Subscribe
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court May 15, 2025 directed the Chief Secretaries of all the states and the administrators of all the Union territories (UT) 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.
Moreover, state governments and Union territories must initiate actions to reclaim reserved forest land from individuals or institutions currently holding it and transfer it to the forest department.
If reclaiming the land is deemed not to serve the broader public interest, the state governments or UTs should collect the cost of the land from the individuals or institutions it was allocated to and utilise the funds for forest development, according to the order.
The Chief Secretaries of all States and the administrators of all UTs were instructed to form Special Teams to guarantee that these transfers occur within one year from today. The bench, led by the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and justices Augustine George Masih and Krishnan Vinod Chandran, emphasised that henceforth, such land should be exclusively used for afforestation.
The direction came in a judgment delivered in a matter related to illegal allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land to Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society (RRCHS).
The apex court said that that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserve forest land in Survey No 21 Kondhwa Budruk in district Pune for agriculture purposes on August 28, 1998 and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of RRCHS on October 30, 1999 was entirely illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled that the environmental clearance given by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on July 3, 2007, to RRCHS is unlawful and has been nullified. The court ordered that the forest land, currently held by the revenue department but designated as forest land, must be transferred to the forest department within three months.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court sought an affidavit from the principal secretary, department of health, Punjab addressing the deficiencies crippling the medical infrastructure in the state, especially in Malerkotla district.
“Things do not appear to be improving in Malerkotla so far as the medical infrastructure is concerned," the High Court noted.
The progress of the recruitment process undertaken for medical officers should also be reflected in the affidavit, the order added.
The state counsel has requested the court's attention to the public announcement seeking bids for setting up a radio diagnostic center equipped with one MRI and one CT Scan machine. The order dated May 13, 2025 also stated that the advancement of the tender process must be disclosed in the affidavit.
An affidavit filed before the court showed that certain vacancies of doctors at Malerkotla have been filled up. However, it was not clear whether these doctors had been freshly recruited or transferred from other locations to fill the vacancies at Malerkotla, the court observed.
The counsel for Punjab stated that fresh recruitment against 1,000 vacancies of medical officer (general) has been commenced via advertisement April 25, 2025.
The petitioner, Bhisham Kinger, informed the court that there are no specialist doctors in the fields of gynecology, ophthalmology, blood transfusion, radiology and dermatology.
The Haryana State Pollution Control Board was directed by the NGT May 14, 2025 to submit its response on trees being cut without permission for constructing a dumping yard in Pirthla village, Palwal district, Haryana.
Other concerned authorities like the deputy commissioner and sub-divisional magistrate of Palwal were also directed to file their reply. The next hearing of the case would be held on September 18, 2025.
The applicant said that permission was granted for cutting only 43 trees to build the dumping yard. But as against this, 68 trees have been cut.
Counsel for the applicant referred to the report of the sub-divisional office / magistrate office in Palwal that revealed that 25 additional trees were cut without permission.