Subsequent Tree Growth On Land Approved For Development Won't Make It 'Deemed Forest' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that land designated for development under a notified Master Plan cannot be treated as a “deemed forest” merely due to subsequent growth of vegetation or trees, and therefore, prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would not be required for felling such later-grown trees.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the National Green Tribunal's order to approve the redevelopment project at Bijwasan Railway Station in Delhi, which was objected to on the ground that the redevelopment was carried out on land, which had subsequently attained 'deemed forest' status on account of tree growth.

Dismissing the appeal and approving the redevelopment plan, the Court observed:

“…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….if the non-use or use of land leads to some changes due to natural or human intervention, the same shall have no impact, what so ever on the project as and when the same is to be executed in pursuance of and in accordance with the Master Plan. In other words, the sanctity and statutory binding force of the Master Plan will have primacy and shall prevail.”

The case arose from a redevelopment project undertaken by the Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA), which issued a Request for Proposal in December 2022 for mixed-use development of a 12.4-hectare land parcel near Bijwasan Railway Station.

The land was acquired in 1986 as agricultural land with standing crops. It was transferred to the Railways in 2008 for developing an Integrated Metropolitan Passenger Terminal, moreover in 2021 the land was classified for multi-use development under the Master Plan of Delhi.

The project was challenged before the National Green Tribunal, with the petitioner arguing that the land had become a “deemed forest” due to the presence of over 1,100 trees, relying on the principles laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India.

The NGT rejected the plea, holding that the land was not forest land because of being situated in a fully urbanised area with surrounding infrastructure, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Affirming the NGT's ruling, the judgment authored by Justice Masih held that “mere presence of vegetation or tree cover cannot by itself be equated with the existence of a natural forest ecosystem.”

The Court rejected the Appellant's argument to declare the subject land as 'deemed forest' land as per T.N. Godavarman, noting that “the determination of whether a particular parcel of land answers the description of “forest” or “deemed forest” cannot be undertaken in isolation. Such assertation must necessarily take into account the historical character of the land, the classification reflected in revenue and planning records, and the circumstances in which the land came to be utilised.”

Noting that the land in question was located in a fully urbanised area with developed surroundings, the Court held that the mere growth of invasive alien species, lacking any historical record of existence on the land, cannot confer upon it the status of a “deemed forest.”

“Native vegetation comprises plant species that have evolved within a particular geographical region and form part of its natural ecological system. Such species sustain biodiversity and ecological balance by supporting wildlife, pollinators and soil processes while remaining adapted to local climatic and hydrological conditions. In contrast, invasive alien species are plants introduced from outside their natural range which tend to spread aggressively and displace indigenous vegetation.”, the court observed.

“mere proliferation of vegetation, particularly where it consists of invasive alien species introduced through historical human intervention, does not necessarily signify the presence of a natural forest ecosystem.”, the court added.

Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed, holding that:

“…a duly approved and notified Master Plan possesses statutory force and provides the governing framework for use of land and urban development, and its operation cannot be unsettled merely on account of subsequent changes in vegetation or tree growth, particularly where such growth includes invasive species that do not form part of a natural forest ecosystem. In the absence of any contemporaneous material demonstrating that the land possessed the character of forest at the time of formation of the Master Plan, the subsequent proliferation of vegetation cannot alter its legal status or impede the implementation of the development contemplated under the Master Plan. Consequently, the Master Plan must prevail, and the subject land cannot be treated as “deemed forest” and thus, no permission or sanction of the Central Government under Section 2 of 1980 Act would be required.”, the court observed.

Cause Title: NAVEEN SOLANKI AND ANOTHER VERSUS RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankur Sood, AOR Mr. Dhaman Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Prajwal Suman, Adv. Ms. Romila Mandal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Aastha Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Kataria, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhurv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Shashikiran Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Ms. Rachel Raju Alice, Adv. Mr. Sandesh Shetty, Adv. Mr. Keith Verghese, Adv. Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv.