Permission To Cut Trees Must Follow Definition Of 'Forest' In Godavarman Decision Though Land Not Notified As Forest: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that any permission to cut or remove trees has to be given by following the definition of forest given by the Court in its 1997 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, irrespective of whether the land in question has been formally notified as a reserve forest.As per the 1997 judgment, the Court gave a wider meaning to forest land and said that it will also include any area recorded as forest in the Government record, irrespective of the ownership.The land in question pertains to the wildlife sanctuary in Balrampur district, which was notified as a sanctuary in 1988. One of its ranges surrounds the Narainpur Jhingha village. Before it was notified, the farmers of the Narainpur village had sought an exchange of their agricultural land with the land on the outskirts of the forest, as their crops were being damaged by the wild animals.The Uttar Pradesh Government approved the exchange of 82.57 acres of agricultural land for 53 acres of forest land. Soon, the forest department began carrying out the plantation in the land received from farmers, and eventually it became homogenous with the surrounding forest. However, this land was never legally declared as a reserve forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.The issue arose after three farmers in 1990 illegally sold the exchange land to the present Respondents, who were also fully aware that this land was given in an exchange agreement. They then sought permission to cut and remove fallen and dry standing trees, which was denied. Subsequent to this, they approached the Allahabad High Court, which in 2006 stated that since the land in question was never declared a reserve forest, the authorities could not have interfered in the possession as owners of the plot. It held that the authorities shall not obstruct lifting the trees which have already fallen.When the State Government came before the Supreme Court, a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar observed that the High Court failed to consider the full legal status of the land as necessary notifications and documents relating to it were not before it. Disposing of the appeal, it noted: "We are of the opinion that any order or direction to cut trees or to move cut trees will have to be considered in the context of the definition of “forest” as defined by this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India. The obligation to follow the procedure under the laws, rules and regulations continue to apply."Case Detail: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THR. ITS SECRETARY & ORS. v. JYOTI BHUSHAN MISHRA & ANR.Click Here To Read OrderAppearances: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saket, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Ms. Rupali, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, Adv.For Respondent(s) :Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Adv. Mr. Brij Bhushan Jauhari, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vabhav Manu Srivastava, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Sudershan Goel, Adv.

Permission To Cut Trees Must Follow Definition Of 'Forest' In Godavarman Decision Though Land Not Notified As Forest: Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags