In 1997 a survey of forests was ordered by the Supreme Court in all the states to identify and include areas (govt or individual owned), as forests that are not under forest department but fall pretty much within the definition of the dictionary meaning.  The 1997 survey was in pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 12/12/1996 in T.N. Godavarman Vs Union of India (W.P. (C) 202 of 1995),  whereby forests were to be identified as per the dictionary meaning of forests in addition to the already recorded forests.

As of this year in August, a resurvey has been ordered by the Joint Sect Forest (Maharashtra) (see PDF file attached) to exclude such areas that have been mistakenly identified and also to reascertain the true identified forests.  On the 10th of Nov,  we met the Collector Mr Deshmukh on this issue (please see Letter to Collector Pune, November 10, 2006) urging him to include Law College Hill  and other such sites in the 'identified forest' category, whereby he clearly said that this was the responsibility of the forest dept. ie the Deputy Conservator of Forests - Mr Ashok Khadse;  and they had to follow what he gave to them. We managed to retrieve the response of the forest department from the collector's office, to this resurvey call, and the response was not unexpected. The forest dept (which means Khadse) has only concentrated on exclusion of the areas and they have excluded many areas which they had previously included in 1997. There is absolutely no mention of including more forests.   Just to state some figures - for the city of Pune a total of  97.95 hectares were in the earlier list and of through this resurvey they have recommended all the 97.95 hectares be excluded for various reasons. In the entire pune district the number comes down from 1100 ha to 300 ha.

Since the Maharashtra Forest Department has yet not filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court, we can still use this opportunity to get various areas included by sending letters to Collector, with copies to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF). Inclusion in the 'identified' forest  list (of areas even within city limits which qualify) can really help to thwart mindless development in these areas in the future. 

Kalpavriksh has written a follow-up letter to the Collector expressing concerns (please see Letter to Collector Pune, December 21st 2006)  about the resurvey and seeking remedial measures. But this is also the right moment for all us to write (seperately) to the Collector to justify the reasons they have removed all so much forest land and demand that a fresh survey happen with people's participation. We request that using the format of the second letter (with slight modifications if you wish), individual members and organisations should fax and speed post a copy of this letter to the collector asap with a copy to the PCCF (see addresses given below).  Let us flood the Collector's office with our letters and urge him to do joint site visits with us to the areas that they intend to exclude and to the areas which need to be included.