SC to states, UTs: Form SITs, probe if forest land allotted for non-forestry purposes

Writing for the bench, CJI Gavai said: “In case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, the State Governments/Union Territories should recover the cost of the said land from the persons/institutions to whom they were allotted and use the said amount for the purpose of development of forests.”

The court said that such land should be used only for afforestation.

The SC’s directions came in a case relating to the transfer of 11.89 hectares of forest land in Pune to one Chavan family for agricultural purposes on August 28, 1998 and subsequent permission for its sale to a housing society — named Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

The court called the transfer “totally illegal” and a “classic example” of how the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and builders can result in the conversion of forest land for commercial purposes. The conversion, it said, was done “under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose”.

The bench said: “It would… be amply clear from the record that the said land was notified as early as in 1879 as reserved forest and which reservation continues to be so till date.”

The top court said: “…the then Minister for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra and the then Divisional Commissioner, Pune have acted totally in breach of public trust to illegally cause gain to private individuals at the cost of sacrificing precious forest land.”

The judgment said: “After the 1980 Forest Conservation Act was brought into effect, no State Government or any other authority, unless there is prior approval by the Central Government, could have directed any Reserved Forest or any portion thereof to cease to be under the status of ‘reserved’ or any forest land or any portion thereof to be used for any non-forest purposes. Nor could it have assigned any forest land or any portion thereof, by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation.”

The court said it found no substance in the argument that Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society was a bona fide purchaser of the subject land. “The facts point out that the ‘Chavan family’ was only set up as a front for the benefit of the developers… the fact (is) that the agricultural land of the ‘Chavan family’ was acquired, was being misused by the developers as a pretext for grabbing the valuable piece of forest land for the purposes of commercial development. For doing so, even the status of a person who belongs to backward class was being misused,” it said.