Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1054
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN RE: ZUDPI JUNGLE LANDS
I.A. NO.191387/2025
IN
I.A. NO.12465/2019
IN
W.P.(C) NO.202 OF 1995
IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The State of Maharashtra has filed the present application
with the following prayers:-
“(i) It is most respectfully prayed that the judgment
and final order dated 22.05.2025 may kindly be modified
as follows:-
(a) That the Direction in para 138(vii) may kindly
be modified to the extent that ‘Fragmented Land
Parcels’ instead of being declared as protected
forest each having an area of less than 3 hectares
and not adjoining any forest area may be used for
the purposes referred to in Section 3(2) in Forests
Rights Act, 2006 or other public uses required by
the concerned village, Goathan etc.
(b) That the Direction in para 138(x) may be
modified to the extent that the encroachments which
Signature Not Verified
are in use for the purposes of agriculture, kuccha
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.08.29
16:44:37 IST
Reason:
houses, pakka houses, slums, govt. employee
colonies, govt. or Z.P. Schools, private schools to
1
the extent of 10365.049 hectares may kindly be saved
in the manner provided under para 138(ii) of the
present judgment.
(ii) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
2. Insofar as prayer clause (i)(a) is concerned, we are not
inclined to entertain the same. However, it is clear from sub-
section (2) of Section 3 of The Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) that the
provisions therein begin with a non obstante clause.
3. If the State desires to use any of the fragmented land
parcels, which we have directed to be declared as protected forest,
the State can always take recourse to the provisions of sub-Section
(2) of Section 3 of the said Act.
4. We are therefore not inclined to accept the prayer clause (i)
(a) and reject the same.
5. Accordingly, with respect to the direction in para 138(vii) of
nd
the judgment and order dated 22 May 2025 is concerned, we direct
that all such fragmented land parcels shall be declared as
protected forest. We, however, clarify that if the State desires
to use the said land for any of the purposes mentioned under sub-
Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, the same can be done only
after following the procedure prescribed therein and subject to
fulfillment of the conditions specified therein.
6. Insofar as prayer clause (i)(b) is concerned, a perusal of the
2
nd
judgment and order dated 22 May 2025 would reveal that one of the
main reasons why we were inclined to grant a one time exemption was
that over the years and on account of apathy of revenue officials,
the necessary revenue entries could not be made. For a long period
of time, the land under consideration has been used for the purpose
of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, Govt. employees
colonies, Govt. or Z.P. Schools, private schools and other public
utilities.
7. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in its report itself had
recommended the protection of such structures to the extent of
10,365.049 hectares.
8. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow prayer
clause (i)(b).
9. Accordingly, we direct that after clause (x) in paragraph 138
nd
of the Judgment and order dated 22 May 2025 passed in I.A.
No.12465/2019 etc. in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 the following paragraph
is treated to to be added as paragraph (x-a).
“(x-a) We, however, clarify that the directions made in
paragraph (x) would not be applicable to the encroachments
th
made prior to 12 December 1996 for the purposes of
agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, govt.
employees colonies, govt. or Z.P. Schools, private schools and
other public utilities to the extent of 10365.049 hectares, as
has been observed in the report of the CEC. Insofar as any
th
encroachment which has been made after 12 December 1996, if
the State Government desires to regularize the same, the same
shall be done only in accordance with the provisions of
clauses (ii) to (vi) of paragraph 138 of this judgment.”
3
10. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
............................CJI
( B.R. GAVAI )
..............................J
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 25, 2025
4