The Supreme Court has ruled that the land, earmarked for execution of a project under an approved Master Plan, which is not a forest land as per revenue record or a declared forest nor fulfilling the requirement of a deemed forest at the time of coming into force of the said Master Plan, cannot be subsequently declared a forest or a deemed forest overriding the statutory binding force and sanctity of the said Master Plan. Further, 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.
Where the Master Plan does not record the existence of trees or describe the land as containing forest cover, the Court clarified that 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 therefore upheld the National Green Tribunal’s order which approved the redevelopment project by the Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) at Bijwasan Railway Station in Delhi, that 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.
The Court also directed the concerned authorities and implementing agencies to make earnest efforts to ensure transplantation of native/indigenous trees to the maximum extent possible, and to preserve and protect existing trees and in particular native species in and around the project area. Further, prior to the commencement of any work on the site, compensatory afforestation shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and guidelines
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the determination of whether a parcel of land answers the description of ‘forest’ or ‘deemed forest’ cannot be undertaken in isolation. Such an assertion 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 utilized.
The Bench noted that a Master Plan is a statutory planning instrument intended for the holistic development of an area, representing a comprehensive framework for long-term planned optimum land utilization. Once a Master Plan is duly prepared, approved by the competent authority, and brought into force, it attains statutory force and becomes binding on all stakeholders. If subsequent changes, such as the natural growth of vegetation or an increase in tree cover over time, were treated as sufficient to alter the legal character of the land for the purposes of the 1980 Act, it would introduce an element of perpetual uncertainty into statutory planning.
Further, the Bench categorically observed that where the Master Plan does not record the existence of trees or describe the land as containing forest cover at the time of its formation, 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. Without changing the Master Plan in accordance with law, if the non-use or use of land leads to changes due to natural or human intervention, the same shall have no impact whatsoever on the project as and when it is executed in pursuance of the Master Plan. The sanctity and statutory binding force of the Master Plan will have primacy and shall prevail.
Significantly, the Court stated that 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.
Lastly, the Bench clarified that development projects contemplated under a Master Plan are often implemented in phases and may span several years or decades. These projects necessarily proceed based on the conditions prevailing at the time of the Master Plan’s formulation, including the character and classification of the land concerned. Therefore, the determination of the land’s nature must be assessed based on the planning framework within which the land is situated and sought to be utilized at its inception, rather than at the stage of execution.
Briefly, an Original Application (OA) was filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) by Respondent No. 5 challenging the Request for Proposal (RFP) dated Dec 19, 2022 issued by the Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA). The RFP was for a combined Multi-Use plot (MU4+MU5+MU6) admeasuring approximately 12.40 hectares situated along the New Bijwasan Railway Station, Delhi. The challenge was based on the allegation that the subject land was part of forest land under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and permission from the Central Government had not been obtained to cut trees for the project’s implementation.
The subject land is part of a larger tract acquired by the Delhi Government vide Award No. 19/86-87 from village Bhartal, which was recorded as agricultural land containing standing crops at the time of acquisition. This land was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on August 22, 1986. Subsequently, 110.07 hectares of this land was allotted by the DDA to the Railway Authority on January 21, 2008 on a permanent perpetual leasehold basis for the development of the Integrated Metropolitan Passenger Terminal (IMPT). Possession was handed over on July 01, 2009, at which time the land was barren/agricultural and admittedly not a declared forest land.
The redevelopment project was approved in a 2014 Governing Body meeting of DDA’s UTTIPEC, and the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 indicated the subject land as a part of planned development, classifying it for Multi Use. The RFP was issued for mixed-use development (55% Residential and 45% Commercial) for 99 years, and Bagmane Developers Private Limited (BDPL) became the successful bidder, executing a lease on May 25, 2023.
The NGT dismissed the OA, holding that no cogent material was produced to show the land was forest land, and that the definition of deemed forest requires 100 trees per acre, which was not established. The Appellants, who were not parties before the NGT, challenged this judgment, relying on a private survey dated June 06, 2024 claiming the presence of 530 trees on 2.5 acres. The Respondents countered that the land is not a notified forest, that 70% of the trees are invasive species, which disrupt native biodiversity, and that the project is a critical public infrastructure initiative under the Master Plan.
Appearances:
AOR Ankur Sood, along with Advocates Dhaman Trivedi, Romila Mandal, and Prajwal Suman, for the Appellants
ASG Aishwarya Bhati, AORs Amrish Kumar, Chirag M. Shroff, Mahesh Thakur, along with Advocates Ruchi Kohli, Aastha Singh, Chitrangda Rashtravara, Ishaan Sharma, Siddhant Kohli, Anirudh Singh, Riddhi Jad, Rachel Raju Alice, Sandesh Shetty, Keith Verghese, Vipasha Singh, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Narveer Yadav, Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Anshula Laroiya, Siddhartha Sati, and Ruchi Kumari, for the Respondents
