In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others In the Matter of: State of Maharashtra Prasad Khale ... Intervenor/

conscience of the Constitution. It will be appropriate to refer to some of the observations made by this Court in the said case. J.M. Shelat and A.N. Grover, JJ., observed as under:

486. ....Parts-III and IV which embody the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy have been described as the conscience of the Constitution...

X X X X

489. …..The Directive Principles of State Policy set forth the humanitarian socialist precepts that were the aims of the Indian social revolution…… The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles were designed by the members of the Assembly to be the chief instruments in bringing about the great reforms of the social revolution……. They have helped to bring the Indian society closer to the Constitution’s goal of social, economic and political justice for all in the affirmative….”.

85. K. S. Hegde and A. K. Mukherjea, JJ., observed thus: “634. ….The Directive Principles embodied in Part-IV of the Constitution or at any rate most of them are as important as the rights of individuals….

X X X X

712. ….The fundamental rights and the Directive Principles constitute the ‘conscience’ of our Constitution. The purpose of the Fundamental Rights is to create an egalitarian society, to free all citizens from coercion or restriction by society and to make liberty available for all. The purpose of the Directive Principles is to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a non- violent social revolution….”

86. A. N. Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed thus: “1015. …The directive principles are also fundamental. They can be effective if they are to prevail over Fundamental Rights of a few in order to subserve the common good and not to allow economic system to result to the common detriment….

p. 1527

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

1044. …Part III and IV of the Constitution touch each other and modify. They are not parallel to each other...”

87. P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J., observed thus: “1161. …What is implicit in the Constitution is that there is a duty on the Courts to interpret the Constitution and the laws, to further the Directive Principles which under Article 37, are fundamental in the governance of the country….”

88. H. R. Khanna, J., observed thus: “1480. …The Directive Principles embody a commitment which was imposed by the Constitution-makers on the State to bring about economic and social regeneration of the teeming millions who are steeped in poverty, ignorance and social backwardness. They incorporate a pledge to the coming generations of what the State would strive to usher in....

1482. …There should be no reluctance to abridge or regulate the fundamental right to property if it was felt necessary to do so for changing the economic structure and attain the objectives contained in the Directive Principles.”

89. K.K. Mathew, J., observed thus: “1714. ……..Therefore, the moral rights embodied in Part- IV of the Constitution are equally an essential feature of it, the only difference being that the moral rights embodied in Part-IV are not specifically enforceable as against the State by a citizen in a Court of law in case the State fails to implement its duty but, nevertheless, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and all the organs of the State, including the judiciary, are bound to enforce those directives...”

90. Y. V. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed thus: “2002. …Our decision of this vexed question must depend upon the postulate of our Constitution which aims at bringing about a synthesis between “Fundamental Rights” and the “Directive Principles of State Policy”, by giving to the former a pride of place and to the latter a place

p. 1528

of permanence. Together, not individually, they form the core of the Constitution. Together, not individually, they constitute its true conscience.”

91. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, in the case of Minerva Mills Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others9, observed thus: “56. ….Parts-III and IV are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less important than the other. You snap one and the other will lose its efficacy. They are like a twin formula for achieving the social revolution, which is the ideal which the visionary founders of the Constitution set before themselves. In other words, the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts-III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.”

92. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations made by Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Minerva Mills Limited (supra), who partly disagreed and held that though the amendment to Article 368 of the Constitution taking away the power of judicial review was invalid, the amendment to Article 31C of the Constitution expanding the scope was valid. Justice Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) observed thus: “107. ……The Directive principles therefore, impose an obligation on the State to take positive action for creating socio-economic conditions in which there will be an egalitarian social order with social and economic justice to all, so that individual liberty will become a cherished value and the dignity of the individual a living reality, not only for a few privileged persons but for the entire people of the country. It will thus be seen that the Directive Principles enjoy a very high place in the constitutional scheme and it is only in the framework of the socio-economic structure

9 1980 INSC 142 : (1980) 3 SCC 625

p. 1529

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

envisaged in the Directive Principles that the Fundamental Rights are intended to operate, for it is only then they can become meaningful and significant for the millions of our poor and deprived people who do not have even the bare necessities of life and who are living below the poverty level.”

93. The importance given to the Directive Principles by the Higher Judiciary of the country could also be seen in the case of Waman Rao and Others v. Union of India and Others10 wherein the validity of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1975 was challenged. Rejecting the challenge, Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. stated thus: “54. ...In fact far from damaging the basic structure of the Constitution, laws passed truly and bona fide for giving effect to directive principles contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 will fortify that structure. We do hope that the Parliament will utilise to the maximum its potential to pass laws, genuinely and truly related to the principles contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39…”

f. Case Laws on clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39

94. The cases to which we are referring to hereinbelow would reveal as to how a widest possible interpretation has been given by this Court with regard to importance of Directive Principles while upholding various enactments and steps taken by the Legislature or the Executive for bringing social and economic justice.

95. In the case of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India and Others11, the validity of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which provided for compulsory acquisition of the land beyond a particular ceiling limit, came up for consideration before a 5-Judges Bench of this Court, wherein, the majority of 3:2 upheld the enactment. Again V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the majority, stated as under: “10. …It needs no argument to conclude that the objective of the legislation as set out in the long title and in the statutory

10 1980 INSC 216 : (1981) 2 SCC 362 11 1980 INSC 219 : (1981) 1 SCC 166

p. 1530

scheme is implementation of Part-IV of the Constitution. The directive principles of State Policy being paramount in character and fundamental in the country’s governance, distributive justice envisaged in Article 39(b) and (c) has a key role in the developmental process of the socialist republic that India has adopted...”

96. However, in the said case of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji (supra), a note of caution was put by Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., as under: “3. …..It shows that the Act was passed with the object of preventing concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good. “Common good” being the writing on the wall, any disposal which does not serve that purpose will be outside the scope of the Act and therefore lacking in competence in diverse senses. Private property cannot under our Constitution be acquired or allotted for private purposes though an enabling power like that contained in sub-section (1) of Section 23 may be exercised in cases where the common good dictates the distribution of excess vacant land to an industry, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 23.”

97. Again, before a 5-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Others12, the nationalisation of transportation in the State of Karnataka was challenged on the ground that the compensation so provided was inadequate and there was no distribution of resources as provided under Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. S.M. Fazal Ali, J., speaking for the Bench, stated as under: “11. …although the directive principles are not enforceable yet the court should make a real attempt at harmonising and reconciling the directive principles and the fundamental rights and any collision between the two should be avoided as far as possible. ”

12 1983 INSC 168 : (1984) 1 SCC 515

p. 1531

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

98. Insofar as the term “distribution” is concerned, this Court gave a wider meaning. It held that distribution cannot be given a narrower meaning of collecting from someone and distributing to others. This Court held that insofar as private transporters are concerned, their main aim would be to earn profit and, therefore, they would only provide transport services on the profit earning routes. However, on nationalization, the vehicles would go to remote villages even if the State did not earn any profit there from. It therefore held that providing facilities to the citizens residing in the remotest part of the country, would also amount to “distribution” within the meaning of Article 31(b) and (c) of the Constitution.

99. Then in the case of State of Maharashtra and Another v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Others13, the provision of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 which provided for compulsory acquisition of the land at a meagre compensation and thereafter using that land for construction of the houses for houseless persons came to be challenged. An important factor is that in that enactment, there was no declaration that the law is protected under Article 31C of the Constitution. In spite of that, this Court rejected the challenge. It will be appropriate to refer to the words of E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as His Lordship then was), which read thus: “13. …..The question whether an Act is intended to secure the objects contained in Article 39 (b) or not does not depend upon the declaration by the legislature but depends on its contents. We have already dealt with the objects of the Act with which we are concerned in this case. It inter alia, makes provision for acquisition of private lands for providing sites for building houses or housing accommodation to the community. The title to the lands of the private holders which are acquired first vests in the State Government. Later on, the land is developed and then distributed amongst the people as house sites. It also provides for reserving land for providing public amenities without which people cannot live there. Community centres, shopping complexes, parks, roads, drains, playgrounds, are all necessary for civic life and these amenities are enjoyed by all. That is also a kind of distribution…… ”

13 1986 INSC 40 : (1986) 2 SCC 516

p. 1532

100. It can thus be seen that in spite of there being no declaration that the law was protected under Article 31C of the Constitution, this Court itself examined, as to whether the enactment was taking further the mandate of Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution and upheld it on the ground that it is protected under Article 31C of the Constitution.

101. Then in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Thana Electric Supply Company and Others14, the constitutional validity of Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976 was discussed. The issue under consideration was whether compensation should be awarded based solely on the depreciated value of the property and not on the basis of the prevailing market value. Again, in this case also, there was no declaration that the said Act was protected under Article 31C of the Constitution. M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held thus: “28. At the outset the misconception that an express legislative declaration in the legislation is condition precedent to the attraction of Article 31-C would, perhaps, require to be removed. The High Court, we say so with respect, was under a clear misconception on the point that an express incantation was necessary in the law itself. The nexus between the law and the objects of Article 39(b) could be shown independently of any such declaration by the legislature……” “48. We accordingly hold that the provisions of Amending Act of 1976 have a direct and substantial relationship with the objects of Article 39(b) and, therefore, are entitled to the protection of Article 39-C. If the impugned law has such protection, as we indeed hold that it has, all challenges to it on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31 must necessarily fail……”

102. Similarly, in the case of Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and Others15, the challenge was to the acquisition of land on the ground that the compensation provided on the book value is totally illusory in nature. Again M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was), stated as under:

14 1989 INSC 127 : (1989) 3 SCC 616 15 1989 INSC 128 : (1989) 3 SCC 709

p. 1533

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

“62. On an examination of the scheme of the impugned law the conclusion becomes inescapable that the legislative measure is one of nationalisation of the undertakings and the law is eligible for and entitled to the protection of Article 31C.”

103. In this background, the question that we will have to ask and answer is as to whether the steps taken by the State prior to 1980 or 1996 which are in furtherance of the avowed objective of social and economic justice should be permitted to be frustrated or not.

g. Right to Shelter

104. This Court, in the case of Chameli Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another16, though was considering an issue in the context of land acquisition, had elaborately discussed on the right to shelter. It will be apt to refer to the following observations of this Court: “7. In State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy [(1995) 5 SCC 524 : JT (1995) 6 SC 375] (SCC p. 526, para 7 : JT at p. 378, para 7), this Court held that right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. To make the right meaningful to the poor, the State has to provide facilities and opportunity to build houses. Acquisition of the land to provide house sites to the poor houseless is a public purpose as it is the constitutional duty of the State to provide house sites to the poor.

8. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human

16 1995 INSC 906 : (1996) 2 SCC 549

p. 1534

rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the organised civic community one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and constitutional rights.” [Emphasis supplied]

105. A perusal of the said judgment in the case of Chameli Singh (supra) would show that this Court has held that in any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of a man. It is secured only when he is assured of all the facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which

p. 1535

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

inhibit his growth. It has been held that right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. It has been held that these are basic human rights necessary in order to ensure that a person lives life with dignity. It has been held that shelter for a human being is not a mere protection of his life and limb, but it is a home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. It has been held that the State should be deemed to be under obligation to secure right to shelter for its citizens. However, this has to be subject to its economic budgeting. This Court has held that want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. This Court emphasized that to bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing of such amenities is the duty of the State.

106. In another case titled Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Others17, this Court observed thus: “13. Socio-economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity and dignity of person to foster the fraternity among all the sections of the society in an integrated Bharat is the arch of the Constitution set down in its Preamble. Articles 39 and 38 enjoin the State to provide facilities and opportunities. Articles 38 and 46 of the Constitution enjoin the State to promote welfare of the people by securing social and economic justice to the weaker sections of the society to minimise inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status. In that case, it was held that to bring the Dalits and the Tribes into the mainstream of national life, the State was to provide facilities and opportunities as it is the duty of the State to fulfil the basic human and constitutional rights to residents so as to make the right to life meaningful. In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [(1990) 1 SCC 520] another Bench of three Judges had held that basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three — food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed

17 1996 INSC 1189 : (1997) 11 SCC 121

p. 1536

p. 1537

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

for his dignity and free development of his personality. It would, therefore, be clear that though no person has a right to encroach and erect structures or otherwise on footpaths, pavements or public streets or any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose, the State has the constitutional duty to provide adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads to make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful. Right to livelihood is meaningful because no one can live without means of his living, that is the means of livelihood. The deprivation of the right to life in that context would not only denude life of effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life miserable and impossible to live. It would, therefore, be the duty of the State to provide right to shelter to the poor and indigent weaker sections of the society in fulfilment of the constitutional objectives.” [Emphasis supplied]

107. This Court in the aforesaid case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), while relying on the case of Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others18 wherein the surplus urban vacant land was directed to be used to provide shelter to the poor, reiterated the constitutional duty of State to provide adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads to make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful.

108. This Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid two judgments of this Court, recently in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures19 to which one of us B.R. Gavai, J. (as he then was) was a Member, wherein this Court in unequivocal terms reiterated that the Right to Shelter is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution.

109. The question therefore that we are called upon to consider is as to whether the shelter from the heads of lakhs of people who are living

18 1985 INSC 151 : (1985) 3 SCC 545 19 2024 INSC 866 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291

p. 1538

in the houses constructed for decades together should be permitted to be removed or not.

h. Right to Livelihood

110. This Court, in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Olga Tellis (supra), Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others v. Union of India and Others20, Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and Others21 and Amarnath Shrine, In Re (Court on its own Motion) v. Union of India and Others22 has held the Right to Livelihood to be a Fundamental Right.

111. The question that we are also called upon to consider is as to whether the citizens of this country who have been allotted parcels of land and are undertaking agricultural activities thereon for decades together should now be deprived of their livelihood.

112. For a period ranging more than half a century, various public amenities like schools, government offices, public health centres, graveyards, cemeteries are existing on these lands for providing services to the citizens of this country residing in the Zudpi areas. The question that we will also have to answer is as to whether the citizens should be deprived of all these facilities on account of some bureaucratic mess caused by the negligence of the officials of the State Government at the time of reorganization of the States.

113. In our considered view, the answers to all these questions will have to be in the negative.

114. Our conclusion in this regard would be fortified by the following chart which will show the purposes in all the districts for which the aforesaid land is being utilized:

District Total Land use as per Govt. Record Area Gat No. Residential Agricultural Public Public under (hectare) (hectare) Purpose Utility occupation (hectare) (hectare) (hectare)

Nagpur 6308 55.89 2077.44 3762.09 5046.18 10941.6 Wardha 4687 16.06 1668.38 260.23 3116.36 5061.03

20 1995 INSC 76 : (1995) 3 SCC 42 21 1999 INSC 299 : (1999) 6 SCC 667 22 2012 INSC 593 : (2013) 3 SCC 247

p. 1539

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

Bhandara 3778 34.61 627.01 337.34 1615.68 2614.64 Gondia 3099 3.87 595.87 105.57 1902.48 2607.79 Chandrapur 4098 24.0 1508.6 298.36 1712.64 3543.6 Gadchiroli 10939 16.72 7451.93 141.68 1012.44 8622.77 Total 32909 151.15 13929.23 4905.27 14405.78 33391.43

115. 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.

116. The citizens who are residing in the houses built on these lands for decades together cannot be permitted to be dishoused. 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.

i. Sustainable Development

117. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the balance between environmental protection and the need for sustainable development. It will be apt to refer to paras 87-88 of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others23, which read thus: “87. 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

23 2022 INSC 1129 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469

p. 1540

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.

88. 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.”

118. Much prior to that, this Court, in the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others24, had an occasion to consider the conflict between the development and ecology. This Court observed thus: “10. The traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. “Sustainable Development” is the answer. In the international sphere, “Sustainable Development” as a concept came to be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of

1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite shape by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its report called “Our Common Future”. The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and as such the report is popularly known as “Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme and Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly came out with a document called “Caring for the Earth” which is a strategy for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth Summit held in June 1992 at Rio which saw the largest gathering of world leaders ever in the history — deliberating and chalking out a blueprint for the survival of the planet. Among the tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the signing of two conventions, one on biological diversity and another on climate change. These conventions were signed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved by consensus three non-binding documents namely, a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on environmental policy and development

24 1996 INSC 952 : (1996) 5 SCC 647

p. 1541

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

initiatives and Agenda 21, a programme of action into the next century in areas like poverty, population and pollution. During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio “Sustainable Development” has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems. “Sustainable Development” as defined by the Brundtland Report means “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. We have no hesitation in holding that “Sustainable Development” as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the international law jurists.”

119. The principle of Sustainable Development as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the Customary International Law by this Court in various judgments including S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others25, Consumer Education & Research Society v. Union of India and Others26, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others27 and Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga and Others28.

120. As discussed hereinabove, on the land in question, various developmental activities have already been undertaken viz. irrigation dams have been constructed, roads have been laid down, schools, public health centres, other public utilities, facilities have been provided for the citizens. All these public utilities are necessary for the citizens living in the areas. We have annexed herewith the list of various institutions/buildings/residential areas/public utilities which will be affected in the city of Nagpur. The said list would show that even the buildings wherein the High Court, the High Court Judges’ residences, the State Governments’ Secretariat, the Central Government’s buildings, the Defence Buildings, the Air Force buildings,

25 1996 INSC 1466 : (1997) 2 SCC 87 26 2000 INSC 81 : (2000) 2 SCC 599 27 2006 INSC 101 : (2006) 3 SCC 549 28 2019 INSC 1203 : (2020) 15 SCC 784

p. 1542

the establishment of Agricultural University, the graveyards etc. are situated, they all would be affected.

j. Effect of CEC’s recommendations

121. Another reason that persuades us to accept the recommendations of the CEC is that the CEC has recommended that all allotments for commercial purposes post 25th October 1980 must be treated at par with encroachments. It is recommended that a Special Task Force comprising of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Conservator of Forests and a Taluka Inspector of Land Records should be constituted in each district so as to demolish encroachments. It has been recommended that these officials be posted only for this purpose and that they will not be assigned any other duty. It has also been recommended that the said exercise should be completed within a period of two years.

122. The CEC has further recommended that the State Government shall ensure that the land use is not changed in the future under any circumstances and that the transfer is permitted only by inheritance. Insofar as allotment of land post 12th December 1996 is concerned, the CEC has recommended that the State Government shall give reasons as to why such allotments were done along with the list of officers who made such allotments in violation of the orders of this Court. It has further recommended that the Central Government shall process such proposals under the provisions of Section 2(ii) of the FC Act, 1980 only after ensuring that the suitable punitive action has been taken against the concerned officials under Sections 3-A and 3-B of the FC Act, 1980.

123. It can be seen from the letter dated 19 th/22nd September 2003 addressed by the MoEF&CC to the Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union Territories clarifying therein that the NPV will be charged in all those cases which have been granted in-principle approval after 30th October 2002. The said letter stated that NPV will be realized before Stage-II (Final) approval.

124. It is thus clear that even according to MoEF&CC, the NPV has to be charged where in-principle approval has been granted after 30th October 2002. A perusal of the record would reveal that in the present case Stage-I approval has been granted much prior to 30th October

2002. In this background, the FAC in its meeting dated 26th October 2017 has favourably considered the request of the Government of

p. 1543

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

Maharashtra for exemption from payment of NPV. In this background, the contention that the NPV should be charged from the persons who were in possession of the said lands, in our view, would not be tenable. In any case, the ground realities would not permit the same to be done. As already discussed hereinabove, the land admeasuring 33391.43 hectares has been largely utilized for residential purposes, for agricultural purposes by the landless persons to whom it was allotted and for public utilities as well as public purposes like cemeteries, cremation grounds, government offices, schools, primary health centres, anganwadi centres etc.

125. As we have already held hereinabove, the said land has been utilized to take further the avowed object of the Constitution of distributive justice. It could have been a different matter had the said land been utilized in order to promote the vested interest of a few individuals. In any case, the CEC itself has recommended that insofar as allotment for commercial purposes and encroachment is concerned, the said recommendation would not be applicable.

126. It has been recommended by the FAC that the NPV shall not be collected from the State Government for diversion proposals submitted under the FC Act, 1980 where Zudpi land has been put to non-forestry use before 12th December 1996. The CEC after considering the larger public interest in this respect has given its recommendations. The said recommendations depict a balanced approach.

127. The CEC, given the peculiar circumstances and significance of Zudpi Jungle lands, discussed the issue in detail and recommended that the State Government in respect of Zudpi Jungle lands allotted by the competent authority before 12th December 1996 shall seek approval under Section 2(i) of the FC Act, 1980 for their deletion from the “List of the Forest Areas”. It has been recommended that a consolidated proposal shall be submitted by the Government of Maharashtra for each district. It has been recommended that the Central Government would take a decision on the said proposal on its own merits. It has further been recommended that all activities for which lands have been allotted by the competent authority would be deemed to be site specific and no condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV levies may be imposed by the Central Government while processing such proposals.

128. It is further to be noted that there is not much change between the recommendations as made in the 2019 CEC Report and 2025 CEC

p. 1544

Report except the payment of NPV. It is further to be noted that 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.

129. As already discussed hereinabove, 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.

130. Though we are largely in agreement with the other recommendations of the CEC, we are not inclined 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 Another29.

131. 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.

132. We further find that the interest of providing a larger green cover can be taken care of by issuing stringent directions to the State of Maharashtra.

133. In this regard, we reproduce the following chart which is a part of the Report of the CEC:

29 Writ Petition (C) No. 1164 of 2023

p. 1545

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

S.N. Description Area in hectare i. Already been handed over to the Forest 6,55,619 Department ii. Zudpi jungle land was reclassified by 89,768.39 the Revenue Department into other categories up to 12.02.1992 iii. Zudpi jungle land for which notifications 92,116 u/s 4 of IFA, 1927 have been issued iv. The total area allotted by the revenue 33,391.43 department for various non-forestry activities v. The total area of fragmented land parcels 29,032.622 (each plot having an area less than 3 ha. and not adjoining any forest area) vi. Total area under encroachment 10,827.532 Total 9,10,754.974

134. The chart would show that out of an area of 9,23,913 hectares, an area of 6,55,619 hectares has already been handed over to the Forest Department and an area of 89,768.39 hectares was reclassified by the Revenue Department into other categories up to 12th February

1992. A notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has already been issued in respect of the land admeasuring 92,116 hectares. The CEC has also recommended that the total area of land admeasuring 29,032.622 hectares that is the plots having an area of less than 3 hectares and not adjoining any forest area to be transferred to the Forest Department. The various non-forestry activities for the lands admeasuring 33,391.43 hectares allotted by the Revenue Department have already been discussed hereinabove. We find that the interest of providing larger green coverage can be achieved by directing the State Government to utilize the aforesaid area of 7,76,767.622 hectares for the purposes of afforestation within a specified period.

135. We find that the concern for providing larger green coverage can be ensured by directing the Revenue Department of the State of Maharashtra to hand over the remaining area out of the aforesaid area of 7,76,767.622 hectares to the Forest Department which would

p. 1546

be utilized by the State Government for afforestation. We further find that a direction to the State Government to complete the process of handing over the possession from the Revenue Department to the Forest Department in respect of the aforesaid land would ensure the use of the said land for afforestation in an expeditious manner.

136. Insofar as the concern expressed by Smt. Divan that if the recommendations of CEC are accepted, it will lead to denotifying forest areas where the forests have been degraded is concerned, the said apprehension is not correct. The CEC has itself recommended that Zudpi Jungle land shall be considered as “Forest Lands” on account of peculiarity of the circumstances. It has also recommended that the recommendations shall not be permitted to be treated as precedent. In any case after 12th December 1996, no forest could be denotified or used for non-forestry purpose except with the permission of the Central Government under the FC Act, 1980.

137. Before we part with this judgment, we will also reiterate the issue that we had covered in our recent judgment dated 15th May 2025 in the present proceedings in the case of In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra30. In the said case, we had noticed that various parcels of land which were notified as forest lands were still in possession of the Revenue Department. We noticed that the Revenue Department despite resistance from the Forest Department had allotted the lands to the private individuals/ institutions for non-forestry purposes. We had noticed that this had the effect of reducing vital green cover. We therefore issued directions to all the States and the Union Territories to hand over the possession of such lands to the Forest Department. We had further directed that if on account of such lands already being converted for non-forest activities, it was found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in larger public interest, then the States/Union Territories should recover the cost of the land from such individuals/ institutions and use the said amount for the purpose of afforestation, restoration and conservation of the forest. At the cost of repetition, in order to emphasize the need for protection and enhancement of green coverage, we will reiterate the said directions in the present matter also.

30 2025 INSC 701

p. 1547

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

VI. CONCLUSION:

138. In the result, the present IAs are disposed of in the following terms:

(i) It is directed that the Zudpi Jungle lands shall be considered as Forest lands in line with the order of this Court dated 12th December 1996 in the present proceedings;

(ii) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct that 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 12th December 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) We direct that the State of Maharashtra shall submit a consolidated proposal for each district. We clarify that all activities for which lands have been allotted by the competent authority will be deemed to be site-specific. We further clarify that the State Government shall ensure that the land used is not changed in the future under any circumstances and transfer is made only by inheritance; (iv) We direct that on receipt of such proposals, the Union of India shall consider and approve the same without imposing any condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV levies; (v) We direct that 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 from the date of this judgment; (vi) For proposal regarding the allotments of Zudpi Jungle lands made post 12th December 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 order of this Court. We clarify that the processing of proposal for such allotments shall be done by the Union Government only after ensuring that punitive action has been taken against the concerned officers under Sections 3A and 3B of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

p. 1548

(vii) We direct that 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) We further direct the State of Maharashtra to issue directions to all the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) to ensure that no such land parcel is encroached upon hereinafter. It is further directed that if any such encroachment takes place after the date of this judgment, the concerned SDM shall be made responsible for the same; (ix) We clarify that, 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. We further clarify that, in no case any such land shall be diverted to any non-governmental entity for any purpose whatsoever; (x) We further direct that 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 from the date of this judgment. We clarify that these officials will be posted only for this purpose and will not be assigned any other duty. We further clarify that all allotments for commercial purpose post 25th October 1980 must be treated at par with encroachments; (xi) We further direct that 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. The same shall be done within a period of one year from the date of this judgment. We clarify that the said land shall be utilized only for the purpose of compensatory afforestation; (xii) We direct the CEC to monitor the progress of the aforesaid transfer of the forest land. We further direct that the Zudpi land will not be permitted to use for compensatory afforestation unless there is a certificate of the Chief Secretary regarding the non- availability of non-forest land for the purposes of afforestation. However, in such cases, compensatory afforestation must be

p. 1549

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

carried out on double the area of Zudpi Jungle land, as per the existing guidelines of the MoEF&CC; (xiii) As already directed in the recent case of In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra (supra) dated 15th May 2025, we reiterate our 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) We further reiterate our directions to the State Governments and the Union Territories to 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. In case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, the State Governments/ Union Territories should recover the cost of the said land from the persons/institutions in occupation thereof and use the said amount for the purpose of development of forests.

139. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae ably assisted by Ms. Kanti, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel, Smt. Madhavi Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor and Shri Sidharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the State. We direct the State of Maharashtra to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae and Rs.2,50,000/- each to Ms. Kanti, Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel as a token for the valuable services rendered by them.

140. We also place on record our deep appreciation for the voluminous exercise undertaken by the CEC and in assisting this Court to arrive at a solution that would balance the rights of the citizens at large on one hand and the interest of the environment on the other hand. Encl: Annexure-1 to the Report of the Committee for suggesting changes required in simplified procedure for diversion of Zudpi Jungle Land under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 titled as “Resolving Zudpi Jungle Land Issue : A Development Perspective” chaired by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur.

p. 1550

3. Dhantoli 305/5 0.05 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area Trust

4. Lendra 79/5 15.52 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agri. Research University 83/4 12.64 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture University 83/4/1 0.47 MSRTC Bust Stand 89/1 3.92 Govt. Building Govt. Building 142/2 0.60 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Residential Area University 178 0.06 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. RCF Building University 217/1 27.65 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture University 219/1 4.02 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture University 226 0.12 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Agriculture University Market 303 1.83 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Open Space, University Water Body 26 B 0.02 Govt. Land Nazul Building

p. 1551

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

91/2 0.77 Hadas High School Education Institute 228/2 0.45 Cotton Research Residential Area Centre 229/1 0.95 Cotton Research Residential Area Centre 232/2 1.81 Dr. Punjabrao Agr. Girls Hostel University 233/1 2.15 ICAR Residential Area 245/2 0.04 ICAR Residential Area 246/1 0.70 ICAR Residential Area 248/1 0.23 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area Trust 256 0.65 Nagpur Improvement Office Trust 257/1 2.13 Nagpur Improvement Education Trust Institute 279 0.05 Nagpur Improvement Education Trust Institute 78/2-3 0.38 Nagpur Improvement Education Trust Institute 80/1 0.01 Nagpur Improvement Maharaj Bag Trust 80/2 0.12 Nagpur Improvement Maharaj Bag Trust 89/8 7.69 Nagpur Improvement Commercial Trust Building 91/3 0.35 Nagpur Improvement In possession Trust of NIT 217/4, 2.71 Nagpur Improvement Diksha Bhumi 219/2 Trust 221/1, 3.77 Nagpur Improvement Diksha Bhumi 22/2 Trust 220/1, 6.86 Nagpur Improvement ITI Building 224/1 Trust 234/2 0.07 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area Trust

p. 1552

244 0.80 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area Trust 247/2 0.81 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area Trust 302/2 0.92 Nagpur Improvement Forensic Lab Trust 242 0.07 Govt. Body Garden 243/1 0.11 Govt. Body Garden 243/2 0.10 Forest Deptt. Garden 79/1 2.81 Govt. Nazul Building 67 1.97 Somalwar High Education School Institute 5 Khamla 72/4 2.69 Private land Pandey Layout 73/4 7.37 Private land Pandey Layout 88/2 0.40 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard / Corp Cemetery 75/12,13 0.76 Residential Nagpur 78/8,9,10 Improvement Trust Layout

6. Ambazari 29 1.66 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard / Corp Cemetery 8/3 0.04 Nagpur Improvement Boundary of Trust Water Body 24 1.94 VNagar Education Improvement Trust Institute Univ 37/2 2.37 Nagpur Improvement Sweeming Pool Trust 40 0.96 Nagpur Improvement Building Trust of Nagpur Improvement Trust 42/1 2.19 Dharampeth High Education School Institute 44/2 0.15 Nagpur Improvement Ambazari Trust Garden

p. 1553

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

53/2 1.05 Residential Nagpur Improvement Trust 52/2 7.11 Residential Nagpur Improvement Trust

7. Binaki 16 0.21 Grave Yard / For public use Cemetery 32 0.07 Grave Yard / For public use Cemetery 44 0.65 Grave Yard / For public use Cemetery 91 0.05 Grave Yard / For public use Cemetery 103 0.44 Grave Yard / For public use Cemetery 154 0.29 Grave Yard / For public use Cemetery 77 0.33 Grave Yard / For public use Cemetery 26 0.85 Nagpur Improvement Residential Area Trust

p. 1554

p. 1555

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

12/2 1.22 Defence Ministry In possession of Air Force 13 23.20 Defence Ministry In possession of Air Force 53 0.09 Defence Ministry In possession of Air Force 54/2 1.55 Defence Ministry In possession of Air Force 64/1 0.48 Defence Ministry In possession of Air Force 64/3 0.01 Defence Ministry In possession of Air Force 67/6 29.71 Central Govt. T.V. Office, Work shop of IBM 69 1.12 Central Govt. 70/2 0.25 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline & Houses 71 0.57 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline & Borgaon Road 73 3.17 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline & Houses 77/2 part 0.27 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline & Houses 90 0.16 N M C Water Deptt. Water pipeline & Houses 92 10.95 SSC Collage, Education Church Institute 95 1.04 C.P. Club Club 98/1 0.50 Nazul Deptt. Govt. Building 98/2 8.85 Nazul Deptt. Mother Diary 107 0.61 Health Deptt. Govt. Building 110 0.09 PWD Deptt. Govt. Building 112/1 4.1 Govt. Deptt. Govt. Building 112/2 0.93 C.P. School Education Institute

p. 1556

p. 1557

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

p. 1558

p. 1559

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

66/1 0.28 Defence Ministry Firing Range 67/2 0.96 Defence Ministry Firing Range 68 3.36 Defence Ministry Firing Range 69 0.45 Defence Ministry Firing Range 70 0.49 Defence Ministry Firing Range 71 5.09 Defence Ministry Firing Range 72/2 8.59 Defence Ministry Firing Range 73/2 3.64 Defence Ministry Firing Range 74/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range 77/2 0.70 Defence Ministry Firing Range 78/2 0.02 Defence Ministry Firing Range 110/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range 121/1 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range 140/2 1.98 Defence Ministry Firing Range 141/2 0.49 Defence Ministry Firing Range 142/2 0.17 Defence Ministry Firing Range 143/2 0.13 Defence Ministry Firing Range 144/1 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range 145 0.19 Defence Ministry Firing Range 148/2 3.30 Defence Ministry Firing Range 149 3.20 Defence Ministry Firing Range 150 2.26 Defence Ministry Firing Range 151 6.21 Defence Ministry Firing Range 152 2.91 Defence Ministry Firing Range 153 0.51 Defence Ministry Firing Range 154 3.28 Defence Ministry Firing Range 22 Gorewada 58/1-2-3 2.30 Nagpur Municipal Grave Yard / Corp Cemetery 102/2, 6.32 Defence Ministry Firing Range 103/1, 103/2K, 103/3K, 103/4Kh 106 19.55 Nagpur Municipal Water Work Corp

p. 1560

110 6.58 Forest Deptt. Forest Use 112 8.47 Forest Deptt. Forest Use 113 0.65 Nagpur Municipal Gorewada Corp Water Tank 115 1.68 Nagpur Municipal Gorewada Corp Water Tank 121 10.44 Forest Deptt. Forest Use 23 Police Line 8 5.99 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Takli Deptt Quarter 9 35.14 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 17 7.41 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 15 1.45 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 19 3.05 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 20 2.19 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 21 0.03 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 23 2.17 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 26 0.85 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 28 0.85 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 32 1.18 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 36 1.38 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 39 0.31 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 40 14.62 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter 43 0.39 Home Deptt / Police Police Head Deptt Quarter

p. 1561

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

p. 1562

p. 1563

In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands

p. 1564

Result of the case: Interim applications disposed of.