The Supreme Court has dismissed a curative plea by Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society, keeping its pan-India directions on illegally diverted forest land in force.The Supreme Court has refused to roll back its directions requiring states and Union territories to constitute special investigation teams (SITs) to identify reserved forest land illegally diverted to private entities and restore it to forest departments.A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on August 18 dismissed a curative petition filed against its May 15, 2025 judgment in the case of Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society (RRCHS), which was allotted 11.89 hectares of land falling within a reserved forest area in Pune, Maharashtra, in October 1999.The allotment was set aside by the top court, with the case serving as an eye-opener for the court to direct all states and Union territories to identify reserved forest land being diverted to private parties.“In our opinion, no case to entertain this curative petition is made out within the parameters indicated by this court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra (2002). Hence, the curative petition is dismissed,” the curative plea decided by a bench also comprising justices Vikram Nath, BV Nagarathna, Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran said.The Richie Rich society had filed the curative petition after its review petition was dismissed in August 2025 by a bench comprising then CJI BR Gavai, along with justices Masih and Chandran, who pronounced the May 2025 verdict. After CJI Gavai retired, the curative plea was filed after senior advocate Dama Sesadari Naidu held that grounds for filing a curative petition were made out.The five-judge curative bench noted the serious allegations recorded in the May 2025 judgment, which showed the role of the then Maharashtra revenue minister and then divisional commissioner, who ensured the allotment of land to the housing society by bypassing the Forest Conservation Act. Even objections raised by bureaucrats on the land meant for agricultural purposes were sidelined, and a 1996 top court verdict in the landmark TN Godavarman case, which gave an expansive meaning to the definition of forests under the Forest Conservation Act, was overlooked.The verdict went on to issue pan-India directions by directing chief secretaries of all the states and administrators of UTs to constitute SITs for the purpose of examining whether any 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”. Accordingly, they were directed to take steps to “take back” possession of the land from such persons or institutions and hand it over to the forest department.The judgment had further held, “In case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, the state governments/UTs 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.” It even fixed a timeline of one year for the transfer of land.The Richie Rich case served as a stark example where the court noted that the allotted land in Kondhwa Budruk village, earmarked as reserved forest, was initially allotted for agricultural purposes in August 1998. Subsequently, permission was given for its sale in favour of RRCHS on October 30, 1999, which the court held to be “illegal.The court had held, “The present matter is a classic example as to how the nexus between the politicians, bureaucrats and the builders can result in the conversion of precious forest land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose,” it added.The court quashed the environmental clearance granted by the Union environment ministry on July 3, 2007, to RRCHS and directed possession of the subject land to be handed over to the forest department within three months.
Supreme Court refuses to roll back directions on illegally diverted forest land
