top of page
Search

Zudpi Jungle Dispute: How Land Rules Are Blocking Vidarbha’s Development

Zudpi Jungle Dispute: How Land Rules Are Blocking Vidarbha’s Development
Zudpi Jungle Dispute: How Land Rules Are Blocking Vidarbha’s Development

Across parts of Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region, a decades-long standoff continues to shape the lives of people and the course of development.


This standstill centres on land that is neither quite forest nor entirely revenue property. Spread across over 78,000 hectares, in some estimates, and more than double that in others, Zudpi Jungle land is a uniquely classified terrain caught in administrative limbo.


For communities living in its proximity and depending on it, the outcome of this dispute determines access to livelihood. For state planners, it holds the key to building essential infrastructure. For environmental authorities, it raises questions about what qualifies as a forest and what should remain protected.



A Colonial Classification and Its Consequences


Zudpi Jungle lands are found across six districts in Vidarbha’s division, namely Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur, and Gadchiroli.


These lands were first recorded under colonial-era land classification systems used by the British administration in the Central Provinces.

Rather than having dense forest cover, these areas primarily feature scrub vegetation and low bush growth. Their ecological characteristics have often made them more similar to grazing commons or barren land than to classified forests.


However, the term “jungle” attached to their classification has generated legal and policy complications over the years.


The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 redefined land use rules across India, placing severe restrictions on converting any forest land to non-forest use without approval from the central government.


This law, intended to protect India’s forest cover, inadvertently ensnared Zudpi Jungle lands. A further layer of complexity was added in 1995 through the Supreme Court’s judgment in the TN Godavarman case, which widened the definition of forest to include any land that “satisfies the dictionary meaning of forest,” regardless of administrative records.


As a result, Zudpi Jungle, though recorded as revenue land in many cases, came to be treated as forest under the law.

This dual identity has led to a prolonged administrative conflict between the revenue and forest departments.


Though these lands are still technically recorded under the revenue department, operational control has shifted to the forest department, making their use subject to forest conservation regulations.


Any attempt to develop on these lands now requires clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, a process known to be long and often inconclusive.



People, Protests, and Denotification

People, Protests, and Denotification of Zudpi Jungle Lands
People, Protests, and Denotification of Zudpi Jungle Lands

For tribal communities in eastern Vidarbha, Zudpi Jungle lands are not abstract classifications or disputed figures in policy papers. These lands are essential to everyday life.


They serve as common grounds for livestock grazing, agricultural processing, social rituals, and burial rites. The sparse vegetation and open terrain make them particularly suitable for traditional livestock-based practices.

Over the years, the movement to declare large sections of Zudpi Jungle as reserve forests has triggered concern among these communities.


Reserve forest status brings with it a formalised system of restriction. Access for grazing or even walking through such lands requires permission. The collection of fuel wood, medicinal herbs, or other forest produce becomes subject to regulation.


Many Adivasi families who had been granted land rights under the Forest Rights Act of 2006 found those rights cancelled when the same land was included in new notifications for reserve forests.



These actions prompted widespread protests across the region. By December 2024, reports noted coordinated demonstrations by tribal communities in multiple districts, where residents voiced their opposition to any decision that would limit their access to traditional common lands.

The grievances were not merely about future restrictions but also about the undermining of legally granted titles under existing laws.


The Maharashtra government, recognising the developmental challenges posed by the classification, has made attempts to seek denotification.


In 2011, in-principle clearance was granted to denotify around 32,000 hectares of Zudpi Jungle comprising land patches smaller than three hectares.


The following years saw proposals for denotifying 86,409 hectares, including sections already under non-forest use or encroachment. However, none of these efforts resulted in any substantial resolution.



Barriers to Development and the Search for Balance


The implications of Zudpi Jungle's classification go beyond village boundaries. They extend to the broader development prospects of Vidarbha.


With the land trapped under forest governance, essential infrastructure projects in sectors like irrigation, public health, and education have faced serious roadblocks. Proposals to construct roads, schools, healthcare centres, or public offices on these lands are subject to long approval processes, resulting in years of delay or outright abandonment.

For a region historically associated with droughts, agrarian distress, and limited industrial growth, this restriction on land use has acted as a significant bottleneck. With alternative land either unavailable or fragmented, planners often have no choice but to shelve projects or look for expensive detours.


In 2013, state authorities had proposed a multi-pronged strategy to address the issue. One of the approaches considered was the transfer of non-forest land, equivalent in ecological value, to compensate for Zudpi Jungle areas being opened up for public use.



Environmental groups also weighed in with conditional support. Among the proposals was the idea of identifying compact wildlife-suitable lands for formal forest designation, using degraded patches in Protected Area corridors for ecological restoration, and transferring forest corporation-managed reserves to the wildlife wing of the forest department for better management.


The goal of these proposals was not to oppose development outright but to guide it in a way that did not leave the ecological fabric of the region unaddressed. Yet, despite several rounds of consultations, procedural hurdles and policy disagreements have slowed any meaningful progress.


Unresolved Pathways and Judicial Turning Points


By early 2025, the matter reached a new stage. The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Environment Ministry, faced with multiple requests and ongoing ambiguity, advised the Maharashtra government to approach the Supreme Court.


In its April 2025 meeting, the FAC stated that too many uncertainties existed around the applicability of the Forest Conservation Act to Zudpi Jungle land. It further noted that broader relief could only be granted through judicial clarification rather than executive orders.

This advice came as Maharashtra had placed a new proposal before the FAC, one that sought not only to divert three specific patches of Zudpi Jungle for non-forestry use but also to gain permission to change the broader classification of such lands for future developmental use.


The FAC response did not reject the request but effectively transferred responsibility to the judiciary, given the binding nature of the TN Godavarman ruling.



The situation remains unresolved. For the tribal communities, the administrative standstill means continued uncertainty over access to their traditional commons.

For state agencies, it represents delays in executing much-needed public works. For conservation authorities, it raises unresolved questions about how to apply blanket policies in ecologically diverse landscapes.


The broader policy framework around Zudpi Jungle is now poised for possible resolution in the country's highest court.


What began as a British-era classification of scrubland has evolved into a nationally watched legal case with implications for tribal land rights, forest law interpretation, and regional development.


References



Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page