status of vast areas of land in six districts of the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, which are recorded in revenue records as “Zudpi Jungle.” “Zudpi” is a Marathi word for bushes or shrubs, and these lands were historically wastelands with poor soil quality, not suitable for dense forest growth. Due to historical reasons, including the reorganization of states and bureaucratic inaction, these lands were erroneously classified as forest lands.

Over several decades, these lands have been used for various non-forestry purposes. They have been allotted to landless people for agriculture, and numerous residential colonies, schools, hospitals, government offices, and even defence establishments have been built on them. The classification of these lands as “forest” created significant legal hurdles for the residents and for developmental projects, as any change in land use required clearance under the strict Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The State of Maharashtra approached the Supreme Court to resolve this issue, arguing that applying forest laws to these lands would lead to immense hardship and the displacement of lakhs of people.

Timeline

• 1912-1917: The term “Zudpi Jungle” was first used in revenue records during settlement operations in the Central Provinces.
• 1951: The Malguzari system was abolished, and these lands were classified for community use.
• 1980: The Forest (Conservation) Act came into force, restricting the use of forest land for non-forest purposes.
• December 12, 1996: The Supreme Court, in the T.N. Godavarman case, gave a broad definition of “forest,” which included any land recorded as forest in government records, bringing Zudpi lands under the purview of the FC Act.
• 1998: The Central Government constituted a High Powered Committee (HPC) to study the issue.
• 2019 & 2025: The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) submitted detailed reports to the Supreme Court with recommendations to resolve the issue.
• May 22, 2025: The Supreme Court delivered its judgment, largely accepting the CEC’s recommendations.

Parties Involved

• Applicant: State of Maharashtra
• Intervenor/Applicant: Prasad Khale
• Original Petitioner: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
• Respondents: Union of India and Others

Procedural History

• Lower Court/Subordinate court/Tribunals Decisions: Not applicable, as the matter is being heard in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• Appeals: Not applicable.

Issues Framed
Whether the recommendations made by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in its 2025 Report regarding the status and use of Zudpi Jungle lands should be accepted by the Court.

Areas of Debate

1. Should lands historically used for non-forest purposes but recorded as “forest” in revenue records be treated as forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?
2. How to balance the need for environmental protection with the principles of social and economic justice, particularly the fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood of lakhs of people residing on these lands for decades?
3. What is the legal and constitutional status of the Directive Principles of State Policy, and how should they guide the Court in resolving such a large-scale humanitarian and developmental issue?

Cases Cited
On behalf of the Court (in its reasoning):

1. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another ((1973) 4 SCC 225): Cited to establish that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary and form the “conscience of the Constitution.”
2. Minerva Mills Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others ((1980) 3 SCC 625): Cited for the principle that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are “like two wheels of a chariot” and that a balance between them is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
3. Chameli Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another ((1996) 2 SCC 549): Cited to establish that the Right to Shelter is a fundamental right and includes not just a roof but all necessary infrastructure for a dignified life.
4. Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others ((1985) 3 SCC 545): Cited to affirm that the Right to Livelihood is a fundamental right, and its deprivation amounts to a deprivation of life.
5. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others ((1996) 5 SCC 647): Cited for the principle of “Sustainable Development,” which requires balancing environmental protection with developmental needs.

Acts/Rules/Orders Referred

1. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FC Act)
   • Type: Act
   • Section 2: This section restricts the de-reservation of forests and the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without the prior approval of the Central Government. The entire case revolves around the applicability of this section to Zudpi lands.
2. Constitution of India
   • Type: Constitution
   • Article 38 & 39: These articles contain the Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandate the state to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare and to ensure the equitable distribution of resources. The Court relied on these principles to justify its decision in favour of the residents of the Zudpi lands.
   • Article 21: Guarantees the Right to Life, which the Court has interpreted to include the Right to Shelter and the Right to Livelihood.

Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case

1. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
2. Constitution of India

Literature Citation

1. Source Name: Constituent Assembly Debates, Speech of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
   • Type: Official Record
   • Context: The Court extensively quoted Dr. Ambedkar’s speech to explain the importance of Directive Principles in achieving economic democracy and to justify its decision based on social and economic justice.

Appearances

• Advocates:
  • Amicus Curiae: Shri K. Parameshwar
  • For the State of Maharashtra: Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari
  • For the Intervenor: Smt. Madhavi Divan, Senior Counsel
• Witnesses: NA
• Other Persons: Central Empowered Committee (CEC)

Prayer
The State of Maharashtra prayed for a direction that the 86,409 hectares of Zudpi land, which are unfit for forestry, should not be considered under the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Evidence & Findings

1. Evidence: Reports of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) from 2019 and 2025.
   • Description: Detailed reports based on extensive data collection, site visits, and meetings with government officials.
   • Findings: The CEC found that a vast area of Zudpi land was unsuitable for forestry and had been used for non-forest purposes for decades. It recommended a practical solution to regularize these lands while ensuring the protection of other forest areas. The Court found these reports to be the result of a “huge exercise” and largely accepted their recommendations.
   • Page/Paragraph: Paragraphs 5, 46, 47.

Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments

• State of Maharashtra: Argued that Zudpi lands were never true forests and were erroneously recorded as such. It contended that applying the FC Act would cause irreparable harm to lakhs of citizens and disrupt essential public services.
• Intervenor (Prasad Khale): Argued against the de-notification of Zudpi lands, raising ecological concerns and pointing out discrepancies in the CEC reports. He contended that allowing de-notification would set a dangerous precedent for degrading healthy forests in the future.

Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments
NA

Ratio Decidendi

1. The Court must balance the principles of environmental protection with the constitutional goals of social and economic justice. A bureaucratic error from the past cannot be allowed to frustrate the fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood of a vast population.
2. The Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly those under Article 39, are fundamental to the governance of the country and must be harmonized with Fundamental Rights. The use of Zudpi lands for public utilities and housing for the landless is in furtherance of these principles.
3. The principle of Sustainable Development requires a balanced approach. Where decades of development have already taken place and serve a large public interest, uprooting it for a technical classification of land would be unjust and counterproductive.
4. The recommendations of an expert body like the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which are based on extensive research and a balanced approach, should be given great weight by the Court in resolving complex environmental and social issues.

Final Decision
The interlocutory applications are disposed of. The Court accepted the recommendations of the CEC with some modifications. Key directions include:

1. Zudpi lands will continue to be considered “Forest lands” in line with the Court’s 1996 order.
2. As a one-time exception, lands allotted for non-forestry use before December 12, 1996, shall be regularized after seeking approval for their deletion from the “List of Forest Areas,” without the imposition of NPV levies.
3. A Special Task Force shall be constituted in each district to remove all encroachments and commercial allotments made after October 25, 1980.
4. The remaining Zudpi lands in the possession of the Revenue Department shall be handed over to the Forest Department for afforestation.
5. The Court rejected the CEC’s recommendation to use Zudpi land for compensatory afforestation without a certificate of non-availability of non-forest land from the Chief Secretary.

Legal Jargons and Maxims

1. Zudpi Jungle: A Marathi term for lands with bushes or shrubs, historically used for wastelands not suitable for dense forest growth.
2. Central Empowered Committee (CEC): An expert body constituted by the Supreme Court to assist it in matters related to forest conservation.
3. Net Present Value (NPV): A monetary value assigned to a forest area that is diverted for non-forest use, which the project proponent must pay as compensation.
4. Compensatory Afforestation: The mandatory requirement to plant trees on an equivalent or larger area of non-forest land when forest land is diverted for other purposes.

Exhibits

• Exhibit Number: Annexure-1
• Description: A list of establishments in Nagpur city that would be affected if the CEC report is not accepted.
• Page Number: 98-110