IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST LAND MAHARASHTRA versus

41. It could thus be seen that the Court observed that the doctrine of desuetude would apply to our statutes as well for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary practice being in use, he is still required to act as per the “dead letter”. It has been observed that it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country as well. The Court observed that in view of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a citizen must be protected from being prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become “dead letter”.

42. However, it is clear from the aforesaid observations that for applicability of the doctrine of desuetude, the statute must not only 1414 be required to be in disuse for long duration but instead a contrary practice must also be prevalent.

43. We fail to understand as to how the said doctrine of desuetude would be applicable in the facts of the present case.

44. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the RRCHS that though the subject land was shown as Reserved Forest Land, as far back as in 1879, it was not used as a Forest Land for a long period and therefore it ceased to be Reserved Forest Land. We fail to appreciate such a submission. The subject land has continuously been recorded as ‘Reserved Forest’ in the Forest Records. Not only that, as we have already reproduced hereinabove, the Forest Authorities through a number of communications had requested the Revenue Authorities to correct the revenue entries and transfer the land to the Forest Department. In any case, this Court in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (supra) has correctly laid down the legal position as under: “201. From the above, the essentials of the doctrine of desuetude may be summarised as follows: (i) The doctrine of desuetude denotes a principle of quasi-repeal but this doctrine is ordinarily seen with disfavour. (ii) Although the doctrine of desuetude has been made applicable in India on few occasions but for its applicability, two factors, namely, (i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period, and (ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time must be clearly satisfied. Both ingredients are essential and want of any one of them would not attract the doctrine of desuetude. In other words, a mere neglect of a statute or legislation over a period of time is not sufficient but it must be firmly established that not only the statute or legislation was completely neglected but also the practice contrary to such statute or legislation has been followed for a considerably long period.” [Emphasis supplied] [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra

45. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the doctrine of desuetude is ordinarily seen with disfavour. It has also been held that although this doctrine has been made applicable in India on a few occasions, however, for its applicability, two factors are necessary, namely, (i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period, and (ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time. It has been held that, not one but, both the conditions must be available to attract the applicability of the said doctrine of desuetude.

46. In the present case, the legislative history would clearly show that, right from 1878, when the 1878 Act was enacted, under Section 34 of the said Act, the law with regard to protection and conservation of forest has been consistently evolving more and more in favour of protection of forests.

47. We do not find any substance in the argument that the Notification dated 1st March 1879 issued under Section 34 of the 1878 Act has been put to disuse for a long time. In any case, nothing has been brought on record to show that a practice contrary to the provisions of the said Act was being applied. In that view of the matter, such an argument has to be heard only to be rejected. d. As to whether the RRCHS could be said to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject land.

48. It is sought to be urged on behalf of the RRCHS that they are the bona fide purchaser of the subject land in question. It is submitted on behalf of the RRCHS that the land in question was reflected as revenue land. It is submitted that the Final Regional Plan of Pune Region, which has statutory force, had shown the subject land as municipal land. It is further submitted that even prior to that in the Pune Regional Plan implemented on 17th May 1976, the land in question was included in the agricultural zone. As such, by no stretch of imagination, the RRCHS could have known that the subject land was Forest Land and not Revenue Land. It is further stated that even the revenue record pertaining to the subject land had shown the possession of the ‘Chavan Family’ over the said land. It is, therefore, submitted that the RRCHS, which is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question, could not be faulted with and penalized for no fault of theirs. 1416

49. As already stated herein above, the subject land was allotted to the ‘Chavan Family’ by the Tehsildar, Haveli on 13th May 1968 on Eksali (yearly) lease for the year 1968-69. Not only that, the ‘Chavan Family’ had given an undertaking to the Mamlatdar, Haveli to surrender the said land prior to completion of one year. The ‘Chavan Family’ had further given an undertaking that the said land would not be put to any other use except for the agricultural purposes. It is further pertinent to note that after the grant of lease for one year, there has been no renewal of the said lease, although the names of the ‘Chavan Family’ do appear in the 7/12 extracts of revenue records.

50. This Court in the case of Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and Others10 has held as follows: “9. ….. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh [(1993) 4 SCC 403 : AIR 1994 SC 1653] ). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition.”

51. Recently, this Court in the case of P. Kishor Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar11 has also observed thus: “13. …. mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.”

52. It is well-settled law that the entries in the revenue record do not confer a title to the property. 2007 INSC 424 : (2007) 6 SCC 186 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra

53. It would further appear from the record that after the lease was not renewed in 1969, for a period of about 20 years, the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ kept silent. It appears that only in the year 1988, they started moving the authorities for allotment of land in lieu of compensation. However, much prior to the actual allotment of land in their favour, they had already entered into transactions with the Builders. A perusal of the record would reveal that one Mr. Rajesh Shah had filed a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1998 for permanent injunction against Mr. Raghunath Shripati Chavan and others. In the said suit, Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter of the RRCHS, was also made a party respondent. The other members of the ‘Chavan Family’ were also made respondents. In the said suit, Mr. Rajesh Shah had claimed that he had purchased 75% share of the subject land from some of the co-owners of the said land. The said co-owners had executed the Development Agreement dated 16th February 1995 and had granted development rights as well as executed Power of Attorney to the plaintiff along with one Mr. Yogesh Kariya. In the said proceedings, Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter of the RRCHS had filed an affidavit dated 28th August 1998, wherein it was stated that the owners/ holders of the said land had executed the Development Agreement dated 25th July 1992 and thereafter the Supplementary Agreement dated 23rd June 1995 in his favour and that the possession of the said property to the extent of their share had been delivered to him. He had also placed on record the copies of the General Power of Attorney dated 22nd June 1995 and 12th February 1996 executed by one Mr. Kesu Hari Chavan and others in his favour.

54. It will be relevant to reproduce Para 2 of the Affidavit dated 28th August 1998 filed by Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter, RRCHS in Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1998, which reads thus: “2. It is submitted that the owners/holders of the suit property Shri Abu G. Chavan, Sarubai S. Chavan, Pandurang Bhau Chavan, Kesu Hari Chavan, Dattatraya R. Chavan, Narayan Nana Chavan, Rakhmabai Vithal Chavan and others have executed Development agreement 25/7/92 and thereafter supplementary agreement dated 23/6/95 in favour of this applicant. The said owners have also delivered the possession of the suit property to the extent of their share to this applicant. 1418 As such this applicant is in possession of the suit property to the extent of the undivided share of the above owners. In view of the said fact this applicant is necessary party to the suit. It is submitted that if any order is passed in the suit the same may seriously affect the right of this applicant and the applicant may suffer irreparable loss and hardship. The orders passed in the suit may also lead to multiplicity of litigation as such it is necessary that this third party may be added as the Defendant to the suit. If this applicant is added as the necessary party to the suit no hardship or injustice will be caused either to the plaintiff or the Defendant, on the contrary this applicant may suffer irreparable loss and hardship, hence in the interest of justice this applicant may please be added as the necessary party to the suit. The details of this applicant is as under: SHRI ANIRUDDH P. DESHPANDE AGE : 37 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS RESIDING AT : 66/2, APEKSHA, OPPOSITE LAW COLLEGE, PUNE 411 004.”

55. It is further to be noted that another suit being Civil Suit No.1364 of 1998 was filed by one Mr. Raju Shivaji Bhonsale and another challenging the allotment of the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’. In the said suit also, Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter of the RRCHS was made a party respondent. Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande had also filed an affidavit dated 14th February 2005 in the said suit inter alia stating therein that during 1995 Mr. Chavan and others had granted the Development Rights in his favour.

56. It is further to be noted that the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ had entered into Development Agreement with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande on 18th August 1998.

57. It is further to be noted that an order approving the allotment of the land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’ was passed by the Government vide order dated 4th August 1998, whereas the actual allotment of land by the Collector is by order dated 28th August 1998.

58. It is relevant to note that in the civil suit filed by Mr. Rajesh Shah, a Compromise Pursis dated 29th August 1998 was filed by the members [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra of the ‘Chavan Family’, Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande and Mr. Rajesh Shah, which reads thus: “i) the members of the Chavan family (allottees of the said land) and Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande (Chief Promoter of the Richie Rich Co-operative Housing Society) admit, agree and confirm that (a) the Development Agreement dated 16.2.1995 pertaining to the said land has been executed by the three members of the Chavan family in favour of Mr. Rajesh Shah and Mr. Yogesh Kariya, and (b) the possession of the said property was delivered to Mr. Rajesh Shah and Yogesh Shah to the extent of shares of owners executing the agreement. ii) the Agreement dated 25.7.1992 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 23.6.1995 and Agreement dated 16.2.1995 executed by the other owners in favour of Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande is also valid and subsisting and that the possession of the said property has been given to him to the extent of shares of the owners executing the said agreement. iii) the said land is exclusively in the joint possession of Mr. Rajesh Shah, Mr. Yogesh Kariya, Raghunath Chavan and Aniruddha P. Deshpande. iv) an Agreement has been reached between Mr. Rajesh Shah and Aniruddha P. Deshpande that out of the said land Mr. Shah and Mr. Kariya shall be entitled to an area of 8 acres and Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande shall be entitled to the balance area. They shall be deemed to be in possession of the respective area; and v) Mr. Raghunath Chavan and other 19 members of Chavan family have agreed to sell/grant development rights for the respective area to Mr. Rajesh Chavan and Mr. Yogesh Kariya and Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande.”

59. On the very same date i.e., 29th August 1998, after recording the Compromise Pursis, the said civil suit being Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1998 came to be disposed of. 1420

60. We ask a question to ourselves as to whether the short span within which the decision was taken by the Government to allot the land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’, the actual allotment of the land to the ‘Chavan Family’ by the Collector and the disposal of the suit in terms of the compromise on the very next day, is merely a coincidence.

61. It is further to be noted that the allotment order dated 28th August 1998, specifically prohibited the ‘Chavan Family’ in view of conditions (2) and (4), reproduced hereinabove, from mortgaging, donating, selling, partitioning or exchanging in any other manner, or allotting the said land on lease to any other person without the prior permission of the District Collector. The allotment order further mandated the ‘Chavan Family’ to bring the said land under cultivation within a period of two years from the date of the allotment. It further prohibited the said land from being used for any other purpose than agricultural purpose.

62. In the light of these glaring facts, can it be said that the RRCHS is a bona fide purchaser? The records amply speak for themselves.

63. It is amply clear that though the Eksali (yearly) lease expired in 1969, the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ were silent for a period of almost 20 years. Things started moving only in 1988. During the said period, much before the allotment could be done, the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ had already started negotiating the deals with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, the Chief Promoter of RRCHS and Mr. Rajesh Shah. The files were moving at different levels from 1991 to 1998, culminating in the final allotment in the year 1998. In the meantime, all the Development Rights in the land already stood transferred either to Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, the Chief Promoter of the RRCHS or to Mr. Rajesh Shah. For the said purpose, not only had some of the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ entered into a Development Agreement, but they had also executed Power of Attorney in favour of said Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande surrendering their entire rights in his favour.

64. In that view of the matter, we find no substance in the argument that the RRCHS 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 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, [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra even the status of a person who belongs to backward class was being misused. e. 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”.

65. An alternate submission made on behalf of the RRCHS is that since they are the bona fide purchaser of the subject land from the members of the ‘Chavan Family’, they would be entitled to allotment of an alternate piece of land as has been done by this Court in I.A. No.2771 of 2009.

66. The facts in the present case and the facts in I.A. No.2771 of 2009 are totally different. In the said case (i.e. I.A. No.2771 of 2009), the State had illegally taken possession of the land belonging to the predecessor- in-title of the applicants therein. Not only that, but the said land was given to the Armament Research Development Establishment Institute (“ARDEI” for short), which was a unit of Defence Department of the Union of India. There was no acquisition proceeding. The applicants therein fought right from the Trial Court to this Court and succeeded in getting a decree for possession of the land. When they put the decree in execution, the ARDEI opposed the same contending therein that an Armament Defence establishment was constructed thereon.

67. Faced with this situation and realizing its mistake, the State Government allotted another piece of land in lieu of the land which was already given in possession of the ARDEI. However, the record subsequently revealed that the land which was allotted to the applicants therein was notified as a Forest Land.

68. The Court noted the following special circumstances in the said case: (i) “That the applicants had succeeded upto this Court and as such, they cannot be denied the benefits of the decree passed in their favour; (ii) That the action of the State Government in encroaching upon the land of a citizen was itself illegal; (iii) The State Government ought to have taken due precautions before allotting an alternate piece of land to the applicants; 1422 (iv) That the land which was notified as a Forest Land could not have been allotted; (v) That the State ought to have allotted a land, which had a clear title and also had a marketable value; and (vi) That after the proceedings had reached finality in favour of the petitioners/applicants, the matter was lingering in the Court for almost 15 years.”

69. In the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court passed the order dated 23rd July 2024, which is as under: “8. We, therefore, direct the State Government to come with a clear stand: i. As to whether another piece of equivalent land will be offered to the petitioner(s)/applicant(s); or ii. As to whether adequate compensation would be paid to the petitioner(s)/applicant(s); or iii. As to whether the State Government proposes to move the Central Government for denotification of the said land as forest land.”

70. Thereafter, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai tendered an undertaking before this Court, agreeing to allot an alternate piece of land in favour of the applicants therein. Accepting the said undertaking, this Court passed the order dated 9th September, 2024, which is as under: “7. We accept the undertaking and take it on record. However, in addition, we direct that the Collector, Pune shall personally ensure that the alternate land admeasuring 24 acres 38 guntas out of Survey No.7 situated at Mouje Yewalewadi, Tq. Haveli, District Pune would be measured and demarcated and thereafter peaceful and vacant possession of the said land would be handed over to the applicants/petitioners. 8. It is needless to state that if any encroachments are there on the said land, the same shall be removed prior to the said land being handed over to the applicants/ petitioners. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra 9. Insofar as the modification to be issued under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for changing the land use in question from Private/ Semi-Private to Residential is concerned, we direct that the said procedure shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 10. It is further directed that all the formalities for conveying the title of the said land in favour of the applicants/ petitioners shall be completed within a period of six weeks from today.” 71. That is not the case here. The RRCHS knowing very well that the land was a Forest Land had entered into transactions with the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ much prior to the land even being allotted in their favour. The transactions between the RRCHS and the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ were totally illegal and contrary to the conditions on which the land was allotted to the ‘Chavan Family’. As per the conditions of allotment, the land or any part thereof could not have been transferred by the ‘Chavan Family’ to anyone without the prior permission of the District Collector. The land was required to be brought under cultivation within a period of two years from the date of the allotment and that the land or any part thereof was not to be used for any other purpose than the agricultural purpose. 72. As already discussed hereinabove, the RRCHS through Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande had already entered into transactions with the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ much before the land was allotted in their favour. The members of the ‘Chavan Family’ had given the developmental rights as well as executed Power of Attorney in favour of said Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande even prior to the allotment of land in their favour. As discussed hereinabove, immediately on the next day on which the land was allotted in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’, the suit with regard to the subject property was compromised between Mr. Rajesh Shah, plaintiff and Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande. It is thus clear that the case of the RRCHS, in no way, bears any resemblance to the case in I.A.No. 2771 of 2009. 73. The RRCHS through Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande had, with open eyes, entered into illegal transactions with the members of the ‘Chavan Family’. If a direction, as sought by the applicant-RRCHS 1424 is issued, it will amount to granting a premium to the RRCHS for the illegalities committed by them. 74. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the said submission. f. As to whether the doctrine of public trust would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 75. That leaves us with the issue with regard to the doctrine of public trust. 76. Recently, this Court in the case of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others12 had an occasion to consider the importance of doctrine of public trust in the environmental matters. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court: “151. The importance of the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine in environmental and ecological matters has been explained by this Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath. This Court has elaborately referred to various articles and the judgments on the issue to come to a conclusion that the ‘public trust’ doctrine is a part of the law of the land in the following paragraphs: “23. The notion that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristic is finding its way into the law of the land. The need to protect the environment and ecology has been summed up by David B. Hunter (University of Michigan) in an article titled An ecological perspective on property : A call for judicial protection of the public’s interest in environmentally critical resources published in Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 12 1988, p. 311 is in the following words: 2024 INSC 178 : (2025) 2 SCC 641 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra “Another major ecological tenet is that the world is finite. The earth can support only so many people and only so much human activity before limits are reached. This lesson was driven home by the oil crisis of the 1970s as well as by the pesticide scare of the 1960s. The current deterioration of the ozone layer is another vivid example of the complex, unpredictable and potentially catastrophic effects posed by our disregard of the environmental limits to economic growth. The absolute finiteness of the environment, when coupled with human dependency on the environment, leads to the unquestionable result that human activities will at some point be constrained. ‘Human activity finds in the natural world its external limits. In short, the environment imposes constraints on our freedom; these constraints are not the product of value choices but of the scientific imperative of the environment’s limitations. Reliance on improving technology can delay temporarily, but not forever, the inevitable constraints. There is a limit to the capacity of the environment to service … growth, both in providing raw materials and in assimilating by-product wastes due to consumption. The largesse of technology can only postpone or disguise the inevitable.’ Professor Barbara Ward has written of this ecological imperative in particularly vivid language: ‘We can forget moral imperatives. But today the morals of respect and care and modesty come to us in a form we 1426 cannot evade. We cannot cheat on DNA. We cannot get round photosynthesis. We cannot say I am not going to give a damn about phytoplankton. All these tiny mechanisms provide the preconditions of our planetary life. To say we do not care is to say in the most literal sense that “we choose death”.’ There is a commonly-recognized link between laws and social values, but to ecologists a balance between laws and values is not alone sufficient to ensure a stable relationship between humans and their environment. Laws and values must also contend with the constraints imposed by the outside environment. Unfortunately, current legal doctrine rarely accounts for such constraints, and thus environmental stability is threatened. Historically, we have changed the environment to fit our conceptions of property. We have fenced, plowed and paved. The environment has proven malleable and to a large extent still is. But there is a limit to this malleability, and certain types of ecologically important resources — for example, wetlands and riparian forests — can no longer be destroyed without enormous long-term effects on environmental and therefore social stability. To ecologists, the need for preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value choices but rather is the necessary result of objective observations of the laws of nature. In sum, ecologists view the environmental sciences as providing us with certain laws [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra of nature. These laws, just like our own laws, restrict our freedom of conduct and choice. Unlike our laws, the laws of nature cannot be changed by legislative fiat; they are imposed on us by the natural world. An understanding of the laws of nature must therefore inform all of our social institutions.” 24. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”. It was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Our contemporary concern about “the environment” bear a very close conceptual relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were either owned by no one (res nullious) or by every one in common (res communious). Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan — proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine — in an erudite article “Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law : Effective Judicial Intervention”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, Part 1 p. 473, has given the historical background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under: “The source of modern public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention in Roman and English law — 1428 the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasized. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes was distinguished from general public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties — such as the seashore, highways, and running water — ‘perpetual use was dedicated to the public’, it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government.” 25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra “Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust : first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses.” 26. The American law on the subject is primarily based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois, [146 US 387 (1892) : 36 L.Ed. 1018]. In the year 1869 the Illinois Legislature made a substantial grant of submerged lands — a mile strip along the shores of Lake Michigan extending one mile out from the shoreline — to the Illinois Central Railroad. In 1873, the Legislature changed its mind and repealed the 1869 grant. The State of Illinois sued to quit title. The Court while accepting the stand of the State of Illinois held that the title of the State in the land in dispute was a title different in character from that which the State held in lands intended for sale. It was different from the title which the United States held in public lands which were open to preemption and sale. It was a title held in trust — for the people of the State that they may enjoy the navigation of the water, carry on commerce over them and have liberty of fishing therein free from obstruction or interference of private parties. The abdication of the general control of the State over lands in dispute was not consistent with the exercise of the trust which required the Government of the State to preserve such waters for the use of the public. According to 1430 Professor Sax the Court in Illinois Central [146 US 387 : 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892)] “articulated a principle that has become the central substantive thought in public trust litigation. When a State holds a resource which is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with considerable skepticism upon any governmental conduct which is calculated either to relocate that resource to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties”. 27. In Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission, [350 Mass 410 (1966)] the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts took the first major step in developing the doctrine applicable to changes in the use of lands dedicated to the public interest. In 1886 a group of citizens interested in preserving Mount Greylock as an unspoiled natural forest, promoted the creation of an association for the purpose of laying out a public park on it. The State ultimately acquired about 9000 acres, and the legislature enacted a statute creating the Greylock Reservation Commission. In the year 1953, the legislature enacted a statute creating an Authority to construct and operate on Mount Greylock an Aerial Tramway and certain other facilities and it authorised the Commission to lease to the Authority any portion of the Mount Greylock Reservation. Before the project commenced, five citizens brought an action against both the Greylock Reservation Commission and the Tramway Authority. The plaintiffs brought the suit as beneficiaries of the public trust. The Court held both the lease and the management agreement invalid on the ground that they were in excess of the statutory grant of the authority. The crucial passage in the judgment of the Court is as under: [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra “The profit-sharing feature and some aspects of the project itself strongly suggest a commercial enterprise. In addition to the absence of any clear or express statutory authorization of as broad a delegation of responsibility by the Authority as is given by the management agreement, we find no express grant to the Authority or power to permit use of public lands and of the Authority’s borrowed funds for what seems, in part at least, a commercial venture for private profit.” Professor Sax’s comments on the above-quoted paragraph from Gould decision are as under: “It hardly seems surprising, then, that the court questioned why a State should subordinate a public park, serving a useful purpose as relatively undeveloped land, to the demands of private investors for building such a commercial facility. The court, faced with such a situation, could hardly have been expected to have treated the case as if it involved nothing but formal legal issues concerning the State’s authority to change the use of a certain tract of land…. Gould, like Illinois Central, was concerned with the most overt sort of imposition on the public interest : commercial interests had obtained advantages which infringed directly on public uses and promoted private profits. But the Massachusetts court has also confronted a more pervasive, if more subtle, problem — that concerning projects which clearly have some public justification. Such cases arise when, for example, a highway department seeks to take a piece of parkland or to fill a wetland.” 1432 28. In Sacco v. Development of Public Works, [532 Mass 670], the Massachusetts Court restrained the Department of Public Works from filling a great pond as part of its plan to relocate part of State Highway. The Department purported to act under the legislative authority. The court found the statutory power inadequate and held as under: “the improvement of public lands contemplated by this section does not include the widening of a State highway. It seems rather that the improvement of public lands which the legislature provided for … is to preserve such lands so that they may be enjoyed by the people for recreational purposes.” 29. In Robbins v. Deptt. of Public Works, [244 NE 2d 577], the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts restrained the Public Works Department from acquiring Fowl Meadows, “wetlands of considerable natural beauty … often used for nature study and recreation” for highway use. 30. Professor Sax in the article (Michigan Law Review) refers to Priewev v. Wisconsin State Land and Improvement Co., [93 Wis 534 (1896)], Crawford County Lever and Drainage Distt. No. 1, [182 Wis 404], City of Milwaukee v. State, [193 Wis 423], State v. Public Service Commission, [275 Wis 112] and opines that “the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has probably made a more conscientious effort to rise above rhetoric and to work out a reasonable meaning for the public trust doctrine than have the courts of any other State”. 31. Professor Sax stated the scope of the public trust doctrine in the following words: [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra “If any of the analysis in this Article makes sense, it is clear that the judicial techniques developed in public trust cases need not be limited either to these few conventional interests or to questions of disposition of public properties. Public trust problems are found whenever governmental regulation comes into question, and they occur in a wide range of situations in which diffused public interests need protection against tightly organized groups with clear and immediate goals. Thus, it seems that the delicate mixture of procedural and substantive protections which the courts have applied in conventional public trust cases would be equally applicable and equally appropriate in controversies involving air pollution, the dissemination of pesticides, the location of rights of way for utilities, and strip mining of wetland filling on private lands in a State where governmental permits are required.” 32. We may at this stage refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, [33 Cal 3d 419]. The case is popularly known as “the Mono Lake case”. Mono Lake is the second largest lake in California. The lake is saline. It contains no fish but supports a large population of brine shrimp which feed vast numbers of nesting and migrating birds. Islands in the lake protect a large breeding colony of California gulls, and the lake itself serves as a haven on the migration route for thousands of birds. Towers and spires of tura (sic) on the north and south shores are matters of geological interest and a tourist attraction. In 1940, the Division of Water Resources granted 1434 the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles a permit to appropriate virtually the entire flow of 4 of the 5 streams flowing into the lake. As a result of these diversions, the level of the lake dropped, the surface area diminished, the gulls were abandoning the lake and the scenic beauty and the ecological values of Mono Lake were imperilled. The plaintiffs environmentalist — using the public trust doctrine — filed a law suit against Los Angeles Water Diversions. The case eventually came to the California Supreme Court, on a Federal Trial Judge’s request for clarification of the State’s public trust doctrine. The Court explained the concept of public trust doctrine in the following words: “‘By the law of nature these things are common to mankind — the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.’ (Institutes of Justinian 2.1.1) From this origin in Roman law, the English common law evolved the concept of the public trust, under which the sovereign owns ‘all of its navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath them as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people.’” The Court explained the purpose of the public trust as under: “The objective of the public trust has evolved in tandem with the changing public perception of the values and uses of waterways. As we observed in Marks v. Whitney, [6 Cal 3d 251], ‘[p] ublic trust easements (were) traditionally defined in terms of navigation, commerce and fisheries. They have been held to include the right to fish, hunt, bathe, [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra swim, to use for boating and general recreation purposes the navigable waters of the State, and to use the bottom of the navigable waters for anchoring, standing, or other purposes. We went on, however, to hold that the traditional triad of uses — navigation, commerce and fishing — did not limit the public interest in the trust res. In language of special importance to the present setting, we stated that ‘[t]he public uses to which tidelands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. In administering the trust the State is not burdened with an outmoded classification favouring one mode of utilization over another. There is a growing public recognition that one of the important public uses of the tidelands — a use encompassed within the tidelands trust — is the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favourably affect the scenery and climate of the area.’ Mono Lake is a navigable waterway. It supports a small local industry which harvests brine shrimp for sale as fish food, which endeavour probably qualifies the lake as a ‘fishery’ under the traditional public trust cases. The principal values plaintiffs seek to protect, however, are recreational and ecological — the scenic views of the lake and its shore, the purity of the air, and the use of the lake for nesting and feeding by birds. Under Marks v. Whitney, [6 Cal 3d 251], it is clear that 1436 protection of these values is among the purposes of the public trust.” The Court summed up the powers of the State as trustee in the following words: “Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust….” The Supreme Court of California, inter alia, reached the following conclusion: “The State has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible. Just as the history of this State shows that appropriation may be necessary for efficient use of water despite unavoidable harm to public trust values, it demonstrates that an appropriative water rights system administered without consideration of the public trust may cause unnecessary and unjustified harm to trust interests. (See Johnson, 14 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 233, 256-57/; Robie, Some Reflections on Environmental Considerations in Water Rights Administration, 2 Ecology L.Q. 695, 710-711 (1972); Comment, 33 Hastings L.J. 653, 654.) As a matter of practical necessity, the State may have to approve appropriations despite foreseeable harm to public trust uses. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra In so doing, however, the State must bear in mind its duty as trustee to consider the effect of the taking on the public trust (see United Plainsmen v. N.D. State Water Cons. Comm’n, [247 NW 2d 457 (ND 1976)] at pp. 462-463, and to preserve, so far as consistent with the public interest, the uses protected by the trust.” The Court finally came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could rely on the public trust doctrine in seeking reconsideration of the allocation of the waters of the Mono basin. 33. It is no doubt correct that the public trust doctrine under the English common law extended only to certain traditional uses such as navigation, commerce and fishing. But the American Courts in recent cases have expanded the concept of the public trust doctrine. The observations of the Supreme Court of California in Mono Lake case, [33 Cal 3d 419] clearly show the judicial concern in protecting all ecologically important lands, for example fresh water, wetlands or riparian forests. The observations of the Court in Mono Lake case, [33 Cal 3d 419] to the effect that the protection of ecological values is among the purposes of public trust, may give rise to an argument that the ecology and the environment protection is a relevant factor to determine which lands, waters or airs are protected by the public trust doctrine. The Courts in United States are finally beginning to adopt this reasoning and are expanding the public trust to encompass new types of lands and waters. In Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, [108 S.Ct. 791 (1988)] the United States Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s extension of public trust doctrine to lands underlying non-navigable tidal areas. The majority judgment adopted ecological 1438 concepts to determine which lands can be considered tide lands. Phillips Petroleum case, [108 S.Ct. 791 (1988)] assumes importance because the Supreme Court expanded the public trust doctrine to identify the tide lands not on commercial considerations but on ecological concepts. We see no reason why the public trust doctrine should not be expanded to include all ecosystems operating in our natural resources. 34. Our legal system-based on English common law-includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. 35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.” 152. This Court in unequivocal terms has held that the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources. 153. The law with regard to the importance of the ‘public trust’ doctrine in ecological/environmental matters has further been evolved and expanded by this Court in subsequent judgments. In the case of Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala11, this Court has referred to some of the judgments which followed the law laid down in the case of Kamal Nath (supra), which are as under: “6. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, [(1999) 6 SCC 464], the Court applied the public trust doctrine for upholding the order of the Allahabad High Court which had quashed the decision of Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika permitting appellant M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. to construct an underground shopping complex in Jhandewala Park, Aminabad Market, Lucknow, and directed demolition of the construction made on the park land. The High Court had 1440 noted that Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika had entered into an agreement with the appellant for construction of shopping complex and given it full freedom to lease out the shops and also to sign agreement on its behalf and held that this was impermissible. On appeal by the builders, this Court held that the terms of agreement were unreasonable, unfair and atrocious. The Court then invoked the public trust doctrine and held that being a trustee of the park on behalf of the public, the Nagar Mahapalika could not have transferred the same to the private builder and thereby deprived the residents of the area of the quality of life to which they were entitled under the Constitution and municipal laws. 7. In Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., [(2006) 3 SCC 549], this Court again invoked the public trust doctrine in a matter involving the challenge to the systematic destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks in Tirupati Town, referred to some judicial precedents including M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388], M.I. Builders (P) Ltd., [(1999) 6 SCC 464], National Audubon Society [National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 658 P 2d 709 : 33 Cal 3d 419 (1983)] and observed : (Intellectuals Forum case, [(2006) 3 SCC 549], SCC p. 575, para 76) “76. … This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts must make a distinction between the Government’s general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources….” (emphasis in original) 8. In Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, [(2009) 3 SCC 571 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 877], this Court was called upon to consider whether the appellant was entitled to block the passage to the beach by erecting a fence in the garb of protecting its property. After noticing the judgments to which reference has been made hereinabove, the Court held : (SCC pp. 614-15 & 619, paras 53-55 & 65) “53. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management thereof. 54. The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations upon government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations. For 1442 example, renewable and non-renewable resources, associated uses, ecological values or objects in which the public has a special interest (i.e. public lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the State not to impair such resources, uses or values, even if private interests are involved. The same obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments, parks, the public domain and other public assets. Professor Joseph L. Sax in his classic article, ‘The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law : Effective Judicial Intervention’ (1970), indicates that the public trust doctrine, of all concepts known to law, constitutes the best practical and philosophical premise and legal tool for protecting public rights and for protecting and managing resources, ecological values or objects held in trust. 55. The public trust doctrine is a tool for exerting long-established public rights over short-term public rights and private gain. Today every person exercising his or her right to use the air, water, or land and associated natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that same resource or property for the long-term and enjoyment by future generations. To say it another way, a landowner or lessee and a water right holder has an obligation to use such resources in a manner as not to impair or diminish the people's rights and the people's long-term interest in that property or resource, including downslope lands, waters and resources. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra 65. We reiterate that natural resources including forests, water bodies, rivers, seashores, etc. are held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the people and especially the future generations. These constitute common properties and people are entitled to uninterrupted use thereof. The State cannot transfer public trust properties to a private party, if such a transfer interferes with the right of the public and the court can invoke the public trust doctrine and take affirmative action for protecting the right of people to have access to light, air and water and also for protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural ecosystems.” 154. The importance of the doctrine of ‘public trust’ has further been emphasized in the case of Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga (2020) 15 SCC 784 to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a party.” 77. In the present case, it appears that the then Minister for Revenue and the then Divisional Commissioner had totally given a go-bye to the doctrine of public trust. The facts appearing on the record are glaring. 78. As already discussed hereinabove, as per the order of the Tehsildar, Haveli, the land was allotted to the ‘Chavan Family’ on Eksali (yearly) lease and as per the undertaking of the ‘Chavan Family’ the possession of the land was to be returned on the expiry of the one year and there has been no further renewal. It further appears that thereafter the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ were in deep slumber. 79. From the records, it appears that one Mr. R.S. Chauhan, a retired Police Inspector, residing in Pune and others, for the first time, started agitating their rights on 4th August 1988. They had addressed communications dated 4th August 1988, 30th August 1988 and 27th December 1990 for allotment of subject land on permanent basis for cultivation in lieu of their land at Survey No. 37, acquired for Kondhwa Leprosy Hospital. 1444 80. It appears that thereafter for the first time the Collector, Pune on 19th June 1991 recommended the permanent allotment of the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’ only insofar as 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas are concerned. The Collector, Pune specifically observed that the ‘Chavan Family’ had the cultivation rights from 1969 only on 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas, whereas the rest of the land was reserved for village animal feeding. The Collector, Pune, therefore, recommended allotment of only 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas to the ‘Chavan Family’ and also recommended that possession of rest of the land should be handed over to the Forest Department. 81. It is to be noted that the office of the Collector, Pune on 26th August 1994, rejected the request of the Executive Engineer, MSEB for establishment of High-Tension Sub-Station on the ground that the land in question was reserved as “Forest Land”. 82. The Divisional Commissioner in his letter dated 30th November 1994 addressed to the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya noted that the Collector, Pune had opined that the ‘Chavan Family’ was entitled only to 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas. He also recorded the objection of the Forest Department to the effect that the Forest Department had asked for possession of the subject land for the purposes of afforestation. 83. In spite of noticing all of these facts, the Divisional Commissioner recommended that the entire subject land of 11 Hectare 89 Are be granted to the ‘Chavan Family’. Thereafter the matter remained pending at the level of the State Government. 84. The then Minister for Revenue considered the proposal and came to a conclusion that the provisions of the 1980 FC Act were not applicable to the present case. However, he decided to seek the opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Law and Judiciary Department on 27th July 1998, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) opined that the permission of the Government of India is not necessary. While doing so, he specifically ignored the specific judgment of this Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works (supra) and the direction of this Court dated 12th December 1996 in the present proceedings. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra 85. Almost within a week thereafter, i.e. on 4th August 1998, the Government of Maharashtra issued an order allotting the land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’. A corrigendum thereto, vide order dated 13th August 1998, specifically provided that the allotment of land was specifically for “Agricultural purpose”. The Collector, Pune thereafter within a short span, i.e. on 28th August 1998, allotted the subject land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’. 86. The alarming speed with which the events took place from July to August 1998 speaks volumes. 87. As already discussed hereinabove, though the ‘Chavan Family’ had already entered into transactions with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, the Chief Promoter of the RRCHS, they transferred the land in favour of RRCHS on 19th December 1998. This is again done in breach of the allotment order of 28th August 1998. The Divisional Commissioner thereafter vide order dated 30th October 1999, permitted the sale of the subject land to the RRCHS on payment of 75% of the price fixed by the Collector, Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Pune. 88. It is to be noted that though the powers for grant of permission are with the Collector, it is the Divisional Commissioner who exercised the said powers for reasons best known to him. Thereafter the District Collector granted permission for use of the subject land for Non-Agricultural purposes on 8th July 2005. 89. It is to be noted that all this has been done in the teeth of various communications of the Forest Department since 1991 requesting the Revenue Department to transfer the land to the Forest Department. It was also brought to the notice of the Revenue Authorities by the Forest Department that a plantation had already been carried out on the subject land in the year 1995-96. 90. In the light of these glaring facts, we have no hesitation in holding that 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. 91. In the conclusion, we have no hesitation to hold that the allotment of the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’ was in blatant disregard to the provisions of the law inasmuch as it was violative of 1446 Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act as well as the directions issued by this Court from time to time. We also hold that the allotment of the subject land was made, ignoring the communications of the Forest Department which had insisted that the said land could not be allotted inasmuch as, the same was classified as a Forest Land. We also have no hesitation to hold that the then Minister for Revenue and the then Divisional Commissioner, Pune have given a total go-bye to the doctrine of public trust inasmuch as, valuable forest land was allotted to the ‘Chavan Family’ de hors the provisions of the law. 92. While hearing this matter, another glaring issue has come to the notice of the Court. 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/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 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. 93. The report of the CEC would also reveal that there is material to show that many of the Forest Lands have been allotted to private individuals/institutions for non-forestry purposes. Any such allotment after 12th December 1996, i.e., the date on which the directions were given by this Court in the present proceedings, would not be sustainable in law. 94. It would, therefore, be imperative that wherever it is possible to take back the possession of such land, the State/Union Territory 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/Union Territories should recover the cost of the land from such individuals/institutions and use the said amount for the purpose of afforestation, restoration and conservation. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra VI. CONCLUSION 95. We, therefore, dispose of the Interlocutory Applications and the Writ Petition in the following terms: (i) We hold that the allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land in Survey No.21 (old Survey No.20A) Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune for agriculture purposes on 28th August 1998 and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of RRCHS on 30th October 1999 was totally illegal; (ii) We further hold that Environmental Clearance granted by the MoEF on 3rd July 2007 to RRCHS is illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside; (iii) Since the State of Maharashtra has recalled the communication dated 4th August 1998 approving the allotment of the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’, we uphold the same; (iv) We direct that the possession of the subject land, which is reserved as a Forest Land, but is in possession of the Revenue Department, should be handed over to the Forest Department within a period of three months from today; (v) We further direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Investigation Teams for the purpose of examining as to whether any of the reserved Forest Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to any private individuals/institutions for any purpose other than the forestry purpose; (vi) The State Governments and the Union Territories are also directed to take steps to take back the possession of the land from the persons/institutions in possession of such lands and handover the same to the Forest Department. 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; and (vii) We further direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special 1448 Teams to ensure that all such transfers take place within a period of one year from today. Needless to state that hereinafter such land should be used only for the purpose of afforestation. 96. Before we part with this judgment, we place on record our deep appreciation for Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel, ably assisted by Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel, for rendering valuable assistance to this Court as Amicus Curiae. We also place on record our appreciation for the efforts put in by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shri Shekhar Naphade and Shri Aniruddha Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. Result of the case: Writ petition and interlocutory applications disposed of. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain