15 May 2025 Environment Protection >> Environmental Law  

In a significant ruling on May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the contentious issue of multi-storeyed buildings constructed on forest land in Maharashtra. The case, In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings In Forest Land Maharashtra (I.A. No. 2079 of 2007), presided over by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, brought to light a "classic example" of alleged collusion between politicians, bureaucrats, and builders leading to the illegal conversion of precious forest land for commercial gain under the guise of rehabilitating displaced persons.

The Genesis of the Dispute: Forest Land Under Threat

The disputed land, Survey No. 21 (formerly 20-A) in Village Kondhwa Budruk, Pune District, was initially notified as a Reserved Forest in 1879 under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. While a small portion was de-reserved in 1934, the majority, approximately 29 acres and 15 Gunthas (11.89 ha), maintained its reserved forest status.

The saga began in the 1960s when land belonging to the 'Chavan Family' was acquired for the "Dr. Bandorwala Leprosy Hospital". Reportedly uncompensated, the family sought alternative land, leading to a one-year "Eksali" (yearly) lease of the subject forest land for cultivation in 1968-69. Crucially, this lease was never renewed.

A Web of Irregularities and Legal Violations:

The turning point arrived with the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FC Act). This Act mandated prior approval from the Central Government for any de-reservation or non-forest use of forest land. Despite this, in 1988, the 'Chavan Family' applied for permanent release of the land.

The District Collector, in 1991, recommended allotting only the 3 acres 20 gunthas actually under cultivation by the 'Chavan Family' and returning the remaining land to the Forest Department. However, in a surprising move in 1994, the Divisional Commissioner recommended the allotment of the entire subject land to the 'Chavan Family', even acknowledging it as a Reserved Forest and noting the family's illegal possession after 1969.

Further irregularities unfolded as the then Revenue Minister, based on legal advice, opined that the 1980 FC Act was not applicable, leading to the sanction of the allotment in 1998. The allotment order to the 'Chavan Family' came with strict conditions: no sale, mortgage, or transfer without prior District Collector permission, and the land was to be used solely for agricultural purposes.

However, these conditions were swiftly violated. In 1999, the Divisional Commissioner permitted the 'Chavan Family' to sell the land to Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Limited (RRCHS) for residential purposes. Investigations revealed that transactions between the 'Chavan Family' and RRCHS had occurred much earlier, even before the official allotment. Subsequent permissions for non-agricultural use and building plans were also granted, culminating in environmental clearance for a large residential, shopping, and IT complex ("Raheja Richmond Park") in 2007.

Legal Intervention and the Doctrine of Public Trust:

A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Nagrik Chetna Manch in 2007 challenged these actions, prompting the Supreme Court to direct the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to investigate. The CEC's 2008 report unequivocally recommended the cancellation of the allotment, restoration of the area as forest land, and the prosecution of senior Government of Maharashtra functionaries and officers, including the then Revenue Minister and Divisional Commissioner, for criminal breach of trust and other offenses.

During the proceedings, RRCHS claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and even presented a fabricated Gazette Notification from 1944 to assert the land was de-reserved. The Supreme Court, however, ordered an inquiry that confirmed the document was fabricated.

The Court's analysis delved into crucial legal doctrines. It firmly established that the subject land remained a Reserved Forest. The argument that the doctrine of desuetude (where a law becomes inoperative due to long disuse) applied was rejected.

Crucially, the Supreme Court emphasized the "doctrine of public trust". This doctrine asserts that certain natural resources, like forests, rivers, and air, are held by the government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. The Court highlighted that this principle restricts governmental authority: such property must be used for a public purpose, held available for public use, cannot be sold (even for fair value), and must be maintained for its particular uses. The Court found that RRCHS was not a bona fide purchaser, noting the illegal pre-allotment transactions and concluding that the 'Chavan Family' was a mere front for the developers.

Implications:

This judgment serves as a strong reaffirmation of the judiciary's role in protecting environmental resources and combating illegal land conversions. It underscores the importance of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the doctrine of public trust in preserving vital ecosystems. The directive for prosecution of officials involved also sends a clear message about accountability in governance.

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980