Supreme Court refuses to roll back directions on illegally diverted forest land

The Supreme Court has decided not to reverse its earlier orders mandating states and Union territories to form special investigation teams (SITs) to uncover and revert illegally diverted forest land back to the forest department. On August 18, a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant dismissed a curative petition filed against the court's May 15, 2025 ruling in the Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society (RRCHS) case.

This case involved the allotment of 11.89 hectares of land within a reserved forest area in Pune, Maharashtra to the RRCHS in October 1999. The Supreme Court had previously set aside this allotment, prompting the court to direct all states and Union territories to identify any reserved forest land that had been sold or transferred to private entities without proper authorization.

The court ruled that the curative petition, which was filed after the review petition was dismissed in August 2025, did not have sufficient grounds to be entertained, citing the precedent set in the Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra case from 2002. The RRCHS had appealed after its review petition was rejected by a bench led by then Chief Justice BR Gavai in May 2025.

The curative petition was filed by senior advocate Dama Sesadari Naidu, who argued that there were valid reasons to file a curative petition. The court highlighted the serious allegations in the May 2025 judgment, which revealed the involvement of the then Maharashtra revenue minister and the divisional commissioner in bypassing the Forest Conservation Act to approve the RRCHS's allotment of land.

Despite objections from bureaucrats regarding the land's intended agricultural use, these concerns were disregarded, and the 1996 top court decision in the TN Godavarman case, which interpreted the definition of forests under the Forest Conservation Act broadly, was also ignored. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the need for states and Union territories to establish SITs to investigate whether any reserved forest land held by revenue departments had been transferred to private individuals or institutions for purposes other than forestry.

If such land was found to have been misappropriated, the court directed these entities to return the land to the forest department or reimburse the cost, which should then be used for forest development. This verdict underscored the court's commitment to preventing the conversion of forest land for commercial gain through corrupt practices.