Supreme Court clarifies definition of “forest land” under Punjab Land Preservation Act and Forest Conservation Act (21 July 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 July 2022

Citation: Not Available in Source

Judges: A. M. Khanwilkar, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., C. T. Ravikumar, J.

What constitutes a “forest land” and how does it affect land use? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, examining the interplay between the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA) and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This judgment clarifies whether lands under special orders issued under Section 4 of the PLPA are automatically considered “forest land” under the 1980 Act. The bench comprised Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, and C. T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The core issue revolves around land in the Faridabad district of Haryana, specifically in villages Anangpur, Ankhir, and Mewla Maharajpur. These lands are subject to orders issued by the Haryana government under Section 4 of the PLPA, which restricts certain activities to prevent soil erosion and conserve sub-soil water. The appellants in the civil appeals are landowners who operate marriage halls and restaurants on these lands. They challenged orders by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had classified these lands as “forest lands” under the 1980 Forest Act, thereby preventing non-forest activities. The writ petitioners, also landowners in these villages, sought a declaration that the Section 4 orders were illegal and sought implementation of the Punjab Land Preservation (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2019.

The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad had issued notices to remove illegal constructions on what they deemed forest lands, leading to further legal challenges. The landowners argued that the PLPA was not intended to protect forests but rather to prevent soil erosion and conserve water, and that the restrictions imposed under Section 4 were temporary. They also contended that the orders were issued without proper inquiry or compensation.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of several key legal provisions:

• Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA):
  • Section 3: Allows the State Government to notify areas subject to erosion or likely to become liable to erosion for conservation of sub-soil water or prevention of erosion.
    “Whenever it appears to the Provincial Government that it is desirable to provide for the conservation of sub-soil water or the prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion or likely to become liable to erosion, such Government may by notification make a direction accordingly.”
  • Section 4: Empowers the government to issue special orders to regulate, restrict, or prohibit certain activities within notified areas, such as clearing land, quarrying, cutting trees, and pasturing cattle.
    “In respect of areas notified under section 3 generally or the whole or any part of any such area, the Provincial Government may, by general or special order temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit – (a) the clearing or breaking up or cultivating of land not ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (b) the quarrying of stone or the burning of lime at places where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been so quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (c) the cutting of trees or timber, or the collection or removal or subjection to any manufacturing process, otherwise than as described in clause (b) of this sub -section of any forest -produce other than grass, save for bonafide domestic or agricultural purposes of rightholder in such area; (d) the setting on fire of trees, timber or forest produce; (e) the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of sheep, goats or camels; (f) the examination of forest -produce passing out of any such area; and (g) the granting of permits to the inhabitants of towns and villages situate within the limits or in the vicinity of any such area, to take any tree, timber or forest produce for their own use therefrom, or to pasture sheep, goats or camels or to cultivate or erect buildings therein and the production and return of such permits by such persons.”
  • Section 5: Allows the government to issue special orders to regulate, restrict, or prohibit certain activities in specific villages within notified areas.
    “In respect of any specified village or villages, or part or parts thereof, comprised within the limits of any area notified under section 3, the Provincial Government may, by special order, temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit – (a) the cultivating of any land ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (b) the quarrying of any stone or the burning of any lime at places where such stone or lime had ordinarily been so quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (c) the cutting of trees or timber or the collection or removal or subjection to any manufacturing process, otherwise than as described in clause (b) of this sub -section o f any forest -produce for any purposes; and (d) the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of cattle generally other than sheep, goats and camels or of any class or description of such cattle.”
  • Section 6: Requires the government to conduct an inquiry before issuing orders under Sections 4, 5, or 5A.
  • Section 7: Entitles affected persons to compensation for restrictions imposed under Sections 4, 5, and 5A.
• Indian Forest Act, 1927:
  • Deals with reserved forests (Sections 3 to 27), protected forests (Sections 29 to 34), and private forests (Sections 35 to 38).
  • Section 26: Specifies acts prohibited in reserved forests.
    “Any person who – (a) makes any fresh clearing prohibited by section 5, or (b) sets fire to a reserved forest, or, in contravention of any rules made by the State Government in this behalf, kindles any fire, or leaves any fire burning, in such manner as to endanger such a forest; or who, in a reserved forest – (c) kindles, keeps or carries any fire except at such seasons as the Forest -officer may notify in this behalf, (d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass; (e) causes any damage by negligence in felling any tree or cutting or dragging any timber; (f) fells, girdles, lops, or bums any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same; (g) quarries stone, bums lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or removes, any forest -produce; (h) clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or any other purpose; (i) in contravention of any rules made in this behalf by the State Government hunts, shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares; or (j) in any area in which the Elephants’ Preservation Act, 1879 (6 of 1879), is not in force, kills or catches elephants in contravention of any rules so made, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may direct to be paid.”
  • Section 35: Empowers the State Government to regulate or prohibit certain activities in private forests for specific purposes.
    “The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulate or prohibit in any forest or waste -land (a) the breaking up or clearing of land for cultivation; (b) the pasturing of cattle; or (c) the firing or clearing of the vegetation; when such regulation or prohibition appears necessary for any of the following purposes: – (i) for protection against storms, winds, rolling stones, floods and avalanches; (ii) for the preservation of the soil on the ridges and slopes and in the valleys of hilly tracts, the prevention of land slips or of the formation of ravines, and torrents, or the protection of land against erosion, or the deposit thereon of sand, stones or gravel; (iii) for the maintenance of a water -supply in springs, rivers and tanks; (iv) for the protection of roads, bridges, railways and other lines of communication; (v) for the preservation of the public health.”
  • Section 37: Provides for expropriation of forests in certain cases.
    “In any case under this Chapter in which the State Government considers that, in lieu of placing the forest or land under the control of a Forest -Officer, the same should be acquired for public purposes, the State Government may proceed to acquire it in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894). (2) The owner of any forest or land comprised in any notification under section 35 may, at any time not less than three or more than twelve years from the date thereof, require that such forest or land shall be acquired for public purposes, and the State Government shall require such forest or land accordingly.”
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
  • Section 2: Restricts the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval of the Central Government.
    “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing — (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest ” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any “non-forest ” purpose. [(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.] [Explanation –For the purposes of this section non-forest purpose means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil -bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of check -posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.]”

Arguments

The petitioners/appellants argued that:

• Merely because lands are covered by notifications under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PLPA, they cannot automatically be treated as forest lands under the 1980 Forest Act.
• A notification under Section 3 of the PLPA is a prerequisite for issuing orders under Sections 4 and 5. They claimed that no such notification was issued for the lands in question.
• The orders under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA are temporary and cease to apply once the specified period expires.
• The restrictions under Section 4 of the PLPA only prohibit certain activities without prior permission, not all activities.
• The PLPA is primarily for conserving sub-soil water and preventing soil erosion, not for protecting forests.
• The Indian Forest Act, 1927, is the appropriate legislation for dealing with forests, and the PLPA is inoperative to the extent it overlaps with the 1927 Act.
• The subject lands were part of a controlled area under the Faridabad Complex (Development and Regulation) Act, 1971, and therefore, cannot be considered forest land.
• No inquiry was conducted before imposing restrictions under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA, as required by Section 6.
• Public notice of the government orders was not published as required by Section 7 of PLPA, and no compensation was paid to the landowners.
• The 2019 Amendment Act to the PLPA seeks to balance the rights of landowners with environmental protection, and should be implemented.
• The decision in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 267] does not deal with PLPA.
• The decision in B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India and Ors. [(2014) 12 SCC 172] held that lands under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA may or may not be forest lands.
• The decision in M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave Matters, In Re.) v. Union of India & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 397] is per incuriam as it failed to consider the binding decision in B.S. Sandhu.

The State Government argued that:

• The object of PLPA was not to extinguish property rights, but to prevent soil erosion and conserve sub-soil water.
• The decision in B.S. Sandhu correctly held that land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA may or may not be a forest.
• The decision in M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave Matters, In Re.) v. Union of India & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 397] ignored the binding decision in B.S. Sandhu.
• Vast areas of Haryana have been notified under the PLPA, and treating all such lands as forests would have disastrous consequences.
• The 2019 Amendment Act should be implemented to balance environmental protection and landowner rights.
• The earlier affidavits filed by the State Government only stated that areas under Sections 4 and 5 were being shown as State-regulated forest areas during the currency of the notifications.

The Intervenors argued that:

• The State’s claim that large areas are notified under PLPA is incorrect.
• The State has consistently treated areas under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA as forests.
• Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act overrides all other laws.
• The issue of the land in Anangpur being forest land has been settled in M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave Matters, In Re.) v. Union of India & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 397].
• Any land shown as forest land in government records, including forest department records, is a forest under the 1980 Forest Act.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether a land covered under a special order issued by the Government of Haryana under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA) is a ‘forest land’ within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (the 1980 Forest Act)?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Laxman Ichharam v. The Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh [AIR 1953 Nagpur 51] – Nagpur High Court, for the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’.
• Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
• State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 267] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the definition of “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. [(2008) 16 SCC 401] – Supreme Court of India, regarding mining activity in areas covered by orders under Sections 4 and 5 of PLPA.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 118] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the legal effect of orders under Sections 4 and 5 of PLPA.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 17 SCC 294] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the legal effect of orders under Sections 4 and 5 of PLPA.
• B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India and Ors. [(2014) 12 SCC 172] – Supreme Court of India, holding that lands under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA may or may not be forest lands.
• M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave Matters, In Re.) v. Union of India & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 397] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the validity of orders under Section 4 of PLPA.
• Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and Others [(2021) SCC online SC 7] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the concept of sustainable development.
• Citizens for Green Doon and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 1243] – Supreme Court of India, regarding the ‘environmental rule of law’.
• Vijay Bansal & Others v. State of Haryana & others [2009 SCC online P&H 8073] – Punjab and Haryana High Court, regarding the treatment of areas under PLPA as forest lands.
• Section 2, Indian Forest Act, 1927 – Definition of “forest produce”.
  “2(4) “forest -produce” includes – (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say: – timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood -oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flow ers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams, and (b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say – (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees, (ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants, (iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals, and (iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including lime-stone, laterite, mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries) .”
• Section 3, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Notification of areas.
  “Whenever it appears to the Provincial Government that it is desirable to provide for the conservation of sub-soil water or the prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion or likely to become liable to erosion, such Government may by notification make a direction accordingly.”
• Section 4, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Power to regulate, restrict or prohibit, by general or special order, within notified areas, certain matters.
  “In respect of areas notified under section 3 generally or the whole or any part of any such area, the Provincial Government may, by general or special order temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit – (a) the clearing or breaking up or cultivating of land not ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (b) the quarrying of stone or the burning of lime at places where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been so quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (c) the cutting of trees or timber, or the collection or removal or subjection to any manufacturing process, otherwise than as described in clause (b) of this sub -section of any forest -produce other than grass, save for bonafide domestic or agricultural purposes of rightholder in such area; (d) the setting on fire of trees, timber or forest produce; (e) the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of sheep, goats or camels; (f) the examination of forest -produce passing out of any such area; and (g) the granting of permits to the inhabitants of towns and villages situate within the limits or in the vicinity of any such area, to take any tree, timber or forest produce for their own use therefrom, or to pasture sheep, goats or camels or to cultivate or erect buildings therein and the production and return of such permits by such persons.”
• Section5, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Power to regulate, restrict or prohibit, by special order, within specified villages, certain matters.
  “In respect of any specified village or villages, or part or parts thereof, comprised within the limits of any area notified under section 3, the Provincial Government may, by special order, temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit – (a) the cultivating of any land ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (b) the quarrying of any stone or the burning of any lime at places where such stone or lime had ordinarily been so quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3; (c) the cutting of trees or timber or the collection or removal or subjection to any manufacturing process, otherwise than as described in clause (b) of this sub -section o f any forest -produce for any purposes; and (d) the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of cattle generally other than sheep, goats and camels or of any class or description of such cattle.”
• Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Restriction on dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.
  “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing — (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest ” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any “non-forest ” purpose. [(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.] [Explanation –For the purposes of this section non-forest purpose means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil -bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of check -posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.]”

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court held that land covered by special orders under Section 4 of the PLPA is considered “forest land” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court reasoned that the restrictions imposed under Section 4 of the PLPA are intended to prevent deforestation, which is a cause of soil erosion. The Court noted the similarities between the restrictions under Section 4 of the PLPA and those in reserved forests under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It was held that such lands have all the trappings of a forest and fall within the ambit of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act.

The Court emphasized that the term “forest” must be interpreted in a broad and expansive manner to protect the environment. It relied on the definition of “forest” given in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 267], which includes any area recorded as forest in government records or having the characteristics of a forest.

The Court found that the decision in B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India and Ors. [(2014) 12 SCC 172], which held that lands under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA may or may not be forest lands, was incorrect. The Court also noted that the decision in M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave Matters, In Re.) v. Union of India & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 397], which held that lands under Section 4 of the PLPA are forest lands, was the correct interpretation.

The Court clarified that the PLPA is not merely a soil conservation law but also a law to prevent deforestation. The Court opined that the restrictions under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA have the effect of preventing deforestation, which is a cause of soil erosion. Thus, lands covered by orders under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA have the characteristics of a forest and are covered by the 1980 Forest Act.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for landowners in Haryana, particularly those whose lands are subject to orders under Section 4 of the PLPA. These lands are now considered “forest lands” under the 1980 Forest Act, which means that any non-forest activity on these lands requires prior approval from the Central Government. This includes activities such as construction, commercial ventures, and any other activity not related to forest conservation.

The judgment also clarifies the interpretation of environmental laws, emphasizing that the term “forest” must be interpreted broadly to protect the environment. It underscores the importance of preventing deforestation and conserving natural resources. The Court’s decision reinforces the supremacy of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, in matters of forest protection.

The judgment has implications for the implementation of the Punjab Land Preservation (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2019. The Court has directed that the 2019 Amendment Act shall not be acted upon without the permission of the Court, which means that the State Government cannot implement the Amendment Act without obtaining prior approval from the Supreme Court.

Flowchart: Determining “Forest Land” Status