Supreme Court’s Historic Verdict on Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungles Balances Ecology and Livelihood Rights
In a landmark ruling that harmonizes environmental conservation with community welfare, the Supreme Court of India has declared 86,400 hectares of “Zudpi Jungle” lands in Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region as protected forest areas. However, the court safeguarded existing structures on these lands constructed prior to December 1996, offering relief to thousands of residents and institutions.
What Are Zudpi Jungles?
The term “Zudpi” originates from Marathi, translating to “bushes” or “shrubs.” These jungles are characterized by dry, arid soil (locally called Murmadi) and sparse vegetation, dominated by hardy shrubs and grasses rather than dense tree cover. Despite their seemingly barren appearance, ecologists emphasize their critical role as wildlife corridors connecting larger forest patches in eastern Vidarbha, a region known for biodiversity hotspots like Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih clarified that Zudpi lands fall under the definition of “forest” as per the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case, which expanded the scope of protected forests to include any area recorded as such in government records, regardless of vegetation density.
Development vs. Environment: A Delicate Balance
The verdict comes after the Maharashtra government sought clarity in 2019 on whether Zudpi jungles—often classified as “grazing lands” in revenue records—should be governed by strict forest conservation laws. The state argued that these areas, spread across six districts (Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur, and Gadchiroli), host schools, government buildings, residential colonies, and even slums. Strict forest regulations, officials claimed, hindered development in Vidarbha, one of Maharashtra’s most economically disadvantaged regions.
The Supreme Court acknowledged these complexities, permitting existing structures built before December 12, 1996, to remain. However, it mandated the state to seek retrospective approval from the Central government under Section 2 of the FCA for any non-forestry use of these lands. Notably, the Centre has been directed to waive requirements for compensatory afforestation or Net Present Value (NPV) fees—a move hailed as pragmatic by state authorities.
Relief for Slum Dwellers and Local Communities
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis welcomed the decision, calling it a “historic win” for Vidarbha’s development. “For decades, these lands were caught in legal ambiguity, stalling critical projects. Now, we can extend property rights to slum residents and advance infrastructure without compromising environmental priorities,” he said.
The ruling specifically benefits over 15,000 slum households residing on Zudpi lands, who can now secure legal ownership under state housing schemes. Additionally, public institutions, graveyards, and agricultural communities operating on pre-1996 allocations are shielded from displacement.
Environmental Concerns and Oversight Gaps
While the judgment has been praised for its balanced approach, conservationists warn against potential misuse. Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust highlighted gaps in the Central Empowered Committee’s (CEC) report, which overlooked the ecological impact of denotifying Zudpi patches. “Even scrub forests matter. They prevent soil erosion, support pollinators, and serve as buffers between human settlements and wildlife,” he said.
Experts stress that Zudpi jungles act as vital connectors for species like leopards, wild boars, and deer migrating between protected reserves. Fragmenting these corridors could escalate human-animal conflicts—a growing issue in Vidarbha’s farmlands.
Next Steps for Maharashtra
The state must submit district-wise proposals to the Centre for converting Zudpi lands to non-forest use, adhering to the court’s guidelines. All approvals must ensure no further alteration of land use, preventing commercial exploitation. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court reiterated its May 15 directive for Special Investigation Teams (SITs) to probe illegal forest land allocations nationwide, signaling stricter oversight.
Read More :Trump’s Harvard Foreign Student Ban Ignites Firestorm: Security Probe or Political Retaliation?
A Precedent for Inclusive Conservation
This verdict sets a nuanced precedent in India’s environment-development debates. By recognizing the legitimacy of pre-existing land use, the court has averted humanitarian crises while reinforcing forest protections. For Vidarbha, the challenge lies in leveraging this clarity to uplift marginalized communities without degrading its fragile ecosystems.
As Maharashtra navigates this equilibrium, the ruling underscores a broader truth: effective conservation cannot ignore human realities. In the words of CJI Gavai, “Protecting forests and people are not opposing goals—they are intertwined destinies.”
