Naveen Solanki vs Rail Land Development Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 270
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10656 OF 2024
NAVEEN SOLANKI AND ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
…RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.860 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. This Appeal arises out of judgment and order
dated 13.02.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”)
passed by the National Green Tribunal, New
Delhi (“NGT”), whereby it dismissed the Original
Application No.697 of 2023 (“OA”) filed by Shri
R.M. Asif, Respondent No. 5.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.03.20
17:04:35 IST
Reason:
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 1 of 48
2. The OA was filed challenging the Request for
Proposal number RLDA/RFP/CD-85 of 2022
dated 19.12.2022 (“RFP”) issued by the Rail
Land Development Authority, Respondent No.1
(“RLDA”) for the combined Multi-Use plot,
MU4+MU5+MU6 Railway Land parcel (“subject
land”) admeasuring approximately 1,24,000 sq.
mtrs. or 12.40 hectares situated along New
Bijwasan Railway Station, Delhi, on the plea
that the subject land was part of forest land and
in terms of Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (“1980 Act”),
permission of the Central Government has not
been obtained to cut trees in the process of
implementation of the above RFP.
3. The Original Applicant – Respondent No.5 has
not challenged the Impugned Judgment. This
Appeal has been filed by two advocates who
claim to be public-spirited persons but were not
party before NGT. RLDA – Respondent No.1 is a
statutory Authority under Ministry of Railways
– Respondent No.2 established under the
Railways Act, 1989 to develop the vacant
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 2 of 48
Railway Land for commercial use for the
purpose of generating revenue by nontariff
measures. Department of Forests and Wildlife,
Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi – Respondent No.3, is the governmental
organization responsible for the management
and conservation of forest and wildlife resources
in Delhi, India. Bagmane Developers Private
Limited (“BDPL”) - Respondent No.4 is a private
company engaged in the business of buying,
selling, renting and operating of self-owned or
leased real estate and Shri R.M. Arif –
Respondent No. 5 is the original applicant
before the NGT in OA.
4. The necessary and undisputed facts, as culled
out from the material on record and pleadings
of parties are as follows: -
(i) The subject land is a part of larger tract of
land acquired by the Delhi Government
vide Award No. 19/86-87 from village
Bhartal, South-West Delhi. The land was
in the nature of agricultural land as noted
in the acquisition award dated 22.09.1986
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 3 of 48
mentioning therein that the land
contained standing crops. This acquired
land was handed over to Delhi
Development Authority (“DDA”) on
22.09.1986.
(ii) Out of the aforesaid acquired land, the
Project land admeasuring 110.07 hectares
was allotted by the DDA to the Railway
Authority on 21.01.2008 on permanent
perpetual leasehold basis for the purpose
of development of Integrated Metropolitan
Passenger Terminal (IMPT). Possession of
the same was handed over to the Railway
Authority on 01.07.2009. It would not be
out of way to note here that as per the
material on record and the satellite images
of the said period produced by the parties,
the subject land was a barren/agricultural
land at the time of handing over of
possession to the Railway Authority and
admittedly not a declared forest land. The
Northern Railway constructed a boundary
wall surrounding the Project land in 2009
itself.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 4 of 48
(iii) In a Governing Body meeting dated
19.12.2014 of DDA’s Unified Traffic &
Transportation Infrastructure Centre
(“UTTIPEC”) under Chairmanship of the Lt.
Governor of Delhi, the project for
redevelopment of Bijwasan Railway
Station was approved. Pursuant to the
approval, a Master Plan of 2015 was
prepared which also included the subject
land. The subject land was classified as a
parcel for Multi Use (MU4+MU5+MU6).
The Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 also
indicates the subject land as a part of
planned development for Bijwasan (South-
West Delhi-Dwarka Project).
(iv) While the construction of proposed
Bijwasan Railway Station was ongoing,
Respondent No.1 issued an RFP dated
19.12.2022 for mixed-use development
(55% Residential and 45% Commercial) on
the subject land for 99 years. It is pertinent
to note here that the RFP states that all
forest/tree clearances, where required,
shall be obtained by the bidder.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 5 of 48
(v) Respondent No.4-BDPL became successful
bidder of the RFP, and the subject land
was leased out to it on 25.05.2023 for
mixed-use development for 99 years.
5. In the background of the above facts,
Respondent No.5 filed OA before the NGT
challenging the above issued RFP dated
19.12.2022 alleging that the subject land is part
of forest land as per Section 2 of 1980 Act, as
there are as many as 1100 trees standing on the
subject land which will be cut in the process of
implementation of the project and the said land
is covered under the definition of deemed forest .
6. Respondent No.1 herein filed an affidavit in
response to the allegations levelled in the OA
stating that the subject land is part of Master
Plan of Delhi, 2021 and is allotted to Railways
by the DDA in 2008 for development of Bijwasan
Railway Station Project. Further, it was stated
that the subject land is not a forest land or
deemed forest as per municipal revenue records
and was a completely barren land with no tree(s)
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 6 of 48
nor any significant vegetation. Over a period of
time some shrubs and trees have come up on
the subject land, which would not make it a
forest land. Respondent No.1 further submitted
that the RFP issued on 19.12.2022 includes a
clause instructing the successful bidders to
obtain requisite permission as per law, if
required.
7. Respondent No.3 has also filed an affidavit
dated 12.02.2024 stating that the said land is
not a notified forest land and status of land, as
on date, as deemed forest is not ruled out.
8. The NGT vide Impugned Judgment dismissed
the OA filed by the Respondent No. 5 holding
that the applicant has not produced any cogent
material to show that the land in question is a
forest land, and as far as deemed forest is
concerned the NGT relied upon the submission
of the Respondent No.1 that the definition of
deemed forest requires 100 trees per acre which
is not the case in the OA filed by the Respondent
No.5. The NGT further recorded that the Forest
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 7 of 48
(Conservation) Act, 1980 has been amended by
the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023
and amended Section 1(A) does not cover
deemed forest.
9. The above findings and observations of the NGT
are challenged before this Court in the present
Appeal. This Court vide order dated 17.09.2024
restrained the respondents from felling and/or
damaging the trees on the subject land and
directed that no construction shall be carried
out thereon, and vide Order dated 03.03.2025
clarified that the stay granted will remain
confined to subject land of OA filed before the
NGT.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits
that the Impugned Judgment overlooks the fact
that the said land consists of dense forest and
is home to many trees, plants, animals, and bird
species. The said land falls within the definition
of “forest land” under the 1980 Act, as per the
test laid down in T.N. Godavarman
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 8 of 48
1
Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others
and as clarified in the affidavit dated
15.09.1997 filed in the Supreme Court.
11. He asserts that the Impugned Judgment
proceeds on incorrect premise that the concept
of deemed forest has been completely excluded
by the 2023 Amendment carried out in the 1980
Act. This assertion of the Respondent No.1 as
made has been accepted by the NGT without
discussing the merits of the said argument.
Reliance is placed on Narinder Singh and
2
Others v. Divesh Bhutani and Others ,
wherein it is held that Article 21 of the
Constitution of India confers a fundamental
right on individuals to live in a pollution-free
environment, and the principles laid down
therein are squarely applicable to the present
case.
12. He further submits that the affidavit dated
02.02.2024 filed by the Divisional Forest Officer
is silent on the issue as to whether the disputed
1
(1997) 2 SCC 267
2
(2023) 17 SCC 779 : [2022] 15 S.C.R. 1066
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 9 of 48
land is a forest or not. Instead, the NGT relies
solely on the submissions made by the
Respondent No. 1, which is an interested party,
whose statements cannot be relied upon. He
submits that a survey report and certificate
dated 06.06.2024 issued by Sky Blue
Engineering Consultant clearly show that 530
trees are present on 2.5 acres of land,
establishing thereby the trees to be more than
100 per acre.
13. He rests his submissions by stating that the
transplantation of mature trees poses
significant challenges and that the survival rate
is notoriously low due to extensive root damage
during the process. Planting saplings as
substitutes is also not a viable solution, as they
require decades to match the ecological benefits
of the mature trees.
14. The learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing for the Respondent No.1, challenges
the maintainability of the present Appeal by
submitting that this Court in Mantri Techzone
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 10 of 48
Private Limited v. Forward Foundation and
3
Others laid down that the remedy of appeal
under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010 does not ipso facto permit the
appellants to agitate their appeal so as to seek
reappreciation of the factual matrix of the entire
matter.
15. She further submits that the survey dated
06.06.2024, relied upon by the Appellants is
unauthorized, as only Delhi Tree Authority is
the body authorized to conduct such survey for
the purpose of calculation of trees under Delhi
Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. The survey
includes no supporting documents or the
manner in which it is conducted, leaving it
susceptible to conjectures and errors.
16. She asserts that the subject land is neither a
declared reserved forest nor recorded as forest
in the government or revenue records and hence
is not covered under the 1980 Act. She
emphasizes that even letter dated 10.03.2022 of
3
(2019) 18 SCC 494
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 11 of 48
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change clarifies that prior permission of Central
Government under Section 2 of 1980 Act is not
required for works on railway land.
17. She further submits that the Appellants have
stated distorted facts in the Appeal by referring
to the land as 120 acres without specifying
which segment of total land admeasuring 272
acres of Bijwasan Railway Station Project is
being referred to in the pleadings. She rests her
submission by stating that the redevelopment
project is in public interest and in consonance
with the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 which has
provided for inclusion of five new directional
passenger terminal in order to decongest the
central area of Delhi.
18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.4 submits that the project land
was handed over to the Ministry of Railways by
the DDA in 2009, at that time there existed no
greenery and it was a barren land, as shown in
the Google Earth photographs. Subsequently,
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 12 of 48
the Project was approved by the Central
Government under National Transit Oriented
Development Policy. The Indian Railway
Stations Development Corporation has also
sought the opinion of the Ministry of Law and
Justice, which recognises that commercial
development on railway land is covered within
the term “railway” for the purposes of the
Railway Act and that no clearance from the
Environment Ministry is necessary.
19. He further submits that one of the compliances
in the RFP is that 20% of project area is to be
left for green cover. There are measures adopted
to minimize the loss of trees, as an application
dated 16.08.2024 is already filed before the
Forest Department seeking necessary approval
for removal and transplantation of trees. A
survey is conducted through an empanelled
surveyor, and the report provides details of each
tree on the subject land, identifying the trees
that can be transplanted, those that have to be
removed, and those that cannot be
transplanted. An agreement of sale dated
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 13 of 48
05.09.2024 is entered into for purchase of 60
acres of land in Delhi for transplantation of
trees, and additional approval is obtained from
the Delhi Nagar Nigam to plant 4000 trees at
specified locations.
20. He contends that as per the affidavit dated
12.02.2024 filed before the NGT on behalf of the
Deputy Conservator of Forest, West Forest
Division, Department of Forest and Wildlife,
GNCTD the land is not a notified land or
forest
a forest land, and the Indian Forest Act, 1927
also does not declare it to be a reserve forest.
Moreover, the surrounding area around subject
land are fully developed land with Metro Station
on one side and Railway Station on other side,
and Airport lies across the land with
surrounding residential and commercial areas.
21. Reliance is also placed upon the publication
titled Delhi’s Forest at a Glance , issued by the
Department of Forest and Wildlife, NCT of Delhi
to contend that invasive species such as Vilayati
Kikar affect the ecological balance of the area
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 14 of 48
and dominate indigenous vegetation thereby
reducing natural biodiversity resulting into
disruptions in entire food chain. The
Government of NCT of Delhi is undertaking
initiatives to restore native species in place of
harmful invasive species. The subject land
consists 70% trees of such invasive species
which are not beneficial for maintaining
ecological balance rather disrupting the native
biodiversity.
22. He submits that if branches are excluded and
the trees of invasive species are not taken into
consideration, the number of trees comes down
to 2047 trees in subject land i.e. 2047
trees/30.64 acres = 69 trees per acre. In this
view of the matter, even if the parameters laid
down in T.N. Godavarman (supra) are applied,
the land does not qualify as deemed forest.
23. Learned Senior Counsel rests his submissions
relying upon the case of Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar
4
Utkarsh Samiti and Others , wherein this
4
(2004) 2 SCC 392
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 15 of 48
Court held that there must be a balance
between economic development and social
needs on the one hand and environmental
considerations on the other, and that there
should not be a deadlock between development
and environment. Reliance is also place upon
The Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp
5
Mody and Others , wherein this Court
observed that while the right to a clean
environment is a fundamental right under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
the right to development through
industrialisation also claims priority under the
same provisions, and therefore sustainable
development requires a harmonised and
balanced approach between the right to
development and the right to environment.
24. Having heard the counsel for parties and on
perusing the material on record, we are of the
opinion that it is undisputed that the subject
land is not a declared forest land, which is also
not the claim of the Appellants.
5
(2025) 4 SCC 150
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 16 of 48
25. The issues, therefore, that arise for
determination are:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
26. Before we delve into analyzing the issues at
hand, we find it apposite to examine the
definition and legal understanding of the
expression “forest” and “forest land” as provided
under section 2 of the 1980 Act. Section 2 reads
as follows:
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 17 of 48
“ 2. Restriction on the dereservation of
forests or use of forest land for non-forest
purpose. — Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in
force in a State, no State Government or other
authority shall make, except with the prior
approval of the Central Government, any order
directing—
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning
of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for
the time being in force in that State) or any
portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved:
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof
may be used for any non-forest purpose.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section
“non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or
clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for
any purpose other than reafforestation.”
Section 2 of the 1980 Act places restrictions on
the use of forest land for non-forest purposes
and mandates prior approval of the Central
Government before any such diversion can take
place. The provision reflects the legislative
intent to check further deforestation and
ecological imbalance and to ensure that forest
land is not diverted for non-forest purposes
without careful scrutiny by the Central
Government.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 18 of 48
27. In the absence of any statutory definition of the
expression “forest”, this Court in T.N.
Godavarman (supra) held that the word “forest”
must be understood according to its dictionary
meaning and that the provisions of the 1980 Act
would apply not only to statutorily recognised
forests but also to areas recorded as forest in
government records, irrespective of ownership.
The relevant extract is reproduced herein:
“ 4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was
enacted with a view to check further
deforestation which ultimately results in
ecological imbalance; and therefore, the
provisions made therein for the
conservation of forests and for matters
connected therewith, must apply to all
forests irrespective of the nature of
ownership or classification thereof. The
word “forest” must be understood according
to its dictionary meaning. This description
covers all statutorily recognised forests,
whether designated as reserved, protected
or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2( i )
of the Forest Conservation Act. The term
“forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not
only include “forest” as understood in the
dictionary sense, but also any area recorded
as forest in the Government record
irrespective of the ownership. This is how it
has to be understood for the purpose of
Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted
in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the
conservation of forests and the matters
connected therewith must apply clearly to
all forests so understood irrespective of the
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 19 of 48
ownership or classification thereof. This
aspect has been made abundantly clear in
the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry
Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC
213], Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC
504] and recently in the order dated 29-11-
1996 ( Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun
Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of
1995 decided on 29-11-1996] ). The earlier
decision of this Court in State of
Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC
643] has, therefore, to be understood in the
light of these subsequent decisions. We
consider it necessary to reiterate this settled
position emerging from the decisions of this
Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the
perception of any State Government or
authority. This has become necessary also
because of the stand taken on behalf of the
State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage,
relating to permissions granted for mining
in such area which is clearly contrary to the
decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to
assume that any State Government which
has failed to appreciate the correct position
in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance
and take the necessary remedial measures
without any further delay.”
28. The principle laid down in T.N. Godavarman
(supra) has since remained a cornerstone of
environmental jurisprudence. The judgment
ensured that the protective umbrella of the 1980
Act would extend to all areas which answer the
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 20 of 48
description of forest in ordinary sense and are
recognised as such in official records, even if
such areas are not formally notified forests. The
concept commonly termed as “ deemed forest ”
has evolved during the proceedings arising out
of this case, reflecting the understanding that
ecological protection cannot be restricted merely
to areas that have undergone formal statutory
notification.
29. At the outset, it is necessary to note as to what
is meant by the expression “ deemed forest ”. In
the jurisprudence emanating from T.N.
Godavarman (supra) and the proceedings
connected therewith, reliance has been placed
on paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 15.09.1997
filed by the Conservator of Forest, Government
of NCT of Delhi before this Court in W.P. (C) No.
202 of 1995, wherein it was stated that a
decision had been taken to identify areas above
2.5 acres having a density of 100 trees per acre,
as well as stretches of land along roads, drains,
etc. having a length of 1.0 km, in addition to
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 21 of 48
areas already shown as forests in the revenue
records to be a deemed forest.
30. This Court, however, has consistently clarified
that the interpretation accorded in T.N.
Godavarman (supra) be applied in the factual
and legal context in which the issue arises. In
Re: Construction of Park at NOIDA near
6
Okhla Bird Sanctuary , this Court undertook
an extensive analysis of the scope of T.N.
Godavarman (supra) and proceeded to observe
that a mechanical application of the judgments
of this Court defining “forest” and “forest land”
without regard to historical land use and
contemporaneous official records cannot be
done and due consideration must be given to
the overall facts of the case. The Court placed
reliance on revenue records and acquisition
documents which pre-dated the project and
observed that it would be inconceivable that
land, which was forever agricultural could,
within a span of a few years, be converted into
6
(2011) 1 SCC 744
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 22 of 48
forest land merely on account of subsequent
plantation or tree growth. Relevant extract
stands reproduced herein:
“ 25. NOIDA was set up in 1976 and the
lands of the project area were acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act mostly
between the years 1980 to 1983 (two or
three plots were notified under Sections 4/6
of the Act in 1979 and one or two plots as
late as in the year 1991). But the possession
of a very large part of the lands under
acquisition (that now form the project site)
was taken over in the year 1983. From the
details of the acquisition proceedings
furnished in a tabular form (Annexure 9 to
the counter-affidavit on behalf of
Respondents 2 and 3) it would appear that
though on most of the plots there were
properties of one kind or the other, there
was not a single tree on any of the plots
under acquisition . The records of the land
acquisition proceedings, thus, complement
the revenue record of 1952 in which the
lands were shown as agricultural and not as
jungle or forest . There is no reason not to
give due credence to these records since
they pertain to a time when the impugned
project was not even in anyone's
imagination and its proponents were
nowhere on the scene.
26. Further, in the second response of the
MoEF, dated 22-8-2009/24-8-2009 there is
a reference to the information furnished by
the Deputy Horticulture
Officer, NOIDA according to which
plantations were taken up along with seed
sowing of subabul during the years 1994-
1995 to 2007-2008. A total of 9480 saplings
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 23 of 48
were planted (including 314 saplings
planted before 1994-1995). NOIDA had
treated this area as an “urban park”. It is,
thus, to be seen that on a large tract of land
(33.45 ha in area) that was forever
agricultural in character, trees were planted
with the object of creating an urban park
(and not for afforestation!). The trees, thus,
planted were allowed to stand and grow for
about 12-14 years when they were cut down
to make the area clear for the project.
27. The satellite images tell us how things
stand at the time the images were taken. We
are not aware whether or not the satellite
images can ascertain the different species of
trees, their age and the girth of their trunks,
etc. But what is on record does not give us
all that information. What the satellite
images tell us is that in October 2006 there
was thin to moderately dense tree cover over
about half of the project site. But this fact is
all but admitted; the State Government
admits felling of over 6000 trees in 2008.
How and when the trees came up there we
have just seen with reference to the revenue
and land acquisition proceedings records.
Now, we find it inconceivable that trees
planted with the intent to set up an urban
park would turn into forest within a span of
10 to 12 years and the land that was forever
agricultural, would be converted into forest
land. One may feel strongly about cutting
trees in such large numbers and question
the wisdom behind replacing a patch of
trees by large stone columns and statues
but that would not change the trees into a
forest or the land over which those trees
were standing into forest land.
xxx xxx xxx
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 24 of 48
35. Almost all the orders and judgments of
this Court defining “forest” and “forest land”
for the purpose of the FC Act were rendered
in the context of mining or illegal felling of
trees for timber or illegal removal of other
forest produce or the protection of national
parks and wildlife sanctuaries. In the case
in hand the context is completely different.
Hence, the decisions relied upon by Mr
Bhushan can be applied only to an extent
and not in absolute terms. To an extent Mr
Bhushan is right in contending that a man-
made forest may equally be a forest as a
naturally grown one. He is also right in
contending that non-forest land may also,
with the passage of time, change its
character and become forest land. But this
also cannot be a rule of universal
application and must be examined in the
overall facts of the case otherwise it would
lead to highly anomalous conclusions.
36. Like in this case, Mr Bhushan argued
that the two conditions in the guidelines
adopted by the State Level Expert
Committee i.e. ( i ) “trees mean naturally
grown perennial trees”, and ( ii ) “the
plantation done on public land or private
land will not be identified as forest like area”
were not consistent with the wide definition
of forest given in the 12-12-1996 [(1997) 2
SCC 267] order of the Court and the project
area should qualify as forest on the basis of
the main parameter fixed by the Committee.
If the argument of Mr Bhushan is accepted
and the criterion fixed by the State Level
Expert Committee that in the plains a
stretch of land with an area of 2 ha or above,
with the minimum density of 50 trees per
hectare would be a deemed forest is applied
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 25 of 48
mechanically and with no regard to the
other factors a greater part of Lutyens Delhi
would perhaps qualify as forest. This was
obviously not the intent of the order dated
12-12-1996 [(1997) 2 SCC 267].
37. In the light of the discussion made
above, it must be held that the project site
is not forest land and the construction of the
project without the prior permission from
the Central Government does not in any way
contravene Section 2 of the FC Act.”
31. In Chandra Prakash Budakoti v. Union of
7
India and Others , this Court emphasised that
due weight must be accorded to revenue
records, particularly those pertaining to a
period when no development project or dispute
was even contemplated. The Court rejected the
contention that subsequent vegetation or tree
cover could, by itself, alter the legal character of
land which stood classified as banjar or barren
in official records, and held that in the absence
of such land being recorded or treated as forest
by the competent authorities, the provisions of
the 1980 Act would not stand attracted.
7
(2019) 10 SCC 154
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 26 of 48
32. The position, in our opinion, as transpires from
the above decisions is that while the principle
laid down in T.N. Godavarman (supra)
mandates a broad and purposive interpretation
in order to advance the cause of environmental
protection, and are to prevail, 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.
33. At this juncture, it is also necessary to
appreciate the nature and significance of the
project involved in the present case. The project
pertains to the redevelopment of the Bijwasan
Railway Station area as an Integrated
Metropolitan Passenger Terminal forming part
of a broader transport and urban infrastructure
framework envisaged for the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. The Master Plan of Delhi,
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 27 of 48
2021 recognises the increasing pressure on
existing transport infrastructure in the central
areas of the city and contemplates the
development of new directional passenger
terminals with the objective of decongesting the
core urban zones.
34. The subject land forms an integral part of this
planned redevelopment. 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.
The integration of residential and commercial
components with mass transit infrastructure
reflects a conscious planning choice aligned
with the National Transit Oriented Development
Policy to reduce travel distances, optimise land
use, and promote public transport usage. Such
planning models are now widely accepted as
essential to managing urban growth in
metropolitan cities.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 28 of 48
35. It is also material to note that the project has
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
framework governing the project has been in
place for several years and has been acted upon,
with substantial public resources already
committed towards the development of the
passenger terminal and associated
infrastructure.
36. The location of the project further reinforces its
public character. The subject land is situated
amidst a fully developed urban environment,
surrounded by transport infrastructure,
residential sectors, commercial establishments,
and institutional facilities. The presence of a
major metro station, in close proximity to the
Indira Gandhi International Airport, and the
convergence of multiple transport modes render
the project site uniquely suited for integrated
development. The redevelopment is thus not an
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 29 of 48
incursion into an ecologically pristine or
undisturbed area, but an exercise in planned
urban consolidation within an already
developed zone.
37. Having noticed and taking into consideration
the jurisprudential development on the
understanding of the expression “forest” and the
importance of the project in the present case, let
us now turn to examine the nature and
significance of a statutory Master Plan in the
framework of urban planning and development
vis-à-vis legal character of subject land.
38. A Master Plan is not a mere policy document of
tentative character, but a statutory planning
instrument prepared by the competent
authority for regulating and guiding the
development of a city or urban region. It
represents a comprehensive framework
intended for the holistic development of the area
concerned, identifying the manner in which
land is to be utilised, infrastructure is to be
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 30 of 48
developed, and urban growth is to be regulated
over an extended period of time.
39. By its very nature, a Master Plan is conceived as
a long-term planned optimum land utilisation
document. The development projects
contemplated under such a plan are often
implemented in phases and may span several
years or even decades. Large infrastructure and
redevelopment initiatives envisaged under a
Master Plan necessarily proceed based on the
conditions prevailing at the time of its
formulation, including the character and
classification of the land concerned.
40. Once a Master Plan is duly prepared, approved
by the competent authority, and brought into
force in accordance with law, it attains statutory
force and becomes binding on all stakeholders.
It provides the foundational framework within
which development activities, infrastructure
projects, and land-use decisions are
undertaken.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 31 of 48
41. This Court in The Auroville Foundation
(supra) has emphasised that a Master Plan
which has been approved by the competent
authority and notified in accordance with law
attains statutory force and finality. This Court
proceeded to hold that the Tribunal had
exceeded the limits of judicial review by
interfering with the implementation of a Master
Plan which had been approved decades earlier
and substantially acted upon. The Court
observed that judicial review cannot be used as
a substitute for planning authority, nor can
courts or tribunals mandate the preparation of
fresh plans or modifications under the guise of
applying environmental principles, once a
statutory Master Plan has attained finality.
42. The rationale underlying this approach is
grounded in the need for certainty,
predictability, and stability in planning laws.
Developmental projects, particularly those
involving public infrastructure and long-term
urban planning, are premised on planning
instruments i.e. Master Plan etc., which cannot
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 32 of 48
be rendered perpetually uncertain by
subsequent changes on the ground. If
subsequent changes were to be treated as
sufficient to unsettle the operation of a Master
Plan, it would introduce an element of perpetual
instability, rendering statutory planning
susceptible to continual disruption.
43. A Master Plan is based on extensive surveys,
planning studies, and consideration of existing
land-use patterns. The classification of land
within such a plan therefore reflects the
understanding of the planning authority
regarding the character and potential use of the
land at the time of its preparation. Where, at
that stage, the land is neither notified as forest
nor recorded or identified as forest in official or
planning records, the planning authority
necessarily proceeds on the basis that the land
is available for the purposes for which it has
been designated under the plan.
44. If subsequent changes such as natural growth
of vegetation or increase in tree cover over time
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 33 of 48
were treated as sufficient to alter the legal
character of land for the purposes of the 1980
Act, it would introduce an element of perpetual
uncertainty into statutory planning.
Development projects envisaged under a Master
Plan would remain indefinitely vulnerable to
disruption at the stage of execution,
notwithstanding the fact that the land in
question was not treated as forest when the
planning framework itself was conceived.
45. The law does not contemplate or conceive, nor
can it afford such instability in the planning
processes. While the principle laid down in T.N.
Godavarman (supra) continues to operate with
full force and ensures that forest land is not
diverted without compliance with the statutory
safeguards, the determination of whether a
particular parcel of land answers the
description of “forest” or “deemed forest” must
necessarily take into account the original nature
of the land and the planning framework within
which the land is situated and sought to be
utilised.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 34 of 48
46. The position would naturally be different when
the Master Plan itself records the existence of
forest land or specifically identifies land
containing a substantial number of trees. Where
the Master Plan, at the time of its formation,
records that a particular parcel of land contains
tree cover or indicates the existence of a
significant number of trees, such land may well
fall within the understanding of deemed forest.
However, 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.
47. It can, in the above conspectus, be concluded
that without changing the Master Plan in
accordance with law, if the non-use or use of
land leads to some changes due to natural or
human intervention, the same shall have no
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 35 of 48
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.
48. This interpretation preserves the principle laid
down in T.N. Godavarman (supra) while at the
same time ensuring that the concept of deemed
forest is not applied in a manner that
destabilises statutory planning instruments
conceived for the holistic development of urban
area because of changes which came about or
are brought about in an unplanned,
unregulated, unconceived manner, whether
natural or otherwise.
49. At this stage, it becomes necessary to advert to
another aspect relevant for determining the
character of land claimed to be forest, namely
the nature of native/indigenous vegetation and
the spread of invasive alien plant species. The
mere presence of vegetation or tree cover cannot
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 36 of 48
by itself be equated with the existence of a
natural forest ecosystem. 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.
50. The publication titled ‘ Delhi’s Forest at a Glance’
issued by the Department of Forest and Wildlife,
Government of NCT of Delhi notes that large-
scale plantations were carried out during
colonial afforestation activities to create quick
green cover around the city. During this
process, exotic species such as Prosopis juliflora
( Vilayati Kikar ), native to Mexico and the
Caribbean, were introduced without any study
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 37 of 48
on impact or effect on the ecology and
ecosystem.
51. Although such plantations initially increased
tree cover in otherwise barren areas,
subsequent ecological experience has
demonstrated that species such as Prosopis
juliflora possess characteristics enabling them
to dominate landscapes and displace
indigenous vegetation. Owing to rapid growth,
tolerance to arid conditions and absence of
natural predators, the species spread
extensively across parts of Delhi, often forming
dense monocultures that replaced native plant
communities of the Aravalli ecosystem.
52. Scientific observations indicate that invasive
species possess biological traits such as high
seed production, long seed viability and
expansive canopy growth, enabling them to
outcompete surrounding vegetation and
suppress native grasses and shrubs. Their
proliferation reduces biodiversity, alter soil
conditions and disturb the natural hydrological
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 38 of 48
balance of the area through higher
evapotranspiration and reduced groundwater
recharge.
53. The ecological impact extends beyond
vegetation. The displacement of native plants
disrupts the food chain dependent upon them,
affecting insects, birds and herbivorous animals
that rely upon indigenous species for
sustenance and habitat. This ultimately results
in declining wildlife presence and ecological
imbalance.
54. The material on record, therefore, indicates that
the 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.
55. An affidavit dated 12.02.2024 was filed on
behalf of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, West
Forest Division before the NGT, stating that, as
per such records, the land in question is not
notified forest land. Nevertheless, as to the
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 39 of 48
status of the land, on the date of filing of the
affidavit as deemed forest was not ruled out.
56. An affidavit dated 29.01.2025 has been filed by
the Deputy Conservator of Forest, during the
pendency of this Appeal as to the latest position
on the subject land, disclosing that an exercise
to determine the extent of deemed forest in the
area was carried out by the Department of
Forest and Wildlife, West Division from
03.01.2025 to 05.01.2025. A report dated
09.01.2025 was prepared pursuant thereto. As
per the said report, certain patches within the
subject land have been identified as falling
under the category of deemed forest, namely:
Patch 1 measuring 14.5 hectares with 5,494
trees; Patch 2 measuring 16.9 hectares with
6,083 trees; and Patch 3 measuring 19.39
hectares with 7,810 trees. It has also been
stated that approximately 70% of the trees in
these patches comprise invasive species such as
Vilayati Kikar and Subabul , and that the
definition of “tree” adopted for the purpose of the
report is as contained in Section 2(i) of the Delhi
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 40 of 48
Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. The affidavit
further clarifies that while certain parts of the
area fall within the category of deemed forest,
other parts do not, and that permissions under
the 1980 Act would be required for the former,
while permissions under the Delhi Preservation
of Trees Act, 1994 would govern the latter.
57. After appreciating this broader overall view in
context, it becomes appropriate to turn to the
question which is sought to be raised, namely
whether the subject land can be regarded as a
“ deemed forest ” so as to attract the requirement
of prior approval under the 1980 Act.
58. The material on record indicates that the
subject land formed part of a larger tract
acquired in the year 1986 from Village Bharthal
and was recorded in the acquisition proceedings
as agricultural land containing standing crops.
The land was subsequently allotted for the
development of the Bijwasan Integrated
Metropolitan Passenger Terminal and was
incorporated within the planning framework
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 41 of 48
reflected in the Master Plan 2021 governing the
area.
59. It is not in dispute that at the time of
formulation of the Master Plan, the land was
neither notified as forest land in the revenue
records or a declared forest nor treated as
deemed forest in official records and for the
obvious reason that this land was used for
agricultural purposes as crops were standing.
Although, affidavits placed on record indicate
that certain patches of tree growth presently
exist on the land today.
60. Taking into consideration the above and the
nature of Master Plan as discussed earlier, it
can be concluded 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
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 42 of 48
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. This
Appeal is liable to be dismissed on this count
alone.
61. However, it would not be out of way to mention
that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an
affidavit dated 28.02.2025 categorically
undertaking that, being responsible
instrumentalities of the Government, they shall
carry out work in the patches as identified in the
affidavit dated 29.01.2025 of the Deputy
Conservator of Forests only after obtaining all
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 43 of 48
necessary permissions in accordance with law,
and that for all other areas as well, requisite
permissions, as may be required, shall be
obtained before any work is undertaken.
62. Apart from the abovementioned undertaking,
the project framework itself incorporates
safeguards aimed at environmental compliance.
The project envisages that 20% of the total area
shall be maintained as green land. Further,
Clause 1.1.12 of the Request for Proposal
expressly casts an obligation on the bidders to
obtain all permissions, approvals, and
clearances as may be required under the
applicable rules and law before undertaking any
activity pursuant to the project. The
Respondents also undertake for tree
transplantation and compensatory afforestation
and have provided detailed figures for the said
exercise as recorded above.
63. Taking into consideration the aforesaid
material, including the undertakings furnished
by the concerned respondents, the manner in
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 44 of 48
which the project is structured, coupled with
the obligation to obtain all statutory
permissions and to maintain a substantial
portion of the land as green area, provides
sufficient safeguards to ensure that the
applicable legal regime governing forest and tree
conservation is duly complied with. In our
considered view, this approach subserves the
ends of justice and brings quietus to the
controversy raised on this score.
64. Having regard to the above discussion, we find
no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the
NGT that the material placed on record does not
establish that the land in question is forest land
so as to attract the prohibition contained in
Section 2 of the 1980 Act. The order of the NGT,
therefore, does not warrant interference.
65. The issues as framed in paragraph 25 of the
judgment are, thus, answered as follows:
(i) 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
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 45 of 48
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.
(ii) 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.
66. Before parting with this judgment, we would like
to add that in assessing whether a parcel of land
possesses characteristics associated with forest
ecosystem, it is necessary to consider whether
the vegetation forms part of a naturally evolved
indigenous ecosystem or whether it represents
the spread of invasive species which may in fact
signify ecological disturbance. The emphasis of
environmental management, as reflected in
governmental policy as well as ecological
understanding, lies in the restoration and
promotion of native species capable of
sustaining biodiversity and ecological balance.
Therefore, for restoration of forest to its natural
ecosystem, trees of native species be planted in
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 46 of 48
large numbers and preferably by replacing
invasive species to save and sustain the
ecological balance.
67. In the light of above, we deem it appropriate to
direct that all concerned authorities and
implementing agencies shall 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, and
in consonance with the permissions that may be
granted by the competent authorities.
68. The present Appeal is disposed of in above
terms.
69. The Contempt Petition (C) No. 860/2024 also
stands disposed of.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 47 of 48
70. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
71. There shall be no order as to cost.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ DIPANKAR DATTA ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 20, 2026.
C.A. No. 10656/2024 Page 48 of 48