The Supreme Court ruled that territory designated under a statutory Master Plan can’t subsequently be considered as “deemed forest” simply because of subsequent vegetation growth, upholding the redevelopment of the railway site at Bijwasan in Delhi.
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, did not require prior approval in the absence of forest status at the time of the Master Plan, according to the Court, which dismissed an appeal against the project.
The said order has been passed by the Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih while hearing the Civil Appeal filed by Naveen Solanki And Another.
The Court ruled that,
“A Master Plan is based on extensive surveys, planning studies, and consideration of existing land-use patterns. The classification of land within such a plan therefore reflects the understanding of the planning authority regarding the character and potential use of the land at the time of its preparation. Where, at that stage, the land is neither notified as forest nor recorded or identified as forest in official or planning records, the planning authority necessarily proceeds on the basis that the land is available for the purposes for which it has been designated under the plan.”
Also read: https://practicinglawyer.in/sc-quashes-gangsters-act-fir-gang-chart-lapses/
The Court further held that a duly approved Master Plan has statutory force and cannot be unsettled by subsequent vegetation growth, particularly of invasive species. In the absence of evidence that the land was forest at the time of its formulation, such later growth does not alter its legal status, and the land cannot be treated as “deemed forest,” obviating the need for prior approval under Section 2 of the 1980 Act.
The instant Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi (“NGT”), whereby the Original Application filed by Shri R.M. Asif (Respondent No.5 ) was dismissed.
In fact, the instant appeal to the Supreme Court, brought by two advocates in the interest of the public, was filed despite their absence as parties in the NGT. They invoked the doctrine ruled in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others, contending that the said land falls within the definition of “forest land”.
Also read: https://practicinglawyer.in/no-compensation-for-disability-arising-from-tobacco-use-sc/
According to the facts of the case, initially Original Application was filed challenging the Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 19.12.2022 which was issued by Rail Land Development Authority for the combined Multi-Use plot admeasuring approximately 1,24,000 sq. mtrs. or 12.40 hectares situated along New Bijwasan Railway Station, Delhi, on the ground that disputed land was part of forest land and as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, permission of the Central Government has not been obtained to cut trees in the process of implementation of the RFP.
Further, in the application, it was mentioned that as many as 1100 trees standing on the disputed land which will be cut in the process of implementation of the project, and the said land is covered under the definition of deemed forest.
On the other hand, Respondent no.1 filed an affidavit and stated that the disputed land was part of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 and it was allotted to Railways by the DDA in 2008 for the development of the Bijwasan Railway Station Project.
It was further stated that it was not forest land or deemed forest as per municipal revenue records and it was barren land.
Respondent No.3 also filed an affidavit on 12.02.2024 and stated that the said land is not a notified forest land and as on the date status of land as deemed forest can’t be ruled out.
Subsequently, the NGT dismissed the Original Application filed by Respondent No.5 on the ground that applicant had failed to produce any cogent material to establish that the land in question was forest land.
Regarding the deemed forest the Tribunal vehemently relied on the submission of Respondent No. 1 that such classification requires a density of 100 trees per acre, a criterion not satisfied in the application. The NGT further noted that, after the amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, the amended Section 1(A) does not encompass deemed forests.
There were two issues before the Supreme Court that whether the land not recorded as forest, nor notified or qualifying as deemed forest, can be treated as deemed forest to override the statutory force of a duly approved Master Plan and the relevant date for determining whether land qualifies as “deemed forest” i.e. the date of enforcement of the Master Plan or the date of commencement of the project.
For resolving the dispute, the Bench referred to Section 2 of the 1980 Act and ruled that,
“Section 2 of the 1980 Act places restrictions on the use of forest land for non-forest purposes and mandates prior approval of the Central Government before any such diversion can take place. The provision reflects the legislative intent to check further deforestation and ecological imbalance and to ensure that forest land is not diverted for non-forest purposes without careful scrutiny by the Central Government.”
The Bench also agreed with the principle laid down in T.N. Godavarman (supra) and found that,
“…..has since remained a cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. The judgment ensured that the protective umbrella of the 1980 Act would extend to all areas which answer the description of forest in ordinary sense and are recognised as such in official records, even if such areas are not formally notified forests.”
Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the appeal and directed concerned authorities and implementing agencies to maximise transplantation of native species and protect existing trees, while ensuring that compensatory afforestation is undertaken in strict compliance with applicable laws and prior permissions before commencement of any work.
Case: Naveen Solanki and Another vs Rail Land Development Authority and Others
Case No: Civil Appeal No.10656 of 2024
Date of Order: 20.03.2026
Status: Dismissed
