The Supreme Court affirmed ‘Zudpi Jungle’ as forest, but allowed pre-1996 non-forestry regularization without NPV or compensatory afforestation. It mandated strict action for post-1996 diversions, declared fragmented Zudpi lands ‘Protected Forests,’ and ordered transfers to the Forest Department, with conditions for using Zudpi land for compensatory afforestation.
Facts Of The Case:
This case revolves around the legal status and utilization of “Zudpi Jungle” lands in six districts of Eastern Vidarbha, Maharashtra. Historically, these lands, characterized by bushy growth and inferior soil, were recorded as “Zudpi Forest” or “Scrub Jungle” in revenue records since the early 1900s, often used for grazing and domestic needs. Due to bureaucratic inaction and state reorganization in 1956, these lands, despite being used for non-forestry purposes like residences, agriculture, government offices, and public amenities for decades, continued to be erroneously classified as forest lands.
The enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and a Supreme Court order in 1996, which defined “forest” broadly to include all recorded forest areas regardless of ownership, created a significant challenge. This classification effectively prohibited non-forestry activities on these lands without central government approval, impacting millions of citizens and numerous developmental projects already in place. Various committees, including the Mahajan Committee, Joshi Committee, and a High Powered Committee (HPC), were formed to assess the situation and recommend solutions, leading to reports and proposals submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) seeking regularization and exemption from certain forest conservation requirements.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the Zudpi Jungle Lands case began with the challenge to the classification of these lands as “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, following a broad Supreme Court order in 1996. Faced with the implications of this classification on existing non-forestry uses, the State of Maharashtra filed Interlocutory Applications (IAs) such as IA No. 12465 of 2019, seeking directions to exclude approximately 86,409 hectares of Zudpi land deemed unfit for forestry management from the Act’s purview. An intervention application (IA No. 127871 of 2020) was also filed, advocating for departmental inquiries against errant officials and restoration of illegally diverted lands.
In response to these challenges, the Supreme Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to submit reports, leading to the 2019 CEC Report and the 2025 CEC Report. These reports contained recommendations for resolving the long-standing issue, including proposals for regularization of lands put to non-forestry use prior to specific dates, and conditions for future diversions. The case then involved hearings where various counsels presented arguments on the historical context, environmental concerns, and the need for social and economic justice for the affected populations residing on or utilizing these lands. The final judgment addressed the acceptance or rejection of the CEC’s recommendations, establishing clear directives for the future management and regularization of Zudpi Jungle lands.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Acquits Man in Murder Case, Citing “Last Seen” Evidence Insufficient
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court, in its procedural actions concerning the Zudpi Jungle Lands case, observed the significant legal and socio-economic complexities arising from the classification of these lands as “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court recognized the far-reaching implications of this classification on existing non-forestry uses, which included long-standing residential areas, agricultural activities, and public utilities. This recognition prompted the Supreme Court to direct the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to submit comprehensive reports, signifying the Court’s observation that an expert assessment and a balanced approach were crucial for resolving this intricate issue. Furthermore, the Court noted that the subsequent hearings involved extensive arguments on the historical context of the land classification, pressing environmental concerns, and the vital need for social and economic justice for the affected populations, underscoring its acknowledgment of the multifaceted nature of the dispute.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its comprehensive judgment, definitively declared “Zudpi Jungle” lands as forest lands under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, recognizing the historical context and widespread human habitation, the Court made an exception for lands allotted by competent authorities before December 12, 1996, allowing the State of Maharashtra to seek their deletion from the “List of Forest Areas” through consolidated proposals, without imposing compensatory afforestation or Net Present Value (NPV) levies. The Court mandated a five-year tenure for members of Consumer Commissions and ensured a judicial majority in their selection committees, also validating prior appointments made before specific directions. For any diversions post-December 12, 1996, strict punitive action against responsible officers is required before processing proposals. Furthermore, the Court directed that unallotted fragmented Zudpi land parcels be declared “Protected Forests” and established special task forces for encroachment removal. It also ordered the transfer of remaining Zudpi lands from the Revenue to the Forest Department for afforestation, emphasizing that Zudpi land can only be used for compensatory afforestation under strict conditions, including a Chief Secretary’s certificate of non-availability of non-forest land. The judgment reiterated previous directives for states to identify and recover costs for illegally diverted forest lands, reinforcing the balance between social justice and environmental protection.
Case Details:
Case Title: In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands Citation: 2025 INSC 754 Criminal/Civil Appeal No.: I.A. No. 12465 of 2019 (In Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995) with connected I.A.s Date Of Judgement: May 22, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here