The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Zudpi forest land in Maharashtra could be considered for compensatory afforestation only if there was a certificate by the State Chief Secretary regarding non-availability of non-forest land.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the Zudpi forest land could only be considered for the purposes of compensatory afforestation if the Chief Secretary confirmed the non-availability of non-forest land. In such cases, the compensatory afforestation would be carried out on double the area of Zudpi forest land as per the existing guidelines of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC).
The interest of providing a larger green cover could be taken care of by issuing stringent directions to the State of Maharashtra, it added.
The Bench passed the order on a batch of petitions related to the status of the land parcels known as Zudpi forest in six districts of Eastern Vidarbha region, including Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur, and Gadchiroli.
The Counsel appearing for the state government contended that though Zudpi lands have been recorded in the revenue records as Zudpi forest lands, however, taking into consideration the historical perspective, it was clear that these were not forest lands. For the past several decades, these lands have been put to various non-forestry purposes, such as agricultural, residential, government offices, primary health centres, public schools, etc. The Divisional Commissioner of Nagpur division had also filed certain applications before the Apex Court.
Earlier, the top court of the country had directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to submit its report. The committee subsequently submitted two reports.
‘Zudpi’ is a Marathi word which literally means bushes or shrubs. Zudpi lands mean an inferior type of unoccupied lands with bushy growth. The term Zudpi jungle has been in vogue for several decades and was used for all such wastelands, which were not occupied by individual farmers for cultivation and other purposes. These lands consisted very low Murmadi soil (arid soil with gravel and soft stones) where tree growth was not possible. They had very poor potential of vegetative growth since the soil strata did not support the root systems of trees. These lands were traditionally grazing lands and known as Gairan/Gurcharan/E-Class land as per the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 (MLR Code, 1966) in other parts of the state.
After hearing the submissions, the Bench noted that the vast chunks of land have been utilised either for residential purposes or for agricultural purposes by landless persons to whom the lands were allotted in order to earn their livelihood.
Besides, vast chunks of land have been utilised for providing public utilities like open ground, burial and burning ground, along with public utilities such as primary health centres, schools, anganwadi centres, offices of the Centre & the state government, and other establishments belonging to the state, Centre, or the local government. Vast chunks of land have also been utilised for the Defence services, including the Army and the Air Force, it noted.
The Court observed that the citizens residing in the houses built on these lands for decades together could not be permitted to be dishoused and 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 could not be deprived of their livelihood at this stage.
It said the citizens could also not be deprived of public amenities, since they were essential for living their day-to-day life in a dignified manner. Another aspect that needed consideration was the balance between environmental protection and the need for sustainable development.
The Apex Court pointed out that there was not much change between the recommendations as made in the 2019 CEC Report and the 2025 CEC Report, except the payment of NPV and the FAC itself. In its meeting dated October 26, 2017, the Committee had favourably accepted the request of the state government for exemption from payment of NPV.
The CEC report was prepared after undertaking a huge exercise of site inspections, collection of huge data from all the districts, and verification by the District Collectors. The recommendations also balanced the rights of the citizens accrued for the past several decades, much prior to 1980 or 1996, the developmental activities already undertaken, and the need to provide a larger green coverage, it added.
The Bench refused to accept the recommendation of the CEC that the Zudpi forest land could 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.
It said though the CEC had recommended that in such cases compensatory afforestation must be carried out on double the area of Zudpi forest land as per the existing guidelines of MoEF&CC, the Court was not inclined to accept the said recommendation. Accepting such a recommendation would amount to deviating from the order passed by this Court on December 12, 1996, and the specific directions issued by this Court on March 4, 2025 in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd) and Others vs Union of India and Another, it added.
The Apex Court disposed of the applications after issuing certain directions.
The Apex Court directed that the Zudpi jungle lands be considered as forest lands in line with the order of the Court dated December 12, 1996, in the present proceedings.
It ordered the State of Maharashtra to seek approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for deletion from the ‘List of Forest Areas,’ the Zudpi forest lands allotted by the competent authority up to December 12, 1996, for which land classification has not been changed. This should be considered as an exception and should not be treated as a precedent for any matter, noted the Court.
The state government was further directed to submit a consolidated proposal for each district, and all activities for which lands have been allotted by the competent authority, deemed to be site-specific.
The Centre was directed to consider and approve the same without imposing any condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV levies.
The Apex Court directed both the Central and the state government to devise a format, with mutual consultation and prior approval of the CEC, for processing the proposal of diversion of Zudpi forest land for non-forestry activities, within three months.
For proposals regarding the allotments of Zudpi forest lands made post December 12, 1996, the Maharashtra government was ordered to give reasons in the proposal as to why such allotments were made, along with a list of officers who had made such allotments in violation of the Court’s order.
The Maharashtra government was further ordered to declare all the unallotted ‘fragmented land parcels’ (each having an area of less than three hectares and not adjoining any forest area) as ‘Protected Forests’ under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The State was also directed to issue directions to all the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) to ensure that no such land parcel was encroached upon hereinafter.
As and when these lands were required for non-forestry purposes by the state government, the proposal shall be submitted as per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it added.
The Court ordered the formation of a Special Task Force in each district, comprising the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Conservator of Forests, and a Taluka Inspector of Land Revenue of land records. The STF was directed to remove encroachments within two years.
The State Revenue Department was directed to hand over the possession of the remaining area, if any, from the aforesaid area of 7,76,767.622 hectares, which was still in possession of the Revenue department, to the Forest department. The CEC was asked to monitor the progress of the forest land.
The top court of the country further reiterated its direction to the Chief Secretaries of all states and administrators of all Union Territories to constitute Special Investigation Teams (SITs) to examine whether any forest land in the possession of the Revenue department had been allotted to any private individuals/institutions for any purpose other than the forestry purpose.
The states and UTs were directed to take the possession of such lands from the persons/institutions and hand over the same to the Forest department.
The Supreme Court held that the Zudpi Jungle land can be considered for the purposes of compensatory afforestation only if there is a Chief Secretary’s certificate on non-availability of non-forest land.
The Court held thus in a batch of Applications involving 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 was related to the status of the parcels of lands known as Zudpi Jungle or Zudpi Forest in the said districts of Maharashtra State.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “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.”
The Bench said that the interest of providing a larger green cover can be taken care of by issuing stringent directions to the State of Maharashtra.
Brief Facts
The State of Maharashtra approached the Supreme Court stating that though Zudpi 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, filed certain Applications. The Supreme Court, by its earlier Orders, had directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to submit its report. Pursuantly, two reports were submitted by the CEC.
Meaning of Zudpi
‘Zudpi’ is a Marathi word which 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. These lands were traditionally grazing lands and called as Gairan/Gurcharan/E-Class land as per Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 (MLR Code, 1966) in other parts of Maharashtra.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court after hearing the submissions of the counsel, noted, “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.”
The Court was of the view that the citizens who are residing in the houses built on these lands for decades together cannot be permitted to be dishoused and 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. … Another aspect that needs to be considered is the balance between environmental protection and the need for sustainable development”, it added.
The Court further remarked that there is not much change between the recommendations as made in the 2019 CEC Report and 2025 CEC Report except the payment of NPV and 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.
“… 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”, it also noted.
The Court refused 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 Another”, it held.
Court’s Directions
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –
(i) The Zudpi Jungle lands shall be considered as Forest lands in line with the order of the Court dated December 12, 1996 in the present proceedings;
(ii) 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 December 12, 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) The State of Maharashtra shall submit a consolidated proposal for each district and all activities for which lands have been allotted by the competent authority will be deemed to be site-specific;
(iv) The Union of India shall consider and approve the same without imposing any condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV levies;
(v) 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;
(vi) For proposal regarding the allotments of Zudpi Jungle lands made post December 12, 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 Court’s Order;
(vii) 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) The State of Maharashtra shall issue directions to all the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) to ensure that no such land parcel is encroached upon hereinafter;
(ix) 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;
(x) 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;
(xi) 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;
(xii) The CEC shall monitor the progress of the aforesaid transfer of the forest land;
(xiii) The Court further reiterated its 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) The State Governments and the Union Territories shall 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.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Applications and issued necessary directions.