The Supreme Court modified its earlier order concerning forest land regularization. It declined to exempt small fragmented land parcels from being declared as protected forest but clarified the state could utilize them for purposes under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, following due procedure. The Court also allowed a one-time exemption for pre-December 1996 encroachments on specified categories of land, as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originates from the landmark Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India case (W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995), which deals extensively with forest conservation across India. Within this ongoing litigation, an Interim Application (I.A. No.12465/2019) was filed concerning the classification and treatment of land in the state of Maharashtra. On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court passed a judgment with specific directions in its paragraph 138. Subsequently, the State of Maharashtra filed the present application (I.A. No.191387/2025) seeking modification of two specific directions from that order. The first prayer sought to modify direction 138(vii) to allow the use of small, fragmented land parcels (under 3 hectares and not adjoining forests) for community purposes under the Forest Rights Act, instead of declaring them as protected forest. The second prayer sought to modify direction 138(x) to protect and save from removal existing encroachments, pre-dating December 12, 1996, which were being used for agriculture, housing, schools, and other public utilities over an area of 10,365.049 hectares, as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), citing historical apathy by revenue officials for the lack of proper land records.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case arises within the continuing mandamus of the Supreme Court in the Godavarman case (W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995). An Interim Application (I.A. No.12465/2019) was filed concerning forest land issues in Maharashtra, leading to a pivotal judgment on May 22, 2025, which issued specific directions in paragraph 138. Subsequently, the State of Maharashtra filed the present Interim Application (I.A. No.191387/2025) as a modification plea, seeking alterations to two specific directives from the May 2025 order. This application directly led to the instant order of August 25, 2025, in which the Court partially allowed the State’s pleas, modifying the earlier judgment by granting an exemption for pre-1996 encroachments while reaffirming the status of fragmented land parcels as protected forest.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization
Court Observation:
The Court made distinct observations on the two prayers. For the fragmented land parcels, it observed that the non-obstante clause in Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, already provided a statutory pathway for the State to use such land for specified purposes, rendering a modification of the original direction unnecessary. Regarding the encroachments, the Court observed that a one-time exemption was justified due to historical apathy of revenue officials which prevented necessary land entries, and that the land had been used for decades for agriculture, housing, and public utilities. It heavily relied on the Central Empowered Committee’s report which itself recommended protecting these specific structures, thereby aligning the court’s order with the expert body’s findings.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the application filed by the State of Maharashtra. It rejected the plea to modify the direction requiring the declaration of fragmented land parcels as protected forest, clarifying that the state could still use such land by following the procedure under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. However, the Court allowed the plea to protect pre-December 1996 encroachments. It modified its earlier order by adding a new clause (x-a) to paragraph 138, exempting encroachments used for agriculture, housing, schools, and other public utilities over an area of 10,365.049 hectares from eviction, while mandating that any regularization of post-1996 encroachments must strictly adhere to the previously laid down conditions.
Case Details:
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors. (In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands) Citation: 2025 INSC 1054 Appeal Number: I.A. No.191387/2025 in I.A. No.12465/2019 in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 Date of Judgement: August 25, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here