Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 59
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Aravind Kumar, J., and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can a state be compelled to change its criteria for identifying forests based on a central agency’s methodology? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the state of Goa, which had been using its own criteria to identify forests. This judgment clarifies the extent to which states can determine their own environmental regulations, particularly concerning forest land. The court upheld Goa’s existing criteria for identifying forests, rejecting the petitioner’s plea to adopt the Forest Survey of India’s (FSI) parameters. This decision has significant implications for land use and conservation efforts in Goa. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.
Case Background
The case revolves around the criteria used by the State of Goa to identify “forests” on private land. In 1991, the Conservator of Forests, Goa, established guidelines for identifying forests on private properties, following a Bombay High Court ruling that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applied to all lands, whether government or privately owned. These guidelines included:
- Minimum area of 5 hectares.
- Proximity or contiguity to larger forest areas.
- At least 75% of the crop should be forest species.
- Minimum crown density of 40%.
In 1996, the Supreme Court of India, in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case, clarified that the term “forest” should be understood according to its dictionary meaning and includes all statutorily recognized forests. The court also directed all states to form expert committees to identify forests, degraded forests, and plantation areas.
Goa formed the Sawant Committee in 1997 and the Karapurkar Committee in 2000, both of which used the 1991 criteria. The Goa Foundation filed a writ petition in 2001 challenging the Karapurkar Committee, which was later dismissed. In 2006, the Goa Foundation filed another writ petition seeking the completion of forest identification. Two new committees were formed in 2010, using the same criteria.
The Goa Foundation filed another writ petition in 2010 before the High Court of Bombay, challenging the 40% canopy density criteria and the 5-hectare minimum area requirement. They argued that the criteria should be based on the Forest Survey of India’s (FSI) definition of forest cover, which includes areas with a canopy density of more than 10% and an area of more than 1 hectare. These petitions were transferred to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2013, which dismissed them, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1990 | Bombay High Court rules Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to all lands. |
| 1991 | Conservator of Forests, Goa, sets guidelines for identifying forests on private properties. |
| 12 December 1996 | Supreme Court orders states to form expert committees to identify forests (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case). |
| 1997 | Goa forms the Sawant Committee. |
| 2000 | Goa forms the Karapurkar Committee. |
| 2001 | Goa Foundation files writ petition challenging the Karapurkar Committee. |
| 2006 | Goa Foundation files another writ petition seeking the completion of forest identification. |
| 2010 | Goa forms two new committees to identify private forests. Goa Foundation files writ petition challenging the criteria. |
| 2013 | Writ petitions transferred to the National Green Tribunal (NGT). |
| 30 July 2014 | NGT dismisses the applications. |
| 4 February 2015 | Supreme Court directs Goa not to issue NOC for conversion of plots with natural vegetation having tree canopy density in excess of 0.1 and an area above one hectare. |
| 24 January 2024 | Supreme Court upholds Goa’s forest identification criteria. |
Course of Proceedings
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) dismissed the applications filed by the Goa Foundation, stating that the issue of determining criteria for identifying forests was already part of the proceedings in the T.N. Godavarman case before the Supreme Court. The NGT granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Supreme Court for a remedy.
The Goa Foundation then filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court. Initially, this appeal was converted into an interlocutory application in the T.N. Godavarman case. However, it was later restored to its original status as a civil appeal. The Confederation of Real Estate Developer’s Association of India (CREDAI) also sought to be impleaded in the case, seeking the vacation of an interim order passed by the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework in this case is the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which regulates the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, requires prior approval of the Central Government for any non-forest activity on forest land. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term “forest” in the T.N. Godavarman case is also central to this case. The Court had clarified that the term “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning, and would cover “all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise”.
The Supreme Court also clarified that the term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would include not only “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also “any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership”.
Arguments
The Goa Foundation argued that the criteria used by the State of Goa for identifying forests were flawed and did not align with the definition of “forest cover” used by the Forest Survey of India (FSI). The FSI defines “forest cover” as all lands more than 1 hectare in area with a tree canopy density of more than 10%, irrespective of ownership and legal status. The Goa Foundation contended that the State should adopt this definition, which would include areas with lower canopy density and smaller land areas than the current criteria.
The Goa Foundation relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 28.03.2008, which accepted the Central Empowered Committee’s (CEC) report on calculating Net Present Value (NPV) for the diversion of forest lands. This report classified forests into dense, moderately dense, and open categories based on canopy density, including open forests with a canopy density of 0.1 to 0.4.
The State of Goa and other respondents argued that the criteria for identifying forests had been established in 1991 and had been upheld by the Supreme Court in previous cases, particularly in Tata Housing Development Corporation v. Goa Foundation (2003) 11 SCC 714. They contended that the state had the right to determine its own criteria for identifying forests, and that the FSI’s definition was meant for assessing forest cover, not for identifying forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The respondents argued that the criteria of 5 hectares and 40% canopy density were necessary to ensure the long-term viability of forest conservation. They also argued that the FSI criteria would lead to a situation where even small patches of trees on private land would be classified as forests, causing undue hardship to landowners. The respondents also highlighted that the State of Goa has a high percentage of forest cover, and that the existing criteria were sufficient to protect the environment.
The Confederation of Real Estate Developer’s Association of India (CREDAI) also argued that the interim order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the Supreme Court, which restrained the State of Goa from issuing conversion sanads for private properties with tree cover in excess of 0.1 and an area above 1 hectare, was causing significant delays in development projects in the State.
| Submissions | Goa Foundation | State of Goa & Others |
|---|---|---|
| Criteria for Forest Identification | ✓ FSI definition should be adopted (1 hectare area, 10% canopy density). ✓ Relied on Supreme Court order of 2008 for NPV calculation. |
✓ Existing criteria (5 hectares, 40% canopy density) should be maintained. ✓ FSI definition is for assessing forest cover, not for identifying forest land. ✓ Existing criteria upheld in previous Supreme Court cases. |
| Impact of FSI criteria | ✓ Would ensure better protection of degraded forests. | ✓ Would cause hardship to landowners. ✓ Would lead to classifying small patches of trees as forests. |
| Interim Order | ✓ Interim order is causing delays in development projects. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the impugned order of the tribunal requires to be affirmed or reversed?
- Whether any further directions require to be issued in the facts and circumstances? And if so, what directions or orders?
- What order?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the impugned order of the tribunal requires to be affirmed or reversed? | Affirmed. | The tribunal’s decision to not interfere with the state’s criteria was correct. |
| Whether any further directions require to be issued in the facts and circumstances? And if so, what directions or orders? | No further directions are required. | The existing criteria are adequate and valid. |
| What order? | Appeals dismissed. | The interim order was vacated. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Shivanand Salgaocar v. Tree Officer & Ors. | High Court of Bombay | The High Court’s ruling that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to all lands, whether government or privately owned, led to the initial guidelines for identifying forests in Goa. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court clarified the definition of “forest” and directed states to form expert committees for identification. |
| Tata Housing Development Corporation v. Goa Foundation (2003) 11 SCC 714 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court upheld the criteria adopted by the Sawant Committee and disapproved any departure from such criteria. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | The Court discussed the concept of Net Present Value (NPV) and the need to work it out on economic principles. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2008) 7 SCC 126 | Supreme Court of India | The Court accepted the CEC’s report on calculating NPV for the diversion of forest lands. |
| Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors (2011) 7 SCALE 242 | Supreme Court of India | The Court directed to prepare a comprehensive policy for inspection, verification and monitoring and overall procedure related to grant of Forest Clearance (FC) and Identification of Forest in consolidation with States. |
| Re: Constitution of Park – Anand Arya v. Noida (2011) 1 SCC 744 | Supreme Court of India | The Court stated that if the criteria of 0.1 density is agreed, then most of Delhi would be forest. |
| Nisarga v. Asst. Conservator of Forests OA No.19 (THC) of 2013 | National Green Tribunal | The NGT rejected the argument that the minimum canopy density should be 0.1, based on the judgment of this Court in Tata Housing (supra). |
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the National Green Tribunal’s order. The Court held that the criteria used by the State of Goa for identifying forests were adequate and valid and did not require any alteration. The Court also vacated the interim order dated 04.02.2015, which had restrained the State from issuing conversion sanads for certain private properties.
The Court reasoned that the criteria for identifying forests were based on expert opinions and had been upheld in previous cases. It also noted that the FSI’s definition of “forest cover” was meant for assessing forest and tree cover and not for identifying forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court further observed that each state has its own unique geographical features, and therefore, the criteria for identifying forests may vary from one state to another.
The Court also noted that the Goa Foundation had taken contradictory stances by challenging the criteria used by the Sawant and Karapurkar Committees while simultaneously relying on the same criteria before the Tribunal. The Court held that the Goa Foundation could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate.
The Supreme Court also noted that the State of Goa has a high percentage of forest cover and that the existing criteria were sufficient to protect the environment. The Court observed that if the criteria were changed to include areas with lower canopy density and smaller land areas, it would lead to a situation where even small patches of trees on private land would be classified as forests, causing undue hardship to landowners.
The Court also observed that the application of criteria cannot be universally standardized across the country, as it is contingent upon the specific geography and geographical conditions prevalent in each State. Each State possesses its distinctive geographical features, and as a result, the criteria may vary from one State to another.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Goa Foundation’s argument to adopt FSI criteria | Rejected. The Court held that the FSI definition was meant for assessing forest cover, not for identifying forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. |
| State of Goa’s argument to maintain existing criteria | Accepted. The Court upheld the validity of the existing criteria. |
| CREDAI’s plea to vacate interim order | Accepted. The Court vacated the interim order. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Shivanand Salgaocar v. Tree Officer & Ors. | The High Court’s ruling was noted as the basis for the initial guidelines for identifying forests in Goa. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 | The Court relied on its clarification of the term “forest” and the direction to form expert committees. |
| Tata Housing Development Corporation v. Goa Foundation (2003) 11 SCC 714 | The Court relied on this judgment to uphold the criteria adopted by the Sawant Committee and disapproved any departure from such criteria. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC 1 | The Court noted that the NPV has to be worked out on economic principles. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2008) 7 SCC 126 | The Court noted that the report on calculating NPV for the diversion of forest lands, classified forests into dense, moderately dense, and open categories based on canopy density. |
| Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors (2011) 7 SCALE 242 | The Court noted that the judgment directed to prepare a comprehensive policy for inspection, verification and monitoring and overall procedure related to grant of Forest Clearance (FC) and Identification of Forest in consolidation with States. |
| Re: Constitution of Park – Anand Arya v. Noida (2011) 1 SCC 744 | The Court noted this judgment to state that if the criteria of 0.1 density is agreed, then most of Delhi would be forest. |
| Nisarga v. Asst. Conservator of Forests OA No.19 (THC) of 2013 | The Court noted that the NGT rejected the argument that the minimum canopy density should be 0.1, based on the judgment of this Court in Tata Housing (supra). |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain consistency and finality in the criteria for identifying forests in Goa. The Court was wary of unsettling established norms based on expert opinions and previous judicial pronouncements. The Court also considered the practical implications of adopting the FSI criteria, particularly the potential for causing hardship to landowners and disrupting development activities. The Court also took into account the unique geographical conditions of the State of Goa, and the fact that each state has its own unique geographical features, and therefore, the criteria for identifying forests may vary from one state to another.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consistency with previous judgments | 30% |
| Expert opinion and established norms | 25% |
| Practical implications of adopting FSI criteria | 25% |
| Unique geographical conditions of Goa | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
The Court rejected the argument that the NPV norms should be adopted as the criteria for private forests, stating that “the criteria for NPV must be worked out on economic principles and hence it is submitted that this can have no nexus with identification.”
The Court also emphasized that “the process of physical demarcation of such forests in the State of Goa seems to have attained finality by virtue of the reports.”
The Court also noted that the appellant had taken contradictory stances by challenging the criteria used by the Sawant and Karapurkar Committees while simultaneously relying on the same criteria before the Tribunal. The Court held that “appellant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.”
The Court also observed that “the application of criteria cannot be universally standardized across the country, as it is contingent upon the specific geography and geographical conditions prevalent in each State.”
The Court also noted that the existing criteria were sufficient to protect the environment, and that “if the criteria i.e., the canopy density of 0.4 and minimum area of 5 ha is reduced to 0.1 and 1 ha as contended, respectively, it will result in the plantations of coconut, orchards, bamboo, palm, supari, cashew, etc., grown by farmers on their private lands into the category of ‘private forest’.”
Key Takeaways
- States have the autonomy to determine their own criteria for identifying forests, considering their unique geographical conditions.
- The definition of “forest cover” used by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) is not necessarily applicable for identifying forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
- Courts prioritize consistency and finality in legal matters, especially those based on expert opinions and previous judicial pronouncements.
- Practical implications for landowners and development activities are also significant factors in judicial decision-making.
- The judgment reinforces the need for a balanced approach to environmental protection and development.
Directions
The Supreme Court vacated the interim order dated 04.02.2015, which had restrained the State of Goa from issuing conversion sanads for certain private properties.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that states have the autonomy to determine their own criteria for identifying forests, considering their unique geographical conditions. The judgment also reaffirms the principle that the FSI’s definition of “forest cover” is not necessarily applicable for identifying forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The judgment does not change the previous positions of law, but rather reinforces the existing legal framework.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (2024) upholds the State of Goa’s existing criteria for identifying forests. The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea to adopt the Forest Survey of India’s (FSI) parameters, emphasizing the state’s autonomy in determining its own environmental regulations. This judgment reinforces the principle that each state can establish its own criteria for forest identification, taking into account its unique geographical conditions. The decision also highlights the importance of consistency and finality in legal matters, as well as the need to balance environmental protection with development activities.