Restore forest land illegally allotted to private entities: SC
The direction came in a judgment delivered in a matter related to 'illegal' allotment of 11.89-hectare reserved forest land in Pune, Maharashtra to a housing society — Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Limited (RRCHS) — in October 1999. The court in its order called out the role of then Maharashtra revenue minister and then divisional commissioner, who ensured the allotment of land to the housing society by bypassing the Forest Conservation Act, objections raised by bureaucrats on the land meant for agricultural purpose, and a 1996 top court verdict in the landmark TN Godavarman case that gave an expansive meaning to the definition of forests under the FC Act.
A bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai said: 'We direct chief secretaries of all the states and administrators of all the union territories to constitute special investigation teams (SIT) for the purpose of examining as to whether any of the reserved 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.'
The bench, also comprising justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, further directed states and UTs to 'take steps to take back the possession of the land from the persons or institutions in possession of such lands and handover 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/UTs should recover the cost of the said land from the persons/institutions to whom they were allotted and use the said amount for the purpose of development of forests,' the verdict, authored by the CJI, added.
Such transfer of land should be completed within a period of one year, the bench ordered.
In the Pune case, the bench held that the allotment of 11.89 hectare of the reserved forest land in Kondhwa Budruk village for agriculture purposes on August 28, 1998 and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of RRCHS on October 30, 1999 was 'totally illegal'.
'We also have no hesitation to hold that the then minister for revenue and the then divisional commissioner, Pune, have given a total go-bye to the doctrine of public trust inasmuch as, valuable forest land was allotted to the 'Chavan family' de hors the provisions of the law,' it said, noting the land was allotted in favour of one 'Chavan family' in 1998.
'The present matter is a classic example as to how the nexus between the politicians, bureaucrats and the builders can result in the conversion of precious forest land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose,' it added.
The court quashed the environmental clearance granted by the Union environment ministry on July 3, 2007 to RRCHS. It directed that possession of the subject land, which is reserved as a forest land but is in possession of the revenue department, should be handed over to the forest department within three months.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
31 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC clears way for landfill in Mumbai's Kanjurmarg, stays Bombay HC order
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Bombay High Court decision, which had restored nearly 120 hectares of land in Mumbai's Kanjurmarg area as a "protected forest". The interim relief, granted by a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, comes as a temporary reprieve to the Brihannumbai Municipal Corporation, allowing the civic body to continue developing the site as a landfill for garbage disposal. Appearing before the apex court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the land in question had historically been used as a landfill and was mistakenly notified as a "protected forest". He added that the notification of the disputed land as a 'protected forest' was inadvertent, prompting the Maharashtra government to issue a de-notification to allow its continued use for waste management. After hearing the submissions, the apex court remarked: "We will stay the order." In its judgement passed on May 2, the Bombay High Court quashed the state government's notification de-notifying 119.91 hectares of protected forest land at Kanjurmarg, which had originally been classified as "protected forest" under a 2008 notification. A Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan had rejected the state government's contention that the original notification was issued in error and a 2003 Supreme Court order permitted the usage of the site as a landfill. The Justice Kulkarni-led Bench observed that the original classification notifying the land in question as a 'protected forest' was based on satellite imaging, ground-truthing, and earlier judicial orders related to mangrove protection. Quashing the subsequent notification, it ruled that the de-notification violated Section 2(1) of the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), which mandates prior approval from the Union government before diverting forest land for non-forest use. "The subject land, i.e. 119.91 hectares, is consequently restored to the status of being a protected forest. Any proposal to de-notify the same would need to be compliant with the due process stipulated in Section 2(1) of the FCA," the Bombay High Court had said, granting the civic body three months to comply with its judgment.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
SC refuses to entertain plea to apply POSH Act to political parties
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition seeking application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, known as the POSH Act, to political parties, saying it falls in the domain of the policymakers. 'The prayer made in the petition is exclusively within the competence of the legislature or within the domain of policy of the executive. As such, we are not inclined to entertain,' Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai, presiding over a two-judge bench, told senior advocate Rekha Gupta, who pressed for the court's intervention. The counsel told the bench, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, that 'an important issue like this, they (legislators) are not acting upon, the vacuum is still continuing'. CJI Gavai suggested, 'There must be not less than 25-30 MPs who are women. Ask them to present a private bill.' The counsel said that she was not seeking a direction to Parliament to legislate but only interpretation as to what constitutes 'workplace, employer and employee' under the Act because a Kerala High Court judgment says it will not apply to political parties. The court said, in that case, she should challenge the high court order. The counsel said she would do so and sought permission to withdraw her petition. The court allowed this and gave her 'further liberty to take such steps as are advisable in law'. The POSH Act requires both public and private workplaces to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to hear complaints of sexual harassment. The plea contended that when it comes to political parties, 'the presence of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) to address sexual harassment is inconsistent'. The petition said that despite the expansive definitions of 'employee' and 'workplace' in the Act, women engaged in political work, particularly at the grassroots, continue to face rampant sexual harassment with no structured mechanism in place to address this. Citing UN Women (2013) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2016) studies, it said psychological and sexual harassment in political spaces is not isolated but systemic. It added that political work is a form of employment or engagement and must be recognised as such under the Act to ensure protection and accountability.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL to bring political parties under POSH Act
ANI Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking to bring major political parties within the purview of the 2013 POSH Act, which aims to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces, saying the matter was for Parliament to Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act came into being in 2013 to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces and ensuring a safe work environment. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the PIL filed by Yogamaya M G seeking to bring major political parties under the ambit of the POSH the outset, senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, sought a direction to treat political parties as "employers" under the POSH Act, saying it will require them to constitute internal complaints committees (ICCs) to address sexual harassment allegations."This is a matter in the domain of Parliament. How can we interfere," the CJI asked, adding that the petitioner can get some women parliamentarians on board and present a private bill in Parliament. Gupta said Parliament has not taken any steps on the the petitioner was not seeking any fresh legislation but merely an interpretation of the existing provisions of the POSH Act to include political parties within its ambit, she also referred to a 2021 Kerala High Court judgment, which held that political parties are not required to constitute ICCs under the POSH CJI said the high court judgment may be challenged lawyer then sought the liberty to challenge the high court judgement."The learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with a further liberty to take such steps as advised in law," the bench said in its order. Besides the Centre and the chief election commissioner, the plea made political outfits including the Congress, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, Trinamool Congress, Nationalist Congress Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Aam Aadmi Party parties in the petition.
