15 May 2025 Environment Protection >> Environmental Law  

In a landmark decision on May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical issue of environmental degradation and alleged corruption in the case titled In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings In Forest Land Maharashtra. Presided over by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, the Court strongly condemned the "nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders" leading to the conversion of precious forest land for commercial purposes.

The Genesis of the Controversy: Forest Land to Residential Complex

The case revolves around a parcel of land, Survey No. 20 (later renumbered as Survey No. 21) in Village Kondhwa Budruk, Pune District, Maharashtra. This land, admeasuring 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas (11.89 hectares), was originally notified as a Reserved Forest in 1879 under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. While a small portion was de-reserved in 1934, the subject land retained its forest status.

In the 1960s, a different parcel of land belonging to the 'Chavan Family' was acquired for a hospital, and they requested the subject forest land as an alternative for resettlement. In 1968, the Tehsildar allotted the land to the 'Chavan Family' on a yearly (Eksali) lease for cultivation, with strict conditions against sale, mortgage, or use for non-agricultural purposes. Crucially, this yearly lease was never renewed after 1969.

Allegations of Malfeasance and Breach of Law:

Despite the clear forest designation and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FC Act) coming into force in 1980, which prohibited de-reservation or non-forest use without Central Government permission, the State Government's actions raised serious concerns. In 1994, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, despite acknowledging that the 'Chavan Family' cultivated only a small portion, surprisingly recommended the allotment of the entire 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas to them. The Commissioner even opined that Central Government approval was unnecessary, despite noting the land was a Reserved Forest. The then Revenue Minister also shared this view, leading to the sanction of allotment in August 1998.

Further irregularities came to light. Immediately after the allotment to the 'Chavan Family', transactions were entered into with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter of Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Limited (RRCHS), even before the official permission to sell was granted. The Divisional Commissioner subsequently granted permission to sell the land to RRCHS for residential purposes in October 1999. The District Collector later granted permission for non-agricultural use in July 2005 , and an Environmental Clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) for a residential and IT complex in July 2007.

Judicial Intervention and CEC Inquiry:

A public interest litigation was filed by Nagrik Chetna Manch in 2007, challenging the illegal allotment and use of Reserved Forest Land. The Supreme Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to inquire into the matter. The CEC's detailed report in November 2008 recommended the cancellation of the allotment, restoration of the area as forest, and prosecution of senior functionaries, including the then Revenue Minister, Divisional Commissioner, and the developer, Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, for criminal breach of trust and violation of the FC Act. The report also called for a Special Investigation Team to examine all Reserved Forest lands under the Revenue Department in Pune that had been illegally allotted.

A crucial development was the revelation that a Gazette Notification presented by RRCHS to prove the land was not forest land was found to be a "forged one and not genuine" after an inquiry by the State CID.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Directives:

The Supreme Court examined several key issues:

• Forest Land Status: The Court unequivocally established that the land remained a 'Reserved Forest' as per original notifications, despite being recorded as "Government Grazing Ground" in revenue records.
• Doctrine of Desuetude: The argument that the land lost its forest character due to non-use (doctrine of desuetude) was rejected. The Court emphasized that for this doctrine to apply, both long-term non-operation of the statute and a consistent contrary practice must be firmly established. The Court noted that entries in revenue records do not confer title.
• Bona Fide Purchaser: The Court found that RRCHS could not claim to be a bona fide purchaser. It was observed that transactions between the 'Chavan Family' and RRCHS began even before the land was officially allotted to the 'Chavan Family', and development rights were transferred, indicating that RRCHS had "open eyes, entered into illegal transactions".
• Doctrine of Public Trust: The Court underscored the applicability of the doctrine of public trust. Citing previous judgments, it reiterated that natural resources like forests are held by the Government in trusteeship for public use and enjoyment. The State, as a trustee, has a legal duty to protect these resources, which "cannot be converted into private ownership". The Court emphasized that the executive cannot abdicate natural resources unless it is genuinely for public good and in public interest.

The Verdict:

The Supreme Court delivered a strong verdict, finding the allotment and subsequent actions illegal:

• The allotment of 11.89 hectares of Reserved Forest land to the 'Chavan Family' in August 1998 and the subsequent permission for its sale to RRCHS in October 1999 were declared "totally illegal".
• The Environmental Clearance granted to RRCHS by the MoEF on July 3, 2007, was also deemed illegal and quashed.
• The State of Maharashtra's decision to recall the allotment communication to the 'Chavan Family' was upheld.
• The Court directed that the possession of the subject land be handed over to the Forest Department within three months.
• Furthermore, it mandated that Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories constitute Special Investigation Teams to examine similar cases of illegally allotted Reserved Forest Land under the Revenue Department and take steps to recover such lands.

This judgment serves as a stern warning against the illegal encroachment and conversion of forest lands, reaffirming the judiciary's role in upholding environmental laws and the principle of public trust.

INDIAN FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2017  

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980