Supreme Court Upholds NGT Decision on Forest Land Classification in Uttarakhand: Chandra Prakash Budakoti vs. Union of India (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1234

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can land recorded as ‘banjar’ or barren in revenue records be considered a ‘deemed forest’ and thus be protected under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? This was the central question before the Supreme Court in this case. The Court examined an appeal against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order concerning construction activities in Uttarakhand, focusing on whether certain land parcels should be classified as forest land. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case began with a public interest application filed by Chandra Prakash Budakoti, a journalist, before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). He raised concerns about environmental damage caused by private entities in the Tehri Garhwal district of Uttarakhand. Specifically, he alleged large-scale felling of trees and construction activities in private forests located at Patti Dhamnsu, Narendranagar, particularly in Khasra Nos. 512, 514, and 605. The journalist also complained of blasting activities in the fragile Himalayan region. He claimed that despite complaints to district authorities, no action was taken to stop the violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The NGT directed an inspection which revealed progressive degradation of forest cover in Khasra No. 605.

The State of Uttarakhand, in its counter-affidavit, stated that a hotel/villa was being constructed by Mahananda Spa and Resorts Private Limited since 2010-2011 in Khasra Nos. 512, 513, and 605. The State government contended that the land in question was neither a reserved forest nor a forest in the records of the Forest Department. Khasra Nos. 512 and 513 were recorded as private forests in the revenue records, while Khasra No. 605 was recorded as barren land. The State government also mentioned that the project proponent was directed to stop construction due to complaints from local residents, and a fine was imposed for damaged trees under the U.P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hills Areas Act, 1976.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) initially directed an inspection by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) based on the appellant’s application. The FSI report indicated a progressive degradation of forest cover in Khasra No. 605. However, the NGT found discrepancies in the FSI report regarding the area of Khasra No. 605, which was inconsistent with revenue records.

Subsequently, the NGT directed the Regional office of the Ministry of Environment & Forest at Dehradun to conduct another inspection. This inspection report concluded that Khasra No. 605 was recorded as ‘banjar’ (barren) in revenue records and was not considered a deemed forest. The NGT accepted this report and held that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, would not apply to Khasra No. 605. However, the NGT held that Khasra Nos. 512 and 513 were ‘private forest’ lands and directed the Forest Department to initiate proceedings for violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, if constructions were undertaken without prior approval.

Aggrieved by the NGT’s decision regarding Khasra No. 605, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This Act aims to control deforestation and ensure the preservation of forests. The Act restricts the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval from the Central Government.

The U.P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hills Areas Act, 1976, was also mentioned in the context of the fine imposed on the project proponent for damaging trees during construction.

The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, which clarified that the term “forest” should be understood according to its dictionary meaning.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant argued that Khasra No. 605 is a deemed forest and should be protected under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• He contended that the word ‘forest’ should be understood according to its dictionary meaning, as held in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India.
• The Appellant presented Google images from 2007 to 2014 to show that the area was once densely populated with trees and had undergone a gradual change.
• He alleged that Oak and Kukat trees were cut, and construction was commenced by Respondent No. 9 without obtaining the necessary clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act.
• He relied on reports from the Forest Survey of India and joint inspection reports to support his claim of progressive reduction in forest area in Khasra No. 605.
• He cited the judgments in M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave matters) v. Union of India and Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. State of Kerala to argue that any construction carried out without the required permissions is liable to be demolished.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 9 argued that the land in Khasra No. 605/1 is recorded as ‘banjar’ (barren) land in the revenue records and is not a forest.
• They stated that initially, Mahananda Spa and Resorts Limited was to be constructed in 5702.20 sq. meters, for which a sanctioned building plan was granted.
• They contended that environment clearance was required only if the built-up area of a project was more than 20,000 sq. meters, as per the notification dated 14.09.2006.
• As the built-up area was increased, a fresh building plan was submitted for approval.
• The Respondent stated that the entire shareholding of the erstwhile promoters of Respondent No. 9 was sold to Mankind Pharmaceuticals Limited company.
• They applied for environment clearance on 01.02.2016 and Consent to Establish from the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board.
• The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority conducted a site inspection on 21.02.2016, and environment clearance was granted on 03.03.2016.
• They claimed that there was no felling of any trees, as alleged by the Appellant, and that all necessary sanctions and approvals were obtained.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether Khasra No. 605 is a deemed forest and falls within the ambit of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 267] – Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the word ‘forest’ should be understood according to its dictionary meaning.
• NOIDA Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, In Re v. 4 [(2011) 1 SCC 744] – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to highlight the importance of giving due weight to revenue records, especially old ones.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: The Court examined the applicability of this Act to the land in question.
• U.P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hills Areas Act, 1976: The Court noted this Act in the context of the fine imposed for damaging trees.

Authorities Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 267]*: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the word ‘forest’ should be understood according to its dictionary meaning, but ultimately relied on the revenue records to classify the land.

✓ NOIDA Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, In Re v. 4 [(2011) 1 SCC 744]*: The Court followed this case to emphasize the importance of giving due weight to old revenue records.

The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s decision, stating that the land in Khasra No. 605 is ‘banjar’ (barren) and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, do not apply to it. The Court emphasized the importance of revenue records, particularly those pertaining to a period when the dispute regarding the land being a forest did not exist. The Court noted that the land was not considered a deemed forest in the report filed in the Godavarman case.

The Court stated, “In the instant case, the revenue records relied upon by the Respondent No.9 are very old when nobody could have imagined about the project.”

The Court also observed, “There is no evidence of blasting operations. There is also no sign of any fresh felling of trees and finally it was concluded that the land in Khasra No.605 cannot qualify as deemed forest.”

Regarding Khasra Nos. 512 and 514, the Court directed the Forest Department, State of Uttarakhand, and Ministry of Environment and Forest to complete the inquiry within three months and take further action immediately thereafter, as directed by the Tribunal.

The Court concluded, “For the aforementioned reasons, we uphold the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Revenue Records: The Court gave significant weight to the old revenue records that classified Khasra No. 605 as ‘banjar’ (barren). The Court noted that these records were from a time when there was no dispute about the land being a forest.
• Absence of Deemed Forest Classification: The Court observed that the land in Khasra No. 605 was not considered a deemed forest by the Forest Department in the report filed in the Godavarman case.
• Site Inspection Report: The Court relied on the site inspection report of the Regional Office of the MoEF, which concluded that Khasra No. 605 was non-forest land.
• Lack of Evidence of Blasting and Tree Felling: The Court noted that there was no evidence of blasting operations or fresh tree felling at the site.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal precedents. The emphasis on old revenue records and the absence of any evidence of the land being treated as a forest by the relevant authorities played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning Flowchart

Key Takeaways

✓ Revenue records, especially old ones, hold significant weight in determining whether a piece of land is a forest or not.

✓ The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, is not applicable to land recorded as ‘banjar’ (barren) in revenue records, unless there is substantial evidence to prove that the land is a deemed forest.

✓ Site inspection reports from the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest are crucial in determining the actual status of the land.

✓ The absence of evidence of blasting or fresh tree felling can be a significant factor in deciding whether the land is a forest.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Forest Department, State of Uttarakhand, and Ministry of Environment and Forest to complete the inquiry regarding Khasra Nos. 512 and 514 within three months and take further action immediately thereafter, as directed by the Tribunal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that revenue records, particularly old ones, are a significant factor in determining whether a piece of land is a forest or not. The judgment also clarifies that land recorded as ‘banjar’ (barren) in revenue records is not automatically considered a deemed forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This reinforces the importance of historical land records and site-specific evidence in environmental law cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment reinforces the importance of revenue records.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s decision, ruling that Khasra No. 605 is not a deemed forest and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, does not apply to it. The Court emphasized the importance of old revenue records and site inspection reports in determining the classification of land. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of ‘forest’ and the applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, in cases involving land recorded as ‘banjar’ (barren) in revenue records.