Supreme Court Explains The Meaning Of "Forest" And "Forest Land"

On July 21, the Supreme Court delivered a verdict that explained the meaning of “Forest” and “Forest Land”. The broad issue involved in the appeals writ petitions was “Whether a land covered under a special order issued by the Government of Haryana under Section 4 of the Punjab 2 Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short, ‘PLPA’) is a ‘forest land’ within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the 1980 Forest Act’)?”

FACTS

Civil appeals challenged the orders of the National Green Tribunal, which, in essence, ordered to restrain the carrying on of any non-forest activities on the subject lands. The NGT proceeded on the footing that the lands at village Anangpur covered by the order dated 18th August 1992 issued under Section 4 of PLPA were forest lands within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act. In another such order, the NGT had noted that land declared under Section 4 of PLPA were forest lands within the meaning of Forest Act 1980. The writ petitions challenged the illegality of the orders under Section 4 PLPA. The writs were largely to restrain the municipal authorities from dispossessing the petitioners.

CONTENTIONS

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for the writ petitioners and based his submission primarily on the argument that merely because the subject lands are covered by the notifications/orders issued by the State of Haryana under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PLPA, the same cannot be ipso facto treated as forest lands within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act. He submitted that though the lands in question have been shown as unclassified forests in the records of the State Forest Department, it is not conclusive as the Forest Department is only a supervisory department. It was further submitted that the 1927 Forest Act is a central legislation, which must prevail. Hence, if any private land is to be treated as a forest land, the same must satisfy the tests laid down in Chapter V of the 1927 Forest Act.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the state government and extensively relied upon the Additional Affidavit filed by Shri Suresh Dalal, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana. He submitted that the effect of the 1980 Forest Act is that except for certain purposes mentioned in Section 2, forest lands can always be diverted for non-forest use with the prior permission of the Central Government. Mehta urged that the main object was to prevent erosion of soil and conservation of sub-soil water. It was contended that PLPA has no connection whatsoever with the issue of forests.

OBSERVATIONS

The apex court comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, AS Oka and CT Ravikumar, observed that, “A conjoint reading of Articles 21, 48A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India will show that the State is under a mandate to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests. The precautionary principle requires the Government to anticipate, prevent and remedy or eradicate the causes of environmental degradation including to act sternly against the violators.”

Elaborating upon the judicial meaning of “forests”, the Court noted, “The concept of forest under the 1927 Forest Act appears to be different from the concept of forest under the 1980 Forest Act. The analysis of the provisions of both the enactments will show 28 that their spheres of operation are not the same though there may be some overlap.” The Court further noted that 1927 Act does not define the terms ‘forest’, ‘reserved forest’ and ‘protected forest’ and that a forest land does not become a reserved forest unless a notification is issued under Section 20 and publishing it under Section 29 of the 1927 Forest Act. 

Terming the 1980 Act as a complimentary enactment, the Court observed that, “this enactment does not provide for an absolute prohibition on the use of any forest land or a part thereof for any non-forest purposes.”

“The owner of a private land which is a forest within the meaning of Section 2 can convert its use for non-forest purposes only after obtaining requisite permission of the State Government or concerned competent authority,” the Court affirmed.

The Court noted that, “when we consider the meaning of a forest or forest land within the meaning of Clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 2, it has to be a large or extensive tract of land having a dense growth of trees, thickets, mangroves etc. A small isolated plot of land will not come within the ambit of Clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 2 merely because there are some trees or thickets thereon, as opposed to extensive tract of land covered with dense 47 growth of trees and underbrush or plants resembling a forest in profusion or lushness.”

The Court, in its conclusion, held orders issued by the state governments were without the force of the law as the lands had the trappings of a forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 and therefore non-forest activity could not be permitted without approval of Central Government.