Supreme Court: While deciding whether a land proposed for development constituted forest land or deemed forest, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Forest Act), which mandates prior approval of the Central Government before use of forest land for non-forest purposes, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,* JJ., upheld the impugned judgment and held that land which was not recorded as forest and was earmarked for development under a statutory Master Plan cannot subsequently be treated as deemed forest merely due to later growth of trees.
Factual Matrix
The instant appeal was filed by two advocates claiming to be public-spirited persons, though they were not parties before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), challenging NGT’s judgment dated 13 February 2024 whereby NGT dismissed application challenging the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Rail Land Development Authority for development of railway land near Bijwasan Railway Station, Delhi.
The subject land formed part of a larger tract acquired by the Delhi Government in 1986 from village Bharthal, South-West Delhi. The acquisition award recorded the land as agricultural land containing standing crops. After acquisition, the land was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority and later allotted to the Railways in 2008 on perpetual lease for development of an Integrated Metropolitan Passenger Terminal. Possession was delivered in 2009, and material on record showed that the land was barren or agricultural at that time and not recorded as forest land.
The redevelopment of Bijwasan Railway Station was approved in planning meetings, and the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 classified the relevant parcel as multi-use land meant for planned urban development. In 2022, the Rail Land Development Authority issued RFP for mixed-use development on the land, and the successful bidder was granted lease for 99 years. The RFP required the bidder to obtain all statutory clearances, including tree or forest permissions where necessary.
An application was filed before the NGT alleging that the land contained more than 1000 trees and was therefore deemed forest, requiring prior approval under the Forest Act. The NGT rejected the claim holding that no reliable material showed the land to be forest land, and therefore the statutory requirements were not attracted.
Issues
-
Whether the land which is not a forest land as per revenue record or a declared forest nor fulfilling the requirement of a deemed forest, when the same is earmarked for execution of a project under a Master Plan, could with the efflux of time be declared as deemed forest, overriding the statutory binding force and sanctity of the said Master Plan?
-
Which would be the relevant date for consideration and determination of the nature of the land as ‘deemed forest’ i.e., the date of coming into force of the Master Plan or the date on which the actual work on the project, as earmarked under the Master Plan, is initiated on the ground?
Court’s Analysis
At the outset, the Court examined Section 2, Forest Act, which restricts use of forest land for non-forest purposes without Central Government approval. The Court reiterated that the expression “forest” must be understood in its dictionary sense and includes areas recorded as forest in government records, as held in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.
However, the Court noted that in In Re: Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, (2011) 1 SCC 744, this Court clarified that the concept of deemed forest cannot be applied mechanically and the historical character of land, revenue records, planning documents, and surrounding circumstances must be considered. It was stated that “it would be inconceivable that land, which was forever agricultural could, within a span of a few years, be converted into forest land merely on account of subsequent plantation or tree growth.”
The Court observed that the land in question was never declared forest land and was recorded in acquisition proceedings as agricultural land. The land subsequently became part of a planned urban development scheme incorporated in the statutory Master Plan of Delhi. It was noted that the mixed-use development envisaged under the Master Plan is not an isolated commercial venture but is intrinsically linked to the functioning and sustainability of the passenger terminal itself. It was further noted that that the project had received approval at different levels of government and forms part of a coordinated planning effort involving multiple agencies, including the DDA, the Ministry of Railways, and other statutory bodies. The planning had been in place for several years and had been acted upon, with substantial public resources already committed towards the development of the passenger terminal and associated infrastructure.
Discussing the nature and significance of the Master Plan, the Court held that a Master Plan is a statutory planning instrument and not merely a policy document. Once the plan was duly prepared, approved by the competent authority, and brought into force in accordance with law, it attained statutory force and became binding on all stakeholders.
The Court noted that the development projects under a Master Plan may take many years to execute, and the classification of land in the plan reflects the understanding of authorities at the time of its preparation. If later changes in vegetation were allowed to alter the legal character of land, every development project would remain uncertain indefinitely. Therefore, the sanctity of the Master Plan must prevail unless the plan itself records the land as forest or
The Court observed that the presence of trees alone does not establish the existence of forest. It must also be examined whether the vegetation forms part of a natural forest ecosystem or consists of invasive species introduced artificially. It was noted that a substantial portion of the vegetation in the area consisted of invasive species such as Prosopis Juliflora (Vilayati Kikar). Scientific observations indicated that such invasive species spread aggressively and displace indigenous vegetation, often disrupting ecological balance rather than contributing to a natural forest ecosystem. Therefore, the mere presence of dense vegetation, particularly when composed largely of invasive species, cannot by itself establish the existence of a natural forest.
The Court held that “where the Master Plan does not record the existence of trees or describe the land as containing forest cover, the subsequent emergence or proliferation of vegetation over a period of time cannot, by itself, bring the land within the ambit of deemed forest so as to unsettle the planning framework already put in place.”
The Court held that the relevant date for determining the nature of land is the date when the Master Plan came into force. At that time, the land was neither recorded as forest nor treated as deemed forest. It was further held that subsequent growth of vegetation cannot override the statutory planning framework. Therefore, the land could not be treated as deemed forest so as to require prior approval under the Forest Act.
The Court noted that the authorities had undertaken to obtain all required permissions, to preserve trees wherever possible, to transplant trees, and to carry out compensatory afforestation. The project also required maintenance of a substantial portion of land as green area. The Court considered these safeguards sufficient to ensure compliance with environmental laws while allowing the project to proceed.
Court’s Decision
The Court upheld the NGT’s order and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that:
-
the land approved under Master Plan, which was not a forest land as per revenue record or a declared forest nor fulfillled the requirement of a deemed forest at the time of enforcement of Master Plan, cannot be subsequently declared a forest or a deemed forest overriding the statutory binding force and sanctity of the said Master Plan.
-
the relevant date for consideration and determination of the nature of the land as ‘deemed forest’ would be the date of coming into force of the Master Plan.
The Court directed all concerned authorities and implementing agencies shall make earnest efforts to ensure transplantation of native/indigenous trees to the maximum extent possible and maintain ecological balance. The Court further directed that prior to the commencement of any work on the site, compensatory afforestation should be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and guidelines, and in consonance with the permissions that may be granted by the competent authorities.
[Naveen Solanki v. Rail Land Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 10656 of 2024, decided on 20-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Augustine George Masih