In a significant ruling aimed at curbing urban encroachment on ecologically sensitive land, the Supreme Court has directed the authorities in Maharashtra to take back 11.86 acres of forest land in Kondhwa, Pune, currently occupied by the Purohit Hills Cooperative Housing Society (CHS). In his first judgement after assuming the office, CJ Gavai in this landmark judgement concluded that the land had been illegally allotted by the state government and stressed that forest land cannot be diverted for private residential purposes.
In a scathing judgement authored by chief justice BR Gavai and delivered by a bench comprising Augustine George Masih and justice K Vinod Chandran, the apex court pulled up the state authorities for collusion with private developers. “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,” the court observed.
"It has been noticed that a vast stretch of the land which is notified as ‘forest land’ is still in possession of the revenue department. Such a situation creates many complexities as is evident in the present matter. The revenue department, despite resistance from the forest department, allotted the land to private individuals and institutions for non-forestry purposes. This, in turn, reduced the vital green cover. We, therefore, find that it is necessary that a direction needs to be issued to all the state government and the Union territories (UTs) to hand over the possession of the lands which are recorded as ‘forest land’ and which are in possession of the revenue department to the forest department," the bench says.
The judgement underscored the state’s fiduciary responsibility to protect forest land under Article 48A of the Constitution. “The land in question has already been declared as a private forest as early as in the year 2006 and as such, no development activity can be permitted on the said land,” the Court noted.
The 11.86-acre parcel forms part of Survey No8/2A/1 of Kondhwa khurd village which was earlier identified as private forest under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The land was leased to the housing society by the state government through orders passed in 2006 and 2017. However, the Court held these orders were 'totally without jurisdiction' and 'non est in the eyes of law'.
“The state government was only a custodian of the forest land… it could not have dealt with the said land in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the forest,” the bench says, adding that the principle of public trust doctrine applied to the land in question.
The matter had reached the apex court after a series of orders by the Bombay High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the lease and ordered the eviction of the society. While hearing the appeal filed by the housing society, the Supreme Court observed that any construction undertaken or possession held over forest land without due approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was unauthorised.
“No individual, including the state government, can use the forest land for non-forest purpose without prior approval of the central government,” the Court ruled. It cited the landmark TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case to reinforce that land recognised as forest — even if privately owned — cannot be diverted without Central sanction.
In response to arguments that the land was not forest due to the presence of dry shrubs and degraded vegetation, the bench held that ecological degradation cannot strip land of its forest status. “Even degraded forest lands are forest lands and cannot be allowed to be taken over under the garb of non-use,” the judgement stated emphatically.
The Court ordered the Maharashtra government and the Pune Municipal Corporation to resume possession of the land and initiate eviction proceedings if the occupants do not vacate voluntarily within three months. It also directed that no further construction shall take place on the property.
The bench, further says, "It would, therefore, be imperative that wherever it is possible to take back the possession of such land, the state or UT should do so and hand over the possession to the Forest Department for forestry purposes. However, if on account of such lands already being converted for non-forest activities, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, then the states or UTs should recover the cost of the land from such individuals and institutions and use the said amount for the purpose of afforestation, restoration and conservation."
This ruling is expected to have wider implications for forest land governance in Maharashtra and other states where private parties have sought regularisation of encroachments based on flawed or retrospective administrative orders.
“The present case is a classic example of how forest land is attempted to be taken over by private parties for development,” the Court remarked, calling for stricter scrutiny in the future.
Environmentalists have welcomed the order, viewing it as a precedent that reinforces judicial commitment to protecting urban green zones amid mounting pressures of real estate development.
The Supreme Court also warned authorities against the misuse of government powers to regularise illegal occupation of forest areas. “A wrong decision does not create a precedent or right that can be enforced,” it said.
A Decades-long Land Grab
The disputed parcel, admeasuring 11.86 acres, forms part of Survey No21 (earlier Survey No20-A) in Kondhwa Budruk. It was originally notified as reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1878, through a gazette notification issued on 1 March 1879. A portion was de-reserved in 1934, but the remainder — 29 acres and 15 gunthas — continued to be recognised as forest land.
In the 1960s, the Chavan family, whose land had earlier been acquired for a leprosy hospital, requested alternate land for cultivation. They were given temporary permission to cultivate a small portion on an annual (eksali) lease in 1968. Despite the lease never being renewed, a 1994 recommendation by the divisional commissioner led to the eventual allotment of the entire 11.86 acres to the family in 1998 — bypassing mandatory Central government approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The Chavan family soon transferred development rights to Aniruddha Deshpande, chief promoter of Richie Rich Co-operative Housing Society (RRCHS), even before the land was formally allotted. Construction of multi-storeyed residential buildings followed, supported by a series of permissions granted by the Pune administration.
Forest Land 'Traded away'
The Court found that the Chavan family acted merely as a conduit for RRCHS and that the state authorities had wilfully ignored the law. “The state government was only a custodian of the forest land… it could not have dealt with the said land in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the forest,” the bench held, invoking the public trust doctrine.
“No individual, including the state government, can use forest land for non-forest purpose without prior approval of the central government,” the Court ruled, citing provisions of the 1980 Forest Act and its own precedent in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case.
The Richie Rich Society argued it was a bona fide purchaser and that the land had long ceased to function as a forest. Rejecting this claim, the court stated: “Even degraded forest lands are forest lands and cannot be allowed to be taken over under the garb of non-use.”
It also dismissed reliance on a 1944 Gazette notification submitted by the developer, finding it to be a forged document following a probe by the crime investigation department (CID) ordered by the Court.
With this landmark verdict, the apex court has reaffirmed the constitutional and statutory mandates to safeguard India’s forest resources against encroachment, no matter how influential or well-established the encroachers may be.
They who are corrupt will go scot free!