Judgment of the Supreme Court regarding status of Zudpi lands in Maharashtra, 22/05/2025
Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands.
A batch of applications involved 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 pertains to the status of the parcels of lands known as Zudpi jungle or Zudpi forest in the aforesaid districts of Maharashtra. “Zudpi” is a Marathi word which means bushes/shrubs. Zudpi lands means inferior type of unoccupied lands with bushy growth.
The state of Maharashtra had approached the Supreme Court stating that though these 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. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur division, Maharashtra accordingly has filed certain applications. The application asked for issue of directions that the 86409 hectare Zudpi land, unfit for forestry management does not come under the purview of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and also does not attract the provisions of orders of December 12, 1996 issued by the Supreme Court. Prayer was also made for issue directions that the order dated November 13, 2000 is also not applicable in respect of 86409 hectare Zudpi land, unfit for forestry management in Maharashtra.
Prasad Khale filed an application seeking intervention in the matter. He sought initiation of departmental enquiry by the state of Maharashtra against the errant officers of the forest department and revenue department "who have violated the provisions of the Forest Conservation) Act, 1980 by permitting Zudpi lands to be diverted for non-forest use and for allowing encroachments in the said areas." Also directions to be given to the state "to undertake necessary measures to restore the zudpi lands to its original condition, in cases where such lands have been illegally diverted without following the procedure laid down as per law.”
Counsel appearing on behalf of Maharashtra submitted that the Zudpi lands were never forest lands. However, on account of reorganization of states and inaction of certain bureaucrats, the revenue records were not corrected and as such, the lands continued to be recorded as Zudpi forest lands erroneously. He submitted that government offices, public schools, colleges, hospitals are constructed on these lands. He submitted that if the prayers sought by the state are not granted, it would cause grave and irreparable damage to lakhs of citizens residing in these six districts of the eastern Vidarbha region.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor submitted that the 2025 CEC Report had failed to address various ecological concerns specifically with regard to wildlife and flora and fauna. The "report of the CEC does not state that in the said Zudpi lands there is no wildlife," the counsel said. The Zudpi lands are a representation of the transitional stage in ecological evolution, the court was told.
A slew of directions were passed by the Supreme Court (SC), May 22, 2025 wherein the apex court directed that the Zudpi Jungle lands should be considered as forest lands in line with the order of the SC, December 12, 1996.
Due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the SC directed 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 December 12, 1996 and for which land classification has not been changed, the state of Maharashtra should seek approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for their deletion from the “List of Forest Areas”.
The SC directed that the state of Maharashtra should submit a consolidated proposal for each district. The court clarified that all activities for which lands have been allotted by the competent authority would be deemed to be site-specific. Further the state government should ensure that the land used is not changed in the future under any circumstances and transfer is made only by inheritance. The court also directed that on receipt of such proposals, the Union of India should consider and approve the same without imposing any condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing NPV levies.
SC directed that the Union Government and Maharashtra should 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. For proposal regarding the allotments of Zudpi jungle lands made post December 12, 1996, the stateshould 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 the court.
The court made it clear that the processing of proposal for such allotments has to 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. Maharashtra has been ordered to 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.
The court directed the state to issue directions to all the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) to ensure that no such land parcel is encroached upon. It was further directed that if any such encroachment takes place after the date of the judgment, the concerned SDM should be made responsible for the same. The SC clarified that, as and when these lands are required for non-forestry purposes by the state government, the proposal should be submitted as per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. "In no case any such land shall be diverted to any non-governmental entity for any purpose whatsoever," the court order said.
Directions were also given for the constitution of 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 in each district to remove encroachments within a period of two years from the date of the judgment. "All allotments for commercial purpose post October 25, 1980 must be treated at par with encroachments."
The revenue department of Maharashtra should hand over the possession of the remaining area, if any, from the area of 7,76,767.622 hectares, which is still in possession of the revenue department to the forest department. This should done with a period of one year and the land should be utilized only for compensatory afforestation. CEC was made responsible to monitor the progress of the transfer of the forest land. Zudpi land should not be permitted to use for compensatory afforestation unless there is a certificate of the Chief Secretary regarding the nonavailability of non-forest land for the purposes of afforestation.
Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories has been asked 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. Steps should be taken 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, if 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 and use the said amount for the purpose of development of forests said the SC.