“The Zudpi Jungle Exception” – Supreme Court’s New Framework for De-classifying Recorded Forests While Protecting Housing and Livelihood Rights
In re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Zudpi Jungle Lands (2025 INSC 754)

1. Introduction

The “forest cases” opened in 1995 under T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India are the longest running environmental proceedings in India. On 22 May 2025 the Supreme Court was confronted with a peculiar legacy problem: almost 3.3 lakh hectares in six districts of eastern Vidarbha, Maharashtra, are still shown in revenue records as “Zudpi Jungle” – a 19-century expression for scrubby, treeless wasteland. For 70 years these parcels have housed villages, schools, hospitals, defence installations, slums, government offices and agricultural holdings of land-poor families. Yet, after the Court’s famous order of 12-12-1996, any land “recorded as forest” attracted the strict Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA), threatening demolition, eviction and paralysis of public projects.

Balancing the competing imperatives of forest conservation and basic human rights, a bench headed by CJI B.R. Gavai has crafted an exceptional, one-time procedure for deleting such lands from the “list of forests” while simultaneously creating the State’s largest single block of land (over 7.7 lakh ha) dedicated to compensatory afforestation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Zudpi Jungle = Forest in law; the 1996 Godavarman definition continues. Nevertheless, because of the lands’ long-standing non-forest use and massive human dependence, the Court creates a one-off carve-out.
• Lands allotted before 12-12-1996: Maharashtra may seek bulk approval under FCA s.2(i) to delete them from forest records. No Net Present Value (NPV) or compensatory afforestation (CA) payable for such site-specific, pre-1996 uses.
• Post-1996 allotments & commercial encroachments: treated strictly; punitive action mandated under FCA ss.3-A/3-B; Special Task Forces must clear them within two years.
• Fragmented parcels <3 ha: to be notified forthwith as Protected Forests; diversion to non-government entities prohibited.
• Massive Afforestation Mandate: the State must hand over the remaining 7,76,767.622 ha (already notified or to be notified) to the Forest Department within one year; these areas will serve as a permanent land-bank for CA.
• Zudpi for CA only as last resort: such use requires Chief Secretary’s certificate of non-availability of other non-forest land and must be on double the diverted area.
• No Precedent Clause: the relief is expressly “not to be treated as precedent” for any other forest category or State.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• T.N. Godavarman (1996) – Defined “forest” by dictionary meaning and revenue record, triggering FCA. The present Court re-affirms this principle but tempers its rigid application in extraordinary factual settings.
• Chameli Singh v. U.P. (1996) – Right to shelter as facet of Article 21. Forms the normative basis for protecting millions of residents on Zudpi lands.
• Olga Tellis (1985) – Right to livelihood for pavement dwellers; used to justify non-eviction of long-settled farmers and slum dwellers.
• Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills & Waman Rao – Harmonisation of Fundamental Rights with Directive Principles (DPSP). The judgment leans heavily on Articles 38 & 39 (b)&(c) to prioritise distributive justice.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996), State of U.P. v. Uday Education Trust (2022) – Sustainable development doctrine. The Court employs this to show that conservation and social justice can co-exist via targeted afforestation.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Historical Inquiry. The Court devotes nearly 40 pages to the colonial and post-independence history of “Zudpi Jungle” classification, the abolition of Malguzari estates, and decades of administrative failure to update records.
2. DPSP–Fundamental Right Synthesis. CJI Gavai relies on Constituent Assembly debates (Dr. Ambedkar’s speech of 19-11-1948) to underline that economic democracy and social justice are integral to constitutional governance. This justifies relaxing environmental rigidity where millions’ shelter and livelihood are at stake.
3. Proportionality & Sustainable Development. Total eviction would raze over 33,000 ha of built-up public infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads, even High Court buildings) in Nagpur alone. The Court considers this “devastating” and disproportionate to ecological gains, especially as the land was originally scrub, not biodiverse forest.
4. Reliance on CEC Expertise. The Central Empowered Committee undertook a massive ground-truthing exercise (141 GB data, 6 districts, satellite imagery, Collector certificates). The Court accords high evidentiary weight to these factual findings.
5. Doctrine of Exception Without Precedent. To avoid opening floodgates nationally, the bench explicitly limits the ruling to “peculiar facts” of Zudpi jungles; any other recorded forest will still require strict FCA compliance.

3.3 Expected Impact

• Immediate Relief for Residents. Lakhs of households, hospital campuses, defence bases and educational institutions no longer face demolition threats.
• Administrative Template. Although declared non-precedential, the judgment supplies a workable template for other States grappling with obsolete revenue categories (e.g., “banjar,” “gomol,” “poramboke”). Expect future litigation to rely on the same balance-of-interests test.
• Strengthened Accountability. Officers making post-1996 allotments contrary to FCA now face mandatory prosecution under ss.3-A & 3-B.
• Largest CA Land-Bank. Maharashtra effectively earmarks >7.7 lakh ha for afforestation—an area bigger than some smaller States—which may dramatically enhance carbon sinks if implemented.
• Shift in NPV Jurisprudence. By recognising that NPV is inapplicable to pre-1996 site-specific uses, the Court clarifies an ambiguity in MoEF&CC’s 2003 circular and FAC minutes, likely influencing future exemptions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 2: Bans de-reservation or non-forest use of any forest without Central approval. Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) define different “changes”; FCA clearance is popularly called “forest diversion clearance.”
• Net Present Value (NPV): A monetary compensation, fixed by expert committees and linked to forest type, payable by the user agency when forest is diverted. Imposed by the Supreme Court in 2002 as a “polluter-pays” substitute for lost ecological services.
• Compensatory Afforestation (CA): Obligation to plant trees on non-forest (or degraded forest) land equal to or twice the diverted area, ensuring “no-net-loss” of tree cover.
• Section 4 & 29 of Indian Forest Act, 1927: S.4 is the preliminary notification for declaring a Reserved Forest; S.29 enables declaration of Protected Forests (less rigorous, often village commons).
• DPSP v. Fundamental Rights: Directive Principles (Part IV) guide the State toward social/ economic welfare but are normally non-justiciable. Fundamental Rights (Part III) are enforceable. The Court re-emphasises modern doctrine that they must be read together, not hierarchically.
• Sustainable Development: International and domestic principle that present development must not compromise future generations’ needs; demands “balancing” rather than “absolute priority” to any single interest.

5. Conclusion

The “Zudpi Jungle Exception” marks a watershed in Indian environmental jurisprudence. Without diluting the core holding of Godavarman (1996) that all recorded forests are forests in law, the Court demonstrates that environmental protection cannot become an instrument of social injustice. By carving a carefully ring-fenced, fact-specific exception, backed by stringent future safeguards and India’s largest afforestation mandate, the decision exemplifies the Constitution’s twin promises: ecological integrity and human dignity. Implementation now shifts from the pages of the judgment to the fields of Vidarbha—where Special Task Forces, afforestation drives, and vigilant civil society will decide whether this grand compromise truly ushers in an era of sustainable justice.