Supreme Court declares Zudpi jungles in Vidarbha as ‘forest lands'
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Zudpi jungle (shrub forest) lands in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra shall be considered as 'forest lands' and said their conversion cannot be undertaken without prior approval from the central government. The SC also told the state government and the Centre to jointly formulate a plan to process proposals for diverting such land for non-forest purposes over the next three months.
The top court said that 'due to peculiar circumstances', as an exceptional measure — not to be treated as a precedent — Zudpi lands allotted by competent authorities up to December 12, 1996 (the date of the T N Godavarman judgment) may be considered for deletion from the 'list of forest areas'. However, this would apply only where land classification remained unchanged, and subject to approval to state government's proposal under the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980.
As per state's report, Zudpi lands, traditionally used as grazing areas and referred to as Gairan under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, are bushy tracts considered unsuitable for forest management.
The court passed a judgement on a batch of pleas, including the state government's application seeking direction that the 86,409 hectares of Zudpi lands are unfit for forest management and that they do not come under the purview of FCA.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice Augustine Masih directed the Maharashtra government to submit a consolidated proposal for each district.
The bench led by CJI Gavai said that it could arrive at a solution to 'balance the rights of the citizens at large with the interest of the environment' due to efforts made by the court-ordered Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
It directed that the Centre shall consider and approve such proposals by state without imposing any condition for compensatory afforestation or depositing Net Present Value (NPV) levies.
The SC directed the Central and state governments to mutually consult and avail prior approval of CEC, so as devise a format for processing the proposal of diversion of Zudpi Jungle land for non-forestry activities within a period of three months.
Welcoming the decision, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said, 'It is indeed a landmark and historic decision and I wholeheartedly thank the CJI. The SC order will be a huge boost to development of Vidarbha, which was stalled for the last several decades as Zudpi jungle came under the reserved forest category. Though SC order paves the way for development, it also has put certain terms and conditions which are necessary to ensure perfect balance between the development and environment.'
The state government, through Nagpur Divisional Commissioner, claimed that Zudpi lands from six districts of eastern Vidarbha, including Nagpur, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Bhandara, Wardha and Gondia (which were erstwhile part of Central provinces), have been used for various non-forest purposes for the past several decades.
Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari for the state argued that due to reorganisation of states and inaction of certain bureaucrats, the revenue records were not corrected and such parcels erroneously continued to be Zudpi forest lands.
He said the denial of relief would cause 'grave and irreparable damage to lakhs of citizens' and several projects will remain stuck.
However, senior advocate Madhavi Divan, representing intervenor Prasad Khale argued that allowing de-notification of Zudpi forest lands would lead to degradation of healthy forests.
Justice Gavai observed that large chunks of Zudpi jungle have been utilised for residential or agricultural purposes, government offices, public utilities such as schools and primary health centres and defence services among others.
'Citizens who are residing in the houses built on these lands for decades 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,' the bench noted.
The SC said that the central government shall process state's proposals regarding allotments of Zudpi land made after 1996, ensuring that punitive action has been taken against the concerned officers who took the decision in violation of SC order.
The court also directed the state to declare all un-allotted 'fragmented land parcels (with area less than 3 hectares and not adjoining any forest area)' as 'protected forests'. It told the district authorities to ensure no further encroachments, failing which, the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) will be held responsible.
The SC ordered Special Task Forces in each district to remove encroachments made after October 25, 1980 (after FCA came in force), within two years. It said that after the scrutiny under FCA of state's proposal for diversion non-forest use, the lands shall not be diverted to any non-governmental entity.
The SC directed the state revenue department to hand over possession of remaining area from the 7.76 lakh hectares, if any, to forest department within a year and the said land be utilised only for the purpose of compensatory afforestation.
The court asked the CEC to monitor progress of the transfer of the forest land and said that the other Zudpi lands will not be allowed for compensatory afforestation unless the Chief Secretary certifies non-availability of non-forest land for the same.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Cash discovery row: Justice Varma must quit to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
Pakistan gets law to arrest Baloch citizens for 90 days only on suspicion
The Pakistani-administered Balochistan Assembly passed a law that allows security forces to detain Baloch civilians for 90 days without any judicial recourse. Activists compare it to laws in Nazi Germany. read more Earlier this week, the Balochistan Assembly passed the Counter-Terrorism (Balochistan Amendment) Act 2025, prompting a widespread alarm among human rights groups and Baloch civil society . What makes the law controversial is the fact that it allows Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies to detain individuals, especially Baloch civilians, for up to 90 days without charge. The authorities are allowed to detain them solely on suspicion. Shortly after the law was passed in the Balochistan Assembly, legal experts and human rights activists warned that the legislation bypasses judicial safeguards and effectively legalises the atrocities and practices already being committed by the Pakistani security forces in the shadows. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Under the Act, Pakistan's Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) can now operate with expanded powers. They can issue detention orders and conduct ideological profiling of the suspects. Not only this, but military officials will now be sitting on the oversight panel, eroding civilians' control over law enforcement. Why is it concerning? Apart from this, law enforcement agencies are also granted increased authority to search, arrest and seize property without any form of prior judicial approval. With these provisions, activists are now arguing that the law paves the way for widespread abuse and mass surveillance. It is pertinent to note that enforced disappearances have been a persistent issue in Balochistan, where families have waited for decades to get any information about their loved ones. The Baloch activists insisted that the new law effectively codifies these practices, placing entire communities under constant fear of state violence. 'This Act transforms Balochistan into a legalised detention zone,' the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) said in a statement after the legislation passed. The group condemned the legislation, calling it a step towards full militarisation of civilian lives. Not only this, the group compared the tactics authorised by the Act to those used in Nazi Germany and the modern-day Xinjiang region . What makes it more concerning is the fact that the law violates Article 10 of Pakistan's Constitution, as well as Pakistan's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In its statement, BYC called on the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and global civil society to intervene and pressure Islamabad to repeal the law. 'Silence now is complicity,' the group averred. With inputs from ANI.
