Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 701
Judges: B.R. Gavai, CJI, Augustine George Masih, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of illegal conversion of forest land for commercial purposes, highlighting the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and builders. The case, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, examined the allotment of reserved forest land for non-agricultural uses, specifically construction of multi-storyed buildings, and the violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, delivered a decisive judgment to rectify these illegal actions and protect forest lands.
Case Background
The case originated from the illegal allotment of approximately 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas of land at Survey No. 21 of Village Kondhwa Budruk in Pune District. This land, originally notified as a Reserved Forest under Section 34 of the Indian Forest Act, 1878, was subject to illegal de-reservation and allotment for construction of residential and commercial complexes.
In the 1960s, a parcel of land belonging to the Chavan Family was acquired by the State Government for constructing the Dr. Bandorwala Leprosy Hospital. As compensation, the Chavan Family requested allotment of the subject forest land. Initially, the Tehsildar, Haveli, released the land for cultivation on a yearly basis in 1968-69. However, this lease was not renewed, and the land remained a reserved forest.
Despite the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which mandates prior central government approval for de-reservation of forest land, the State Government initiated actions to permanently release the land to the Chavan Family. This culminated in an order dated August 4, 1998, sanctioning the allotment. Subsequently, the Chavan Family sold the land to Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Limited (RRCHS) for residential purposes, leading to construction of the “Raheja Richmond Park” complex.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 1, 1879 | Area admeasuring 32 Acres 35 Gunthas at Survey No. 20 of Village Kondhwa Budruk notified as Reserved Forest under Section 34 of the Indian Forest Act, 1878. |
| January 5, 1934 | A portion of the land admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Gunthas was de-reserved by the State Government. |
| 1960s | Land in Survey No. 37 of Kondhwa Budruk belonging to the ‘Chavan Family’ was acquired by the State Government for construction of “Dr. Bandorwala Leprosy Hospital”. |
| May 13, 1968 | Tehsildar, Haveli released the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’ for cultivation for a period of one year on “Eksali” (yearly) basis for the year 1968-69. |
| March 22, 1969 | The State Government took a decision that the Forest Land given on lease for cultivation on Eksali basis should be permanently released for cultivation to the Eksali leaseholders after de-reservation. |
| October 25, 1980 | The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force. |
| 1988 | ‘Chavan Family’ made an application for permanent release of the subject land. |
| June 19, 1991 | District Collector found that the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ were cultivating only 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas and recommended that the said area which was under actual cultivation be allotted to them. |
| November 30, 1994 | Divisional Commissioner recommended allotment of the entire subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’. |
| August 4, 1998 | Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the allotment of the subject land. |
| August 28, 1998 | The Collector issued an order of allotment of land. |
| October 30, 1999 | Divisional Commissioner granted permission to the ‘Chavan Family’ to sell the land in question to Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, the Chief Promotor of Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Limited (“RRCHS”) for residential purposes. |
| July 8, 2005 | District Collector, Pune granted permission for use of the subject land for Non-Agricultural purposes i.e. for construction of the residential buildings. |
| February 27, 2006 | Pune Municipal Corporation issued a Commencement Certificate and sanctioned the Building Plan. |
| July 3, 2007 | Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) granted environmental clearance for construction of “Raheja Richmond Park”. |
| November 23, 2007 | The Supreme Court directed the CEC to enquire into the matter and submit its report. |
| November 27, 2008 | The CEC submitted its report and recommended cancellation of the allotment. |
| May 15, 2025 | The Supreme Court delivered the judgment, disposing of the Interlocutory Applications and the Writ Petition. |
Course of Proceedings
Nagrik Chetna Manch filed I.A. No. 2079-2080 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 before the Supreme Court, challenging the allotment of Reserved Forest Land to private persons. The Supreme Court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to investigate the matter and submit a report.
In response to the CEC’s inquiries, the State Government issued a notice dated July 2, 2008, to RRCHS and a member of the Chavan Family, informing them of the government’s decision to review the allotment order. The Forest Department also issued a notice to RRCHS on July 4, 2008, requiring the repossession of the subject land. RRCHS challenged these notices by filing I.A. No. 2301-2302 of 2008 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2008.
The CEC submitted reports recommending cancellation of the allotment, restoration of the area as forest, and prosecution of government officials and the developer involved.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which imposes restrictions on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes.
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 states:
“2. Restriction on the de -reservation of forests or use of forest land for non -forest purpose .—
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing —
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non -forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government.
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation].”
The Supreme Court also considered the doctrine of public trust, which mandates that the government protect natural resources for the benefit of the general public rather than allowing their use for private ownership or commercial purposes.
Arguments
Arguments by the Amicus Curiae (Shri K. Parameshwar):
- ✓ The allotment of forest land to the Chavan Family was a flagrant breach of the orders of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the 1980 FC Act.
- ✓ The Chavan Family was merely a front, and the allotment was effectively made in favor of a builder.
- ✓ The then Revenue Minister and Divisional Commissioner of Pune misused their power and violated the doctrine of public trust.
- ✓ Subsequent allocation of the land to RRCHS contravened the conditions under which the land was allotted to the Chavan Family.
Arguments by RRCHS (Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi):
- ✓ The subject land was not used as forest land for a long period and lost its character as such due to non-use.
- ✓ The doctrine of desuetude applies, as the land no longer remained a forest land.
- ✓ RRCHS is a bona fide purchaser of the subject land, relying on revenue records and the Final Regional Plan of Pune Region.
- ✓ Alternatively, RRCHS should be allotted an alternate piece of land, as the land was initially allotted to the Chavan Family in lieu of their acquired land.
Arguments by GCHS (Shri Shekhar Naphade):
- ✓ (Arguments of GCHS not detailed in provided text)
Arguments by the State (Shri Aniruddha Joshi):
- ✓ (Arguments of the State not detailed in provided text)
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- As to whether the subject land is a Forest Land.
- As to whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’ and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation.
- As to whether the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable to the facts of the present case.
- As to whether the RRCHS could be said to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject land.
- As to whether the RRCHS would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land in view of the order passed by this Court in In Re: “Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra”.
- As to whether the doctrine of public trust would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the subject land is a Forest Land | Yes | The land was notified as Reserved Forest in 1879, and this reservation continues to date. |
| Whether the Divisional Commissioner and State Government were justified in allotting the land to the ‘Chavan Family’ | No | The allotment violated Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as no prior approval from the Central Government was obtained. |
| Whether the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable | No | The doctrine requires both disuse of a statute and a contrary practice, neither of which was established in this case. |
| Whether the RRCHS could be said to be a bona fide purchaser | No | RRCHS entered into transactions with the ‘Chavan Family’ knowing the land was forest land and before the land was even allotted to the family. |
| Whether the RRCHS would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land | No | The facts of this case are different from previous cases where alternate land was allotted, and granting such relief would reward illegal actions. |
| Whether the doctrine of public trust would be applicable | Yes | The then Minister for Revenue and the Divisional Commissioner acted in breach of public trust by illegally causing gain to private individuals at the cost of sacrificing precious Forest Land. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 34, Indian Forest Act, 1878 | N/A | The notification declaring the subject land as reserved forest was issued under this section. |
| Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 | N/A | The allotment of forest land without prior central government approval violated this section. |
| Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and another v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and others, (1995) 3 SCC 434 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed regarding the doctrine of desuetude but found inapplicable in this case. |
| State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 643 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; the court clarified that its ruling in Banshi Ram Modi does not apply to cases where new non-forest activities are initiated without prior approval. |
| Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 213 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to distinguish Banshi Ram Modi and emphasize the importance of preventing deforestation. |
| Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala, (2009) 5 SCC 373 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an order for de-reservation of reserved forest or permit use of any forest land for any non-forest purpose without prior approval of the Central Government. |
| Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to summarize the essentials of the doctrine of desuetude. |
| Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 186 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that entries in revenue records do not confer title on a person. |
| P. Kishor Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title. |
| In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others, (2025) 2 SCC 641 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the importance of the doctrine of public trust in environmental matters. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Allotment of forest land to the Chavan Family was illegal. | Amicus Curiae | Accepted. The Court held the allotment was in blatant disregard of the law and violative of Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act. |
| The subject land was not used as forest land for a long period and lost its character as such due to non-use. | RRCHS | Rejected. The Court found that the land has continuously been recorded as ‘Reserved Forest’ in the Forest Records. |
| The doctrine of desuetude applies. | RRCHS | Rejected. The Court held that both conditions (statute not in operation and contrary practice) must be available to attract the applicability of the doctrine, which was not the case here. |
| RRCHS is a bona fide purchaser of the subject land. | RRCHS | Rejected. The Court found that RRCHS had entered into illegal transactions with the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ knowing the land was a Forest Land. |
| RRCHS should be allotted an alternate piece of land. | RRCHS | Rejected. The Court found that issuing such a direction would amount to granting a premium to RRCHS for the illegalities committed by them. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 643: The Court distinguished this case, clarifying that its ruling does not apply to cases where new non-forest activities are initiated without prior approval.
✓ Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 213: The Court relied upon this case to emphasize the importance of preventing deforestation and to distinguish Banshi Ram Modi.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect forest land and prevent its illegal conversion for commercial purposes. The Court emphasized the violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the doctrine of public trust. The Court also considered the actions of the involved parties, including government officials and the developer, and their disregard for legal provisions and environmental concerns.
| Reasoning Point | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 | 35% |
| Breach of Public Trust Doctrine | 30% |
| Illegal Transactions and Collusion | 25% |
| Disregard for Forest Department Communications | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of Factual Aspects of the Case) | 60% |
| Law (Consideration of Legal Provisions) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
(Logical Reasoning Flowchart is not possible to create in text format. It would involve a series of boxes and arrows showing the court’s reasoning steps.)
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Allotment of reserved forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior central government approval is illegal.
- ✓ Government officials have a duty to protect natural resources under the doctrine of public trust.
- ✓ Private parties cannot claim bona fide purchaser status if they knowingly engage in illegal transactions involving forest land.
- ✓ State Governments and Union Territories must hand over possession of forest lands in the possession of the Revenue Department to the Forest Department.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- ✓ Possession of the subject land, which is reserved as a Forest Land but is in the possession of the Revenue Department, should be handed over to the Forest Department within three months.
- ✓ Chief Secretaries of all States and Administrators of all Union Territories must constitute Special Investigation Teams to examine whether any reserved Forest Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to private individuals/institutions for non-forestry purposes.
- ✓ State Governments and Union Territories must take steps to take back possession of land from persons/institutions in possession of such lands and hand over the same to the Forest Department. If taking back possession is not in the larger public interest, the cost of the land should be recovered and used for development of forests.
- ✓ Chief Secretaries of all States and Administrators of all Union Territories must constitute Special Teams to ensure that all such transfers take place within one year.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that any allotment of reserved forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior approval from the Central Government is illegal and void. The judgment reinforces the importance of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the doctrine of public trust in protecting natural resources.
The Court in unequivocal terms overruled what was held in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643].
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India reaffirms the critical importance of protecting forest land and preventing its illegal conversion for commercial purposes. By setting aside the illegal allotment of reserved forest land and issuing directives for the recovery of such lands, the Court has reinforced the principles of environmental conservation and the doctrine of public trust. The judgment serves as a strong deterrent against the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and builders in exploiting natural resources for private gain.