NGT upholds SC directive in reserved forest land case, warns of contempt action
The directive comes as the NGT's western bench in Pune disposed of a case related to the ownership of over 14,000 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune district. The case was taken up suo moto, following a report published by Hindustan Times on August 28, 2024 that revealed how large swathes of forest land—technically in the custody of the forest department—had been illegally allotted to private entities by the revenue department in violation of the Forest Conservation Act 1980.
The NGT's decision is based on the SC's judgement dated May 15, 2025, which dealt with the controversial transfer of 29 acres and 15 gunthas of reserved forest land in Kondhwa Budruk to Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society. The apex court termed that transfer as 'totally illegal' and cancelled the environmental clearance granted to the project.
The apex court's ruling had broader implications: It directed all state governments and union territories to review forest lands in the custody of revenue departments. Special investigation teams (SITs) were to be constituted to identify similar such allotments made for non-forestry purposes. The SC ordered that all such lands be returned to the forest department within three months. Where recovery is not possible, authorities must recover the market value from the allottees, and use the funds exclusively for afforestation and forest regeneration.
During the NGT hearing on Wednesday, the forest department submitted an affidavit confirming that the SC's ruling applies to the Pune case as well. Acknowledging this, the tribunal noted that no fresh directions are necessary. However, it stressed that any failure to implement the apex court's directions should be taken directly to the apex court.
Commenting on the current status of the land transfer in the instant case, Mahadev Mohite, deputy conservator of forests, Pune, said, 'The Kondhwa land has already been transferred to the forest department, and demarcation work will begin soon. For the remaining land, we are awaiting guidelines from the SIT, which is in its final stages of formation.'
Mohite added that the forest department is coordinating with district authorities and verifying all related land records. 'Once procedural clearance and SIT guidelines are in place, appropriate action will follow,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Driver's murder: YSRCP MLC's wife moves Andhra Pradesh high court over investigation notices
Vijayawada: Lakshmi Durga, the wife of YSRCP MLC Ananta Uday Bhaskar (alias Ananta Babu), has moved the high court challenging the notices issued by the investigating officer in the case involving the murder of Subrahmanyam, the MLC's former driver. She sought directions to quash the notices issued under section 160 of CrPC as part of further investigation of the case. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the notices issued to Lakshmi Durga are contrary to the directions issued by the high court, which categorically said the investigation officer should conduct only a further investigation, not a reinvestigation of the case. However, in the absence of placing any new material on record, issuing notices to Lakshmi Durga would be a reinvestigation, not a further investigation, the counsel argued. Arguing on behalf of the police, public prosecutor Menda Lakshmi Narayana said the petition is infructuous as the notices have already been issued to others and statements have been recorded. He said there have been many judgements by the Supreme Court where the apex court said the investigation officer can summon anyone as part of further investigation of the case. He sought time to submit the details of Supreme Court orders setting forth judicial precedence in the matter. Considering the arguments, Justice Venkata Jyotirmayi Pratapa posted the matter for further hearing to Thursday.
The Hindu
40 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Allahabad HC judge has made a mockery of justice, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has passed a scathing order reprimanding an Allahabad High Court judge, choosing to name him while saying that he not only 'cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice'. The order brought to fore the Supreme Court's apprehensions about the High Court judiciary's performance. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan wrote in a 19-page order dictated in open court on August 4 and published on Tuesday. The apex court recorded that the High Court judge in question, Justice Prashant Kumar, found nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. In fact, the Bench said the High Court judge had found that registering a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' would be a quicker way to get the unpaid balance. A civil suit would be too laborious and time-consuming. 'The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time… It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process', the Supreme Court noted. Justice Pardiwala, the lead judge on the apex court Bench, asked how the ingredients of the offence of 'criminal breach of trust' would apply to a sale transaction. The offence would only arise if there was a fraudulent misappropriation of an 'entrusted' property. 'Mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment,' the apex court explained. Interestingly, even the local police had refused to lodge a criminal case, saying the nature of the dispute was purely civil. However, the Magistrate had gone ahead to register a criminal case, oblivious of the point that the dispute concerned only a sale transaction and payment of a balance amount. Justice Kumar had seconded the Magistrate's point of view, refusing to quash the criminal case. 'We are not taken by surprise with the Magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust … However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust,' the apex court rued. It further asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to remove Justice Kumar from the criminal roster and not assign any criminal case to the latter till he demitted office. 'The Chief Justice shall make the judge concerned sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' the Supreme Court noted.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Top Court Grants Divorce, Orders Man To Give Rs 4 Crore Mumbai Flat To Ex-Wife
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted divorce to an estranged couple while directing the man to hand over his Rs 4 crore Mumbai flat to the estranged wife. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria also quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the man under Sections 498-A (subjecting woman to cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust) read with Section 34 of IPC observing they were banal and vague without any specific instances. The supreme court said the acrimonious relation between the parties for the last eight years without any let-up and the multiple legal proceedings pending, clearly indicated their partnership had "irretrievably broken down". "We also allow the application filed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the second respondent finding the marriage to have irretrievably broken down, in the best interest of both the parties and for doing complete justice," the bench said. It said further claim of alimony is not justified, especially looking at the appellant's unemployed status. The top court directed the man, a former banker, to deposit the arrears to the housing society up to September 1, 2025, towards maintenance charges for the apartment. "Appellant shall execute a gift deed on or before August 30, 2025 on any date informed by written notice; by the appellant to the respondent, with due acknowledgment taken. We have seen from the records that the draft of the deed was exchanged between the parties and both the appellant and the respondent 2 shall be present before the jurisdictional Registrar for execution and registration on the date notified," the bench said. In case the estranged wife did not turn up, the jurisdictional registrar was directed to acknowledge and record the presence of the man following which they should appear before the registrar on September 15, 2025 for the deed's execution. "If the appellant does not comply with the above, then the order of divorce shall not come into effect. However, if the respondent does not present herself on the date notified by the appellant and on such failure even on the date specified by us, the divorce shall come into effect," the bench cautioned. The top court held all proceedings, civil and criminal, initiated by the parties to the marriage, which was now dissolved, to stand closed. "There shall also be no further proceedings, both civil and criminal instituted, by the respective parties, on any aspect arising out of in relation to the marriage," the bench said. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
