IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST LAND MAHARASHTRA
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995
(3JB, CJI B.R. GAVAI, AG MASIH and K. VINOD CHANDRAN JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, CJI)
The case highlights a troubling nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and builders, resulting in the illegal conversion of reserved forest land for commercial use under the guise of resettlement. Originally notified as Reserved Forest in 1879, 32 acres of land in Kondhwa Budruk, Pune, remained protected except for 3.2 acres de-reserved in 1934. In the 1960s, the Chavan family, whose land had earlier been acquired for a hospital, was temporarily allowed to cultivate this forest land. Despite no lease renewal and without Central Government approval as mandated under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the land was later allotted to them. This allotment was subsequently used for unauthorized sale and construction by Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society (RRCHS). Investigations revealed premature agreements and misuse of forest land. Following a citizen’s petition, the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) recommended cancellation of the allotment, restoration of forest land, and criminal prosecution of officials involved. Further enquiry found a Gazette notification submitted by RRCHS was forged, prompting court-ordered criminal investigations into the fraudulent documentation.
In this matter, the Supreme Court heard submissions from various senior counsels regarding the controversial allotment of forest land to the Chavan Family. Shri K. Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae) argued that the land was a Reserved Forest under the 1980 Forest Conservation Act, and its allotment to the Chavan Family was in violation of both the law and Supreme Court orders. He asserted the Chavan Family acted as a front for a builder, who had already entered into a deal with them before the formal allotment in 1998. He alleged collusion by state officials in breaching the public trust.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing RRCHS, countered that the land had lost its forest character due to long disuse and that RRCHS was a bona fide purchaser. He cited legal precedents to argue for the application of the doctrine of desuetude. Alternatively, he sought alternate land allotment. The key issues raised include whether the land remains a forest, whether the Chavan Family’s allotment was legal, RRCHS’s bona fides, and the applicability of the doctrines of public trust and desuetude.
The Court disposed of the applications and writ petition by ruling that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of Reserved Forest land in Kondhwa Budruk, Pune, for agriculture and its subsequent sale to RRCHS were illegal. The Environmental Clearance granted to RRCHS in 2007 was quashed. The State of Maharashtra’s recall of the 1998 allotment approval to the Chavan Family was upheld. The Court directed that possession of the forest land, currently with the Revenue Department, be transferred to the Forest Department within three months. It ordered all States and Union Territories to form Special Investigation Teams to identify any reserved forest land improperly allotted to private parties, recover such lands, and ensure they are used only for forestry. Where repossession is not viable, compensation must be recovered and used for forest development. The Court mandated completion of these transfers within one year and praised the senior counsels for their valuable assistance in the case.
