Supreme Court Directs DMRC to Seek Approvals for Metro Construction on Forest Land: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (29 November 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 775

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Can the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) proceed with construction activities on land classified as “forest area” without obtaining prior approval? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question concerning the balance between development and environmental preservation in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT). The Court’s decision clarifies the process for obtaining necessary clearances for infrastructure projects impacting forest land.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and B.V. Nagarathna, delivered the judgment. The judgment was authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) proposed Phase IV of the Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) Project, aiming to expand the metro network in Delhi. This project included the construction of new metro corridors, tunnels, and stations. However, some of the proposed construction sites were located in areas that were either classified as “forest area” or had morphological features similar to the Ridge area, which is a protected green space in Delhi.

DMRC sought permission to carry out construction activities on the following stretches/locations:

• A 2.99 km stretch on Road No. 26 between Keshopur to Mukarba Chowk.
• An area of 1288.973 sqm at Najafgarh drain.
• An area of 16097.75 sqm at Mangolpuri for the construction of Mangolpuri Metro Station.
• An area of 55.78 sqm at Krishna Park for the construction of an entry/exit point of the underground station.

The DMRC contended that these areas were not forest areas and therefore, no prior permissions were required under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal frameworks involved in this case are:

• The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FC Act, 1980): This Act regulates the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980, states that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within a forest area. The Act aims to check deforestation and maintain ecological balance.

  “2. Restriction on the 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… shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose…”

• The Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (DPT Act, 1994): This Act regulates the felling of trees outside notified forests and deemed forests. It mandates compensatory planting of a minimum of 10 times the number of trees felled.

Arguments

Arguments by DMRC:

• DMRC contended that the areas in question were not forest areas as per the definition of “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and therefore, no prior permission was required for construction.
• The project is of public interest and any delay would lead to cost escalation and affect the public at large.
• The metro project aims to provide a viable public transport option, reduce vehicular congestion, and decrease pollution in Delhi/NCR.

Arguments by the Applicants (Dr. PC Prasad and Aditya N. Prasad):

• The applicants argued that the DMRC should have approached the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) first, as per the guidelines laid down in Lafarge Umiam Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors. – (2011) 7 SCC 338, before approaching the Supreme Court.
• The areas proposed for construction were identified as ‘deemed forest’ areas in the affidavit dated 15.09.1997 submitted by the Conservator of Forest, GNCTD.
• DMRC must follow the statutory scheme of the FC Act, 1980, before diverting any forest land for non-forest use, which includes obtaining Stage I approval from the Regional Empowered Committee and an order from the State Government under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980.
• The construction cannot be permitted without a critical study under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, and consideration of the impact on wildlife and air quality.
• The Najafgarh drain basin is a critically polluted area, and this needs to be considered.

Arguments by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC):

• The CEC, in its report, stated that the planted trees along Road No. 26 are not of natural origin and cannot be considered “forest” for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• The CEC recommended that the areas in question be declared as non-forest areas, subject to the condition that DMRC obtains permission under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.
• The CEC also submitted a separate report regarding the construction in the Ridge area, emphasizing the need to conserve the Ridge as a green lung for Delhi.
• The CEC recommended that DMRC obtain statutory forest clearance for diversion of forest land falling in Southern Ridge, South Central Ridge and deemed forest for non-forest use.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the areas proposed for construction by DMRC are “forest areas” requiring prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
2. Whether the DMRC is required to obtain permission under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, for felling of trees in the proposed construction areas.
3. Whether the construction in the Ridge area requires specific permissions and adherence to the recommendations of the Ridge Management Board (RMB).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

Statutes:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987 (1) SCC 213)* The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, applies to all forests, irrespective of ownership or classification.
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 504)* The Supreme Court cited this case to reinforce the principle that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, apply to all forests.
• Lafarge Umiam Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors. – (2011) 7 SCC 338* The Supreme Court acknowledged the applicants’ reliance on this case but did not directly apply it, instead directing DMRC to seek necessary permissions.
• Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Ors. (1985 (3) SCC 643)* The Supreme Court used this case to reinforce the principle that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, apply to all forests.
• Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980* The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this provision, stating that prior approval from the Central Government is required for non-forest activities in forest areas.
• Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994* The Supreme Court noted that this Act regulates the felling of trees outside notified forests and deemed forests, and DMRC must comply with its provisions.
• Section 4, Indian Forest Act, 1927* The Supreme Court referred to this section in the context of the notification of the Delhi Ridge area as Reserved Forest.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, emphasizing the need to balance development with environmental protection. The Court recognized the importance of the metro project for public transport but also stressed the necessity of preserving the ecology of Delhi, particularly the Ridge area. The Court’s reasoning also reflected a concern for sustainable development and the need for citizen participation in environmental preservation.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. However, the factual context of the case, including the environmental significance of the Ridge area and the public interest in the metro project, also played a significant role.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the DMRC’s argument that the areas were not forest areas, but rejected them in favor of a more comprehensive approach that balanced development with environmental protection. The Court also emphasized the importance of following the statutory scheme of the FC Act, 1980, and the need for compensatory afforestation.

The Court’s decision was aimed at ensuring that the DMRC’s project could proceed while also protecting the environment. The Court’s reasoning was based on the need for sustainable development, the importance of citizen participation in environmental preservation, and the legal framework provided by the FC Act, 1980, and the DPT Act, 1994.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the importance of the Ridge area as the green lungs of Delhi and the need to conserve it. The Court directed DMRC to seek necessary permissions from the Ridge Management Board (RMB) for construction activities in the Ridge area.

The Court quoted from the judgment of 12.12.1996, which stated:

“The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily ‘recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of section 2(1) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term ‘forest land”, occurring in section 2, will not only include “Forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.”

The Court also noted the importance of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the FC Act, 1980 in protecting the environment.

The Court also quoted section 2 of the FC Act, 1980:

“2. Restriction on the 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…”

Key Takeaways

• DMRC must obtain prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for any construction activity on areas classified as “forest land.”
• DMRC must comply with the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, for felling of trees outside notified forests and deemed forests.
• Construction in the Ridge area requires specific permissions from the Ridge Management Board (RMB).
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing development with environmental protection and the need for citizen participation in environmental preservation.
• The judgment clarifies the definition of “forest” and “forest land” as per the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. DMRC to file applications under the FC Act, 1980, to the Chief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, seeking permission for diversion of the specified lands.
2. The Chief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, to forward the applications to MoEF&CC, GoI, with recommendations within one month.
3. MoEF&CC, GoI, to consider the applications and communicate its decision within three months.
4. DMRC to file an application before the RMB for necessary permission for diversion of Ridge areas.
5. RMB to make recommendations and forward them to the Chief Conservator (Forest), Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, and MoEF&CC, GoI, within one month.
6. MoEF&CC, GoI, to consider the application with recommendations within three months.
7. DMRC to comply with all conditions imposed by the RMB and orders passed by the Court.
8. GNCTD and DMRC to conceive a plan of action for planting trees in Delhi, involving citizens, schools, and NGOs, and to submit the plan within twelve weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any construction activity on land that is classified as “forest land” or has morphological features similar to the Ridge area requires prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. The judgment reinforces the importance of balancing development with environmental protection and clarifies the process for obtaining necessary clearances for infrastructure projects impacting forest land.

This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the existing legal framework for environmental protection. It clarifies the application of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, in the context of infrastructure projects. It also emphasizes the need for citizen participation in environmental preservation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India directs the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to seek necessary approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, for its Phase IV construction activities. The Court emphasized the need to balance development with environmental protection and the importance of preserving the Ridge area in Delhi. The judgment clarifies the legal framework and procedural requirements for infrastructure projects impacting forest land and underscores the role of citizen participation in environmental preservation.