Holding

The existing criteria of a 0.4 canopy density and a minimum area of 5 hectares for identifying private forest in Goa are adequate and valid and cannot be altered.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the challenge by the Goa Foundation to the criteria adopted by the State of Goa for identifying private forest land, specifically the canopy density threshold of 0.4 and a minimum area of 5 hectares. The Court traced the historical development of these criteria from the 1991 guidelines, the 1996 Supreme Court directive, and the subsequent Sawant and Karapurkar Committee reports, noting that the criteria had been publicly notified and not contested earlier. It held that the existing criteria are adequate, that the appellant is estopped from re‑raising the issue, and that uniform criteria cannot be imposed across states. The Court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on Forest Survey of India definitions and on NPV calculations, emphasizing the distinct purposes of forest identification versus valuation. Consequently, the Court upheld the National Green Tribunal’s order, vacated the 2015 interim order, dismissed the appeals, and allowed the respondents’ applications for modification of that interim order.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of the criteria (0.4 canopy density and 5 ha minimum) for identifying private forests in Goa
Whether the National Green Tribunal's order on the criteria should be affirmed or reversed
Whether the appellant can challenge criteria that were previously adopted and publicly notified
The applicability of Forest Survey of India definitions and NPV calculations to the identification of private forests
Whether the Court should issue further directions or modify the interim order

Legislation cited

Subjects

ForestsForest landIdentification of forestDemarcation of private forestSawant CommitteeKarapurkar CommitteeSharma ReportsDeep Shikha CommitteeDegraded forest landsPrivate forestsOpen forestForest Survey of IndiaTree canopy densityNon‑forestry purposeNet Present ValueCompensatory Afforestation costsCentral Empowered CommitteeVery dense forestModerate dense forestForest coverForest areaPolicy decisionForest clearanceForest identification criteriaConversion SanadPrinciple of sustainable developmentDeemed forestRes judicataEstoppedMinimum Mappable AreaIndia State of Forest Report 1989India State of Forest Report 1999India State of Forest Report 2008India State of Forest Report 2017Coastal Regulation Zone NotificationEcologically Sensitive AreaExpert Appraisal CommitteeDeforestationRecorded Forest AreaRemote sensing techniquesGeographical ecosystemSpecific geographyApprobate and reprobate

Judgment

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 704 : 2024 INSC 59

In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v.
Union of India and Others
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995)
24 January 2024
[B. R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar* and
Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to criteria issued for the identification of private
‘forest’ land in the State of Goa.

Headnotes
Environmental laws – Forests – Criteria issued by the State of
Goa for the identification of private ‘forest’ land in the State
of Goa – Challenge to, by the appellant seeking change in
the criteria:
Held: Existing criteria for identification of private forests in the State
of Goa are adequate and valid, thus, requires no alteration – Criteria
of the canopy density of 0.4 and minimum area of 5 ha if reduced
to 0.1 and 1 ha as contended by the appellant, would result in the
plantations of coconut, orchards, bamboo, palm, supari, cashew,
etc., grown by farmers on their private lands into the category of
‘private forest’ – Even for a minor development on the concerned
land, the permission of the Government under the FCA 1980, for
the landholders, would become indispensable – Also none of the
States have adopted the 0.1 density criteria – Furthermore, on the
one hand, the appellant is challenging the criteria adopted by the
Sawant and Karapurkar Committees for the identification of inter
alia private forests and on the other hand has relied on the same
criteria, the the appellant cannot be permitted to approbate and
reprobate – Also the appellant having not challenged the criteria
as prescribed by the Expert Committee and published in the public
notice is estopped from raising the said issue at this stage – Process
of physical demarcation of such forests in State of Goa seems
to have attained finality by virtue of the Reports and the State of
Goa has issued a gazette notification notifying 46.11 sq. km. as

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 705

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

private forest – Furthermore, the application of criteria cannot be
universally standardized across the country, as it is contingent
upon the specific geographical conditions prevalent in each State,
and as a result, the criteria may vary from one State to another
– Thus, the task of identifying forest areas expressly delegated
to Expert Committees to be constituted by State Governments,
thereby recognising that there can be no uniform criteria for such
identification across the country. [Paras 63, 67-69]
Environmental laws – Forests – ‘Forest Cover’ and ‘Recorded
Forest Area’ – Distinction between:
Held: ‘Forest Cover’ encompasses all lands exceeding 1 (one)
hectare in size with a tree canopy exceeding 10%, regardless of land
use, ownership, and legal status – This category may encompass
various features like orchards, bamboo groves, palm plantations,
etc., and is evaluated through remote sensing techniques – Term
‘Recorded Forest Area’ or ‘Forest Area’ refers to all geographic
areas officially designated as ‘Forests’ in government records –
Recorded forest areas primarily include Reserved Forests and
Protected Forests which are notified under the provisions of the
Forest Act, 1927, or equivalent State Acts – Recorded forest area
may also cover regions recorded as forests in revenue records or
established as such under any State Act or local laws. [Para 66]

Case Law Cited
Shivanand Salgaocar v. Tree Officer & Ors. Writ Petition
No.162 of 1987; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union
of India [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 982 : (1997) 2 SCC 267;
Goa foundation v. State Government of Goa Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 181 of 2001; TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v.
Union of India & Ors. [2008] 6 SCR 321 : (2008) 7 SCC
126; Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
and Ors [2011] 7 SCR 954 : (2011) 7 SCALE 242; Tata
Housing Development Corporation v. Goa Foundation
(2003) 11 SCC 714; Nisarga v. Asst. Conservator of
Forests OA No.19 (THC) of 2013; T.N. Godavarman
Thirumalpad (87) v. Union of India [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR
552 : (2006) 1 SCC 1; Park-Anand Arya v. Noida [2010]
15 SCR 783 : (2011) 1 SCC 744 – referred to.
706 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
Goa Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984; Scheduled
Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006; Forest Rights Act, 2006; Forest Act, 1927.

List of Keywords
Forests; Forest land; Identification of forest; Demarcation of
private forest; Sawant Committee, Karapurkar Committee;
Sharma Reports; Deep Shikha Committee; Degraded
forest lands; Private forests; Open forest; Forest Survey
of India; Tree canopy density; Non-forestry purpose; Net
Present Value; Compensatory Afforestation costs; Central
Empowered Committee; Very dense forest; Moderate dense
forest; Forest cover; Forest area; Policy decision, Forest
Clearance; Forest identification criteria; Conversion Sanad;
Principle of sustainable development; Deemed forest; Res
judicata; Estopped; Minimum Mappable Area; India State of
Forest Report 1989; India State of Forest Report 1999; India
State of Forest Report, 2008; India State of Forest Report,
2017; Coastal Regulation Zone Notification; Ecologically
Sensitive Area; Areas under riverine and other wetlands;
Expert Appraisal Committee; Deforestation; Recorded Forest
Area; Remote sensing techniques; Geographical ecosystem;
Specific geography; Approbate and reprobate.
Case Arising From

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of
1995
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
Civil Appeal No.12234-35 of 2018
Appearances for Parties
Harish N. Salve, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Advs. [A.Cs.], K.
Parameshwar, Siddhartha Chowdhury, Advs. [A.Cs.], M.V. Mukunda,
Ms. Kanti, Ms. Aarti Gupta, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Advs.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 707

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., A.N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shagun
Thakur, Ms. Manisha Chava, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, Ms. Suhashini Sen, S. S. Rebello, Shyam Gopal,
Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Atul
Sharma, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Ms. Deepti Arya, Ms. Arzu Paul,
Siddhant Gupta, Ms. Manisha Gupta, Rishikesh Haridas, Abhishek
Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Advs for the appearing parties.
Petitioner/Applicant-in-person

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. The present civil appeals arise out of common order dated 30.07.2014
passed by the National Green Tribunal (Western Zone) Bench, Pune1
in Application No.14 (THC) of 2013 (WZ) and Application No.16
(THC) of 2013 (WZ) filed by the appellant, whereunder the NGT
has disposed of both the applications on the ground that the issue
of determination of criteria for the identification of ‘forest’ forms part
of the proceedings in TN Godavarman Case2 which is presently
seized by this Court and hence, granted liberty to the appellant to
approach this Court for the remedy. Therefore, the appellant has
filed the present civil appeals under Section 22 of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010,3 seeking the modification of such criteria.
2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Senior Advocate
for the Appellant assisted by Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Ld. Advocate, Mr.
Nalin Kohli, Ld. Advocate for State of Goa assisted by Mr. Sanjay
Upadhyay, Ld. Advocate, Ms. Suhashini Sen, Ld. Advocate for Union
of India and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Ld. Senior Advocate for impleading
applicant, perused the case-papers.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN BRIEF
3. The challenge in the present appeals revolves around the criteria
issued by the Respondent(s) i.e., the State of Goa and Others for the
identification of ‘forests’ in the State, hence, it is important to trace

1 Hereinafter to be read as “NGT”.
2 In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad (Writ Petition No.202 of 1995).
3 Hereinafter to be referred as “NGT Act, 2010”.
708 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the history of adoption of these criteria which are under challenge
before us. Accordingly, in the subsequent paragraphs we have traced
the brief history of these criteria.
4. Pursuant to the Judgement of the High Court of Bombay in Shivanand
Salgaocar v. Tree Officer & Ors.4 declaring the application of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 19805 to all lands, whether government or
privately owned, the Conservator of Forests, State of Goa, in 1991
set out the guidelines for identifying ‘forest’ in private properties. Vide
letter dated 04.10.1991 the attention of the Ministry of Environment
and Forest (MoEF) was sought on the said guidelines with a request
to issue suitable guidelines to implement the FCA 1980 on the basis
of the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court. The guidelines
were as follows:
“Criteria for application of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
to private forests.
i) Extent of area: Long term viability of a piece of forest
land is an important consideration. Obviously, very small
patches of forest cannot be viable in the long run from
conservation Point of view. Therefore, a minimum extent
of area will have to be determined to which the Forest
(Cons.) Act, 1980 would be applicable in private and
revenue areas not recorded as ‘forest’. I propose that
this area should be at least 5 hectares. It is not worthy
that the Forest (Cons.) Act, 1980 and guidelines made
there under do not prescribe any such minimum area for
application of the Act.
ii) Proximity and/or contiguity: The proximity of the private
forests concerned to a larger forest area and / or its
contiguity with the later area should also be an important
aspect to consider while examining such areas.
iii) Composition of crop: It is important to prescribe minimum
standards in terms of crop composition in order to
distinguish forest species from horticultural species. This
is particularly relevant in State like Goa where occurrence

4 Writ Petition No.162 of 1987.
5 Hereinafter to be read as “FCA 1980”.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 709

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

of large number of cashew, jackfruit and coconut trees
in private areas is a common feature. We may perhaps
prescribe that at least 75 of the crop should comprise of
forest species.
iv) Crown density: It would not be meaningful to apply the
Forest (Cons.) Act, 1980 to degraded and open areas under
private ownership. Therefore, a minimum crown density
of 40% may be adopted as a standard assessing the
applicability of the Act in such private and revenue areas
which are not recorded as ‘forests’ in the land records.”
[Emphasis supplied]
5. By an order dated 12.12.1996 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v. Union of India6, this Court explained that the word “forest” for
the purpose of Section 2(i) of the FCA 1980 must be understood
according to its dictionary meaning, and would cover “all statutorily
recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or
otherwise”. This Court further explained that the term “forest land”,
occurring in Section 2 would include not only “forest” as understood
in the dictionary sense, but also “any area recorded as forest in the
Government record irrespective of the ownership”.
6. Further, this Court vide order dated 12.12.1996 in TN Godavarman
Case (supra) directed all the States to constitute an expert committee
for the following tasks:
“(i) Identify areas which are “forests”, irrespective of whether
they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law,
and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;
(ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand
degraded, denuded or cleared; and
(iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to
the Government and those belonging to private persons.”
7. The Government of Goa, to implement the said order, constituted
the Sawant Committee in 19977 which identified a total of 46.89
sq. kms as private forest. Thereafter the Karapurkar Committee

6 (1997) 2 SCC 267.
7 Under the Chairmanship of Shri SM Sawant on 24.01.1997.
710 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

was constituted in 20008 to identify the remaining areas. Since the
Karapurkar Committee suggested a revisit to exclude some of the
forest areas already identified by the Sawant Committee, the present
appellant herein, Goa Foundation, filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.181 of
20019 before this court challenging the appointment of the Karapurkar
Committee. Meanwhile, the Karapurkar Committee submitted its
final report and identified 20.18 sq. kms of private forests. Both the
Committees for identification of an area as private forest followed the
same criteria as was formulated by the Forest Department of Goa
in 1991. However, the task of both the Committees was incomplete
as some areas were left unidentified. This Court vide order dated
10.02.2006 disposed of the W.P. (C) No.181 of 2001 in following
terms:-
“……bulk of private forests in the State of Goa still remains
to be identified and the same is being sacrificed in collusion
with developers and vested interest persons and no
action has been taken by the State Government to set
up a fresh committee that will bring a finality to the order
dated 12.12.1996 passed in WP Civil No. 202/1995. In
substance, the prayer in the application is for appointment
of another committee or for consideration of the issue
by the Central Empowered Committee to identify the
private forests. These issues, we are afraid, do not arise
out of the writ petition which has become infructuous on
Karapurkar Committee and Sawant Committee having
submitted their reports. In case, the petitioner has any
further relief to seek, it may, in accordance with law, file
a fresh substantive petition before an appropriate forum
which would be considered on its own merits”.
8. As a result of the order dated 10.02.2006, the present appellant i.e.,
Goa Foundation, filed Writ Petition No.334 of 2006 for directions to
the State Government of Goa to complete the process of identification
of forest and to identify the degraded forest lands in accordance with
this Court’s order dated 12.12.1996.

8 Under the Chairmanship of Dr. H. Karapurkar on 04.09.2000.
9 Goa foundation v. State Government of Goa.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 711

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

9. The State Government appointed two new Committees10 to identify
the remaining areas of private forests in North and South Goa
districts that had not been identified by the previous Committee(s).
The criteria used by these Committees to identify private forest were
same as adopted earlier.
10. Further, the Appellant filed another Writ Petition being W.P. No.495
of 2010 before the High Court of Bombay, seeking the quashing of
criteria pertaining to the canopy density which should not be less
than 0.4. It was the Appellant’s case that the non-consideration of
forest areas having canopy density of 0.1-0.4 (10-40%) was contrary
to the criteria allegedly accepted by this Court in the order dated
28.03.200811. Hence, appellant claimed that category of open forest
or degraded forest having canopy density of 10-40% were totally
omitted from the identification process. Subsequently the petition
was amended and the criteria of minimum 5 (five) Hectare was also
challenged in view of the affidavit filed by the Forest Survey of India12
wherein the forest cover was defined as being “all lands more than
1 ha in area, with tree canopy density of more than 10% irrespective
of ownership and legal status”. Meanwhile, by a notification dated
27.11.2012, the State of Goa again constituted two Committees13
to identify the balance areas of private forests that had not been
covered by the previous Committees. The criteria for identification
of forest lands were same as followed earlier.
11. The Bombay High Court vide order dated 17.10.2013 transferred
both the Writ Petitions14 to the NGT which were renumbered as
Application No.14 (THC) of 201315 and Application No.16 (THC)
of 201316. The NGT by the impugned order has set aside both the
applications and hence the appellant is before this Court.

10 The North Goa District Committee headed by K.G. Sharma and the South Goa District Committee
headed by P.V. Sawant on 03.02.2010.
11 TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 126.
12 Hereinafter to be read as “FSI”
13 The North Goa Forest Division Committee headed by V.T. Thomas and the South Goa Forest Division
Committee headed by Francisco Araujo.
14 W.P. No. 495 of 2010 & W.P. No. 334 of 2006.
15 Writ Petition No. 495 of 2010.
16 Writ Petition No. 334 of 2006.
712 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

12. It is pertinent to mention that this Court vide order dated 04.02.2015,
converted the Civil Appeal No.37942 of 2014 filed by Goa Foundation
in IA No. 3845 of 2015 in WP No. 202 of 1995 and passed the
following directions:
“In the meanwhile, we direct that the respondents herein will
not issue any ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the conversion
of any plot that has natural vegetation with tree canopy
density in excess of 0.1 and an area above one hectare.”
13. It is pertinent to note that the present appeal originally came to
be filed on 19.11.2014 as Civil Appeal No.37942 of 2014 assailing
the final judgment dated 30.07.2014 passed by NGT. Thereafter,
this Court vide Order dated 04.02.2015 converted the Civil Appeal
No.37942 of 2014 filed by present appellant to I.A. No.3845 of 2015
in the proceedings before this Court in W.P. No.202 of 1995 (T.N.
Godavarman case). Vide order dated 04.02.2015, this Court issued
a direction to State of Goa to not issue any ‘No Objection Certificate’
for conversion of any plot that has natural vegetation with tree canopy
density in excess of 0.1 and an area above one hectare. Subsequent
to Order dated 04.02.2015 of this Court, Respondent No.1 (i.e., State
of Goa) filed I.A. No.40261 of 2017 for modification and clarification
of Order dated 04.02.2015 of this Court. Thereafter, on 25.10.2018,
this Court vide order dated 25.10.2018 passed in W.P. No.202 of
1995 directed to restore I.A. No.3485 filed by present appellant to
its original status of a civil appeal and further it directed that I.A.
No.40261 of 2017 filed by Respondent No.1 will be heard along
with the said civil appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No.3845 in W.P. No.202
of 1995 came to be re-numbered as Civil Appeal No.12234-12235
of 2018, which are the present civil appeals for adjudication before
us. In the present civil appeals, I.A. No.116495 of 2022, came to
be filed by Confederation of Real Estate Developer’s Association of
India (hereinafter referred to as “CREDAI”), seeking permission to
be impleaded as party respondent, along with the said I.A., CREDAI
has also filed I.A. No.116496 of 2022, wherein the impleading
party sought vacation of Order dated 04.02.2015. Accordingly, the
respondents in the present civil appeals along with the impleading
party (i.e., CREDAI) are seeking to challenge the reliefs prayed for
by the present appellant and have also sought vacation of the ex-
parte interim order dated 04.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.202 of 1995.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 713

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED
30.07.2014 PASSED BY NGT:
14. It was the contention of the appellant before the NGT that the subject
applications raised the issue of identification and demarcation of
private forests in the State of Goa as a result of this Court’s order
dated 12.12.1996 in TN Godavarman Case (supra) as per which
the State Governments were required to identify and demarcate the
forest area and degraded forest areas.
15. The appellant stated before NGT that there was no basis for criteria
No.(iii) in the guidelines of 1991, which related to canopy density,
as there are several forest areas, which are presently degraded and
having canopy density of less than 0.4 but which were originally
dense or medium dense forests and which must, accordingly, be
identified as forests. It was also submitted that such lands cannot
be unilaterally diverted to non-forestry purpose except with the prior
approval under the FCA 1980. It was submitted that if criteria No.(iii)
was accepted there would be no compliance with the directions given
in terms of reference No.2 of the order dated 12.12.1996.
16. To back its contentions, the appellant relied upon this Court’s order
dated 28.03.200817 wherein this court while deciding the matters
relating to Net Present Value (NPV) and compensatory afforestation
costs accepted the report submitted by the Central Empowered
Committee (CEC) titled “Supplementary Report of CEC in IA No.826
& IA No.566 regarding calculation of Net Present Value (NPV) payable
on Loss of Forest Lands of Different Types in non-forest purpose”.
This Court had accepted the CEC’s recommendations on certain
economic values, proposed for Calculating the NPV and costs for
Compensatory Afforestation (CA), involved in diversion of dense,
moderate dense and open forest.
17. The appellant further relied upon the FSI Report, according to which,
forest vegetation in the country falls specifically in three mutually
inclusive canopy density classes:
i. Very Dense Forest (with crown density) 0.7 to 1.
ii. Moderate dense Forest (with crown density) 0.4 to 0.7.
iii. Open forest (with crown density) 0.1 to 0.4.

17 Order in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995
714 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

18. It was, therefore, argued by the appellant before NGT that for the
purpose of implementation of the FCA 1980, all the authorities
including this Court, have clearly accepted that the areas of natural
vegetation, having tree canopy density varying anywhere between 0.1
to 0.4, are to be considered as forest for the purpose of applicability of
FCA 1980 and thereafter determination of NPV and CA. This aspect
of enlarging the scope of criteria No.3 will be an essential step, as
the report of the FSI, 2009 showed that the category of open forest
(crown density of 0.1 to 0.4) is almost the same in extent, as both
the categories of very dense forest and moderate dense forests are
put together.
19. With regard to criteria No.(ii), which requires Minimum 5 Ha, the
appellant had argued that the said criteria is defeating the purpose and
mandate of FCA 1980 and the order of this Court dated 12.12.1996.
20. It was submitted before the tribunal that the FSI in its affidavit dated
23rd March 2011, submitted that it defines ‘forest cover’ as being all
lands, more than 1 ha area, with a tree canopy density of more than
10% irrespective of ownership and legal status. Such lands may not
necessarily be recorded as forest areas. Therefore, the appellant
sought the following reliefs in the Application No.14 (THC) of 2013:
“For an order quashing the criteria nos. 2 & 3 of the Forest
guidelines/criteria and the order of the Respondent No. 1,
if any, approving the same”.
21. In the application No.16 (THC) of 2013, the appellant submitted that
in TN Godavarman’s case (supra), this Court had issued various
directions, vide its order dated 12.12.1996. It was the grievance of
the appellant that the Sawant and Karapurakar Committees had
not identified the areas, which were earlier forests but now stand
degraded, denuded or cleared as per the directions of this Court. The
appellant submitted that these Committees have not dealt with this
issue or even formulated suitable criteria or framework for notifying
such degraded forest areas and therefore, the appellant prayed for
following relief(s) in Application No.16 (THC) of 2013:
● For an order directing the Govt of Goa to complete the
process of identification of private forest in the State,
within a time bound period in terms of Apex Court’s
order dated 12.12.1996 and report compliance;
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 715

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

● For an order directing the Govt. of Goa to complete
the process of notifying the degraded forest within the
State i.e., the areas which were earlier forest but stand
degraded, denuded or cleared, in terms of Apex Court’s
order dated 12.12.1996 and report compliance.
22. The Forest Department, Government of Goa, Respondent No.4,
submitted that in the case of Shivananda Salgaonkar (supra), the
High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench, in the judgement delivered on
27th November 1990 held that “since the term ‘forest’ is not defined
in the Forest (Conservation) Act, the term has to be taken as per
the dictionary meaning”. Pursuant to this judgement, the forest
department framed guidelines in 1991, for identifying the forest in
private properties. These guidelines were submitted to the Ministry of
Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India on 04.10.1991
for their response.
23. The Forest Department further submitted that pursuant to the orders
of this Court, dated 12.12.1996, the State Govt. had appointed
Sawant Committee for the purpose of identification of forest lands
in the State of Goa on 24th January 1997, which submitted its report
on 8th December 1999. The Committee was given task to identify
areas which are ‘forest’ irrespective of whether they are so notified,
recognized or classified under any law and irrespective of ownership
of land of such forest and to identify areas which were earlier forests
but stand degraded, denuded or cleared.
24. Since no cut off was given for the tasks, Committee decided 1980
year in which the Forest Act was promulgated, to be the benchmark
for Government forest lands. Subsequently, another Expert Committee
was appointed on 4th September, 2000 for further identification of
private forest, which also submitted its report on 16.02.2002.
25. The respondent further submitted that the Sawant Committee has
already obtained data on clearings and diversion made on Government
forest lands for various purposes from 1980 and identified that total
13.078 Ha of forest Land has been diverted for various purposes. It
was claimed that the Expert Committees have already considered
all aspects of the Apex Court direction dated 12.12.1996.
26. The respondent further submitted that the State had already
defined the forest identification criteria based on the scientific basis
716 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

considering various aspects as a policy decision and also, these
two Expert Committees are functioning effectively and the work of
identification of private forest area, is being carried out expeditiously
and considering the above, the respondent had opposed both the
applications.
27. The MoEF, Respondent No.2 stated that pursuant to the judgement
in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.18,
it was directed to prepare a comprehensive policy for inspection,
verification and monitoring and overall procedure related to grant of
Forest Clearance (FC) and Identification of Forest in consolidation
with States and the process will likely take some more time and only
after finalization of such comprehensive policy, the Ministry will be
in position to put forth its stand as regards criteria, which is to be
applied for identification of forests and further pleaded for sufficient
time to place the stand of Ministry before the Tribunal.
28. The Forest Survey of India, Respondent No.3 submitted before the
NGT that FSI has mandated to conduct survey and assessment of
the Forest resources in the country. It was submitted that India’s
States of Forest Report is published by the Respondent No.3 and
in the said report forest cover is defined being of lands more than 1
Ha in area, with tree canopy density of more than 10% irrespective
of ownership and legal status. Such lands may not necessarily be
recorded as forest areas. It also includes the orchards, bamboo
and palm.
29. Issues framed by NGT:
• Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider and
alter or newly fix the forest identification criteria?
• Whether the forest identification criteria set out by the
Govt of Goa, needs modification, as prayed in the
applications?
• Whether the Tribunal can issue directions for expediting
forest identification and demarcation process, as prayed
in the application?
• Whether the applications are barred by limitation?

18 (2011) 7 SCALE 242
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 717

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

FINDINGS OF NGT IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT:
30. Having referred to the earlier pronouncements of this Court the
Tribunal observed in paragraph 38 of the impugned order that all
the States have formed Expert Committees for identification of forest
and have submitted progress reports to this Court by evolving their
own methodology for forest identification criteria. As such it was of
the view that it would not be in the domain of the tribunal to render
opinion with regard to the method of identification to be adopted for
fixing the criteria for determining private forest to be adopted by State
of Goa and answered point No.1 formulated by it in the negative.
31. In so far as the timeline to be fixed for expediting forest identification
and its demarcation process is concerned, the tribunal took note
of the fact that out of 256 square kilometres forest area, the work
has been completed in respect of 67 square kilometres by the two
Committees and as such called upon the Chief Secretary of Goa to
call for a meeting of all the concerned and work out time bound action
plan for early completion of forest identification and its demarcation
within next six (6) weeks and submit a time bound program to the
tribunal within 8 weeks thereof. All other reliefs sought for in the
application of the appellant came to be denied. Hence the appellant
has approached this Court by way of the present civil appeal.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN THE
PRESENT APPEAL:
32. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
the tribunal erred in not passing an order on merits on the premise
that the issue is seisin before this Court. It is further contended that
WP No.495 of 2010 was filed challenging the criteria of minimum
40 per cent canopy density for identification as forest land. In the
teeth of the order of this Court dated 28.03.2008 passed in batch
of IA’s filed in WP No.202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman) in which the
petition was amended and the minimum 5 (five) hectares area was
also challenged in view of FSI’s affidavit which stated that minimum 1
(one) hectare of area and minimum 10 per cent canopy or the criteria
adopted by FSI for identifying the forest cover in India and this writ
petition was transferred to the tribunal. Hence, it is contended that
identification of private forests on the basis of criteria accepted by
FSI and by this Court in the order of 2008 passed for determining
NPV also to be adopted and followed for identification of forest,
718 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

which would be in the interest of protection of environment and also
a step for implementing the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by this
Court as it has remained unmet by the State of Goa.
33. By referring to the three interim orders, namely 17.12.2006 and
26.03.2012 passed by the High Court and the order dated 04.02.2015
passed by this Court, it is contended that authorities have been
injuncted from issuing conversion Sanad for any private properties
with tree cover in excess of 0.1 all having natural vegetation and
tree canopy density in excess of 0.1 and area above 1 (one) hectare
which would clearly indicate that in order to protect the environment
this relief was essential and so as to prevent any further degradation
of the forest by its destruction.
34. It is also contended that to meet the mandate of the order dated
12.12.1996 the identification and demarcation of private forest area
on the basis of 1 (one) hectare and 10 percent (0.1) canopy density
is an exercise which must be carried out for meeting the said criteria
which would be over and above the identification of forest area done
on the criteria that is 75 per cent forest species, 40 per cent canopy
density and 5 (five) hectare of area, as the objective is to ensure
restoration (and not diversion) of such forest area to their original
status. Hence, contending if such identification is done on the basis
of this criteria, it would sub-serve the interest of conservation and
protection of environment and in a given case the Central/State
Government can grant ‘prior permission’ within the provisions of
FCA 1980 if it considers that such diversion is necessary in public
interest and it would be in consonance with the principle of sustainable
development. In this background the objection of the State of Goa to
the criteria of the FSI to identify the open forest that is 0.1 canopy
density and the area above 1 (one) hectare would not stand to
reason. Elaborating the submissions, he would contend that the ISFR
has identified 552 square kilometres on the basis of criteria fixed
by it and if the said criteria is not adopted it would reduce the open
forest area in the State of Goa to an extent of 552 square kilometre.
Hence, he prays for the petition being allowed.
35. As mentioned in the submissions of the Appellant in the preceding
paragraphs, to summarise, the Appellant herein prays for revisiting
the criteria for identification of private forest/deemed forest on private
lands in the State of Goa, by using the parameters used by FSI, that
is based on 0.1 density forest in an area of 1 (one) ha.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 719

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.(S) 1,4,5,6,7
& 8 ALONG WITH CONTENTIONS OF THE IMPLEADING PARTY
I.E., CREDAI.
36. The respondents have sought the modification and vacation of the
above-mentioned order in the IA No.40261 of 2017 filed by them,
and further have made submissions and raised various grounds for
the dismissal of the present Civil Appeal Nos.12234-12235 of 2018.
The respondents have urged that the Stay Order dated 04.02.2015
of this Court, has continued to operate for over eight years, which
is impacting several developmental works in the State of Goa. In
addition to this, by way of their Counter Affidavit, and numerous
submissions made during the hearing of the present appeals, the
Senior Counsel has raised several grounds for the dismissal of the
present appeals and for vacation of the Order dated 04.02.2015.
37. Respondent No(s). 1,4,5,6,7 and 8, along with the impleading party
i.e., CREDAI, have sought the vacation of the ex parte interim order
dated 04.02.2015 passed by this Court in the present appeal, and
they have also opposed the grant of relief sought by the Appellant
in its appeal. In furtherance of this, the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No.(s) 1,4,5,6,7 and 8 along with the learned Senior
Counsel for the impleading party, i.e., CREDAI have raised various
grounds and made elaborate submissions for the dismissal of the
present appeals, which have been recorded by us in the subsequent
paragraphs.
38. The respondent(s) contended that the criteria for identification of
forest has attained finality and cannot be challenged on the principles
of res judicata. It was submitted that the criteria for identification
of forest on private land was determined in 1991 pursuant to the
Judgement of the Bombay High Court dated 27.11.1990 in Shivanand
Salgaonkar case (supra).
39. It was further submitted that the criteria for identification of forests,
which forms the basis of the reports filed by the Sawant, Karapurkar
and Sharma Reports, were first proposed by the Forest Department
of the State of Goa, in 1991. The Forest Department had proposed
a crown density of 40% and a minimum area of 5 (five) Ha since it
was not viable in the long run for the forest department to conserve
small patches of forest land, as is evident from the letter dated
04.10.1991, and from the Affidavit filed by the State of Goa before
this Court on 21.08.2012.
720 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

40. The counsel for the respondents contended that the aforesaid criteria
formulated in 1991 was adopted by the State of Goa (Sawant and
Karapurkar Committees) pursuant to the order dated 12.12.1996
passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra), however, despite
being aware of the same, the Appellant did not challenge it. The
respondents further contend that the State of Goa, on 08.12.1997
issued a public notice, which delineated the following criteria for the
purpose of classifying “Forest”:
i. 75% of the tress composition should be forestry species.
ii. The area should be contiguous to the Govt. Forest and
if in isolation, the minimum area should be 5 ha.
iii. Canopy density should not be less than 0.4.
41. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the public
notice dated 08.12.1997, has also not been challenged by the present
appellants Further, the Appellant had an opportunity to challenge
the same before this Court in Goa Foundation Case (supra)19,
wherein it had raised grievances about the Karapurkar Committee
report, however, it did not do so, and the said proceedings were
thereafter disposed of as being infructuous on account of the filing
of the Karapurkar report, by an order dated 10.02.2006.
42. Further, the counsel for the respondents have contended that Civil
Appeal is ex facie barred by res judicata inasmuch as the very party
that has preferred the same had sought to revisit the criteria twice
before and failed. The respondents have pointed out to us that the
Appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay
at Goa disputing the criteria so adopted, and its application to a
housing project. In an appeal preferred against the same, this Court
in Tata Housing Development Corporation v. Goa Foundation
(2003) 11 SCC 714 strongly disapproved any departure from such
criteria and adoption of a new criteria.
43. The learned counsel has submitted that this Court in Tata Housing
(supra), after examining the reports of the Sawant Committee,
recorded the genesis of the criteria, and also took note of its facets.
Further, the learned counsel has laid emphasis on paragraph 13 of the

19 Writ Petition No. 181 of 2001.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 721

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

judgement in Tata Housing (supra), wherein this Court disapproved
the approach of the High Court in accepting a new criterion, in
what it termed as giving a “complete go-by” to the existing criteria.
Accordingly, the counsel for the respondents contends that in sum
and substance the pre-existing criteria received the imprimatur of
this Court in Tata Housing (supra), hence, the principle of Res
Judicata would apply and the present challenge to the criteria for
identification of Forest deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
The relevant paragraph 13 has been extracted below:
“13. From a bare perusal of the Third Interim Report, it
would appear that the three criteria laid down in the Second
Interim Report of the Sawant Committee have been given
a complete go-by and in relation to the appellants’ plot
altogether different criteria have been adopted. The course
adopted by the Committee in taking into consideration
different criteria while examining an individual case of the
appellants’ plot was wholly unwarranted, especially when
the Committee in its Report has not assigned any reason
for making the deviation.”
44. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that another
judgment i.e., Nisarga v. Asst. Conservator of Forests OA No.19
(THC) of 2013, was concealed by the Appellant. The learned counsel
submitted that the Appellant herein, approached the NGT arguing
that the minimum canopy density to be adopted as a criterion ought
to be 0.1 (i.e. 10%). It was submitted that the basis of this argument
was identical to that advanced in this appeal, inasmuch as the Indian
State of Forests Report, 2009 (ISFR) was relied upon to suggest
that the said report had classified lands with canopy density between
10% to 40% as open forests. In other words, it was urged by the
Appellant that even such lands were forest nonetheless. The NGT
rejected this argument based on the judgment of this Court in Tata
Housing (supra). The learned Counsel emphasized on the point
that, the Appellant herein chose not to appeal the said judgment
before this Court, and has allowed the same to attain finality. The
counsel for the respondents submitted that Appellant cannot now
be allowed to reagitate the very same issue on the very same basis
before this Court.
722 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

45. The counsel for the respondent accordingly submitted that, criteria
adopted by the State of Goa ought not to be interfered with; and the
order dated 04.02.2015 passed by this Court directing a restraint
on the grant of conversion sanads in the State of Goa ought to be
vacated since the criterion for the identification of forest in the State
of Goa has become final and binding, its variation having been
rejected in Tata Housing (Supra) and Nisarg (Supra) by this Court
and the NGT respectively.
46. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that the sheet anchor
of the instant appeal is the formula adopted by this Court for the
computation of NPV in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union
of India20, and in turn the reliance by this Court on the report of
Ms. Kanchan Chopra, which in turn relies on the Indian State of
Forests Report, 2008 (ISFR) issued by the FSI. It is submitted
that ISFR has classified canopy density into 3 kinds, namely, very
dense, moderately dense, and open. Furthermore, this Court while
fixing the NPV rates has fixed them per Hectare, basis which the
Appellant contends that even 1 (one) Ha of land can be a forest. It
is submitted that the Appellant sought to change the criteria for a
private forest in Goa to a minimum area of 1 (one) Ha, and also a
minimum canopy density of 0.1 which was the least denominator
employed by the ISFR in classifying an open forest for the purposes
of fixing NPV rates. The counsel for the respondents urged and
emphasized that this argument of the Appellant is misconceived as
it fails to take into account that the private forest criteria not only in
Goa but throughout the country is distinct from that for government
lands. Importantly, government land of even 1 (one) Ha can be a
forest, and accordingly can attract the imposition of NPV. Moreover,
this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (87) v. Union of India21
observed that the criteria for NPV must be worked out on economic
principles and hence it is submitted that this can have no nexus with
identification. Furthermore, the NPV imposition also encompasses
government forests which could even be of 1 (one) Hectare. Hence, it
is understandable that the NPV criteria is per Hectare i.e., it conceives
of NPV being imposed even for government forests of 1 (one) Ha.

20 (2008) 7 SCC 126.
21 (2006) 1 SCC 1.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 723

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

47. The counsel for the respondent further contends that this Court has
never directed the adoption of NPV norms as those for identification
of private forests. To suggest that the NPV norms be today adopted
as the criteria for private forests would be nullifying the exercise
conducted by the State of Goa in terms of the express order of this
Court dated 12.12.96. Above all, the order of this Court, in directing
each State to constitute its own Expert Committee expressly accepted
that there can be no uniform criteria for such identification across
the country. Lastly, in this regard, the counsel for the respondents
contended that no State in the country has adopted the NPV norms
for classification of land as private forests, and if the Appellant’s plea
is accepted it would create dual legal regimes, namely, one in Goa
and one in rest of the country.
48. The respondents further contends that if the criteria are implemented,
this would also roughly mean that if there are 10 to 20 planted trees
in an area of 10,000 sq. metres, it will be a ‘deemed forest’ and prior
approval from the Central Government under the FC Act would be
required. The respondent also drew our attention to the case of Re:
Constitution of Park-Anand Arya v. Noida22 wherein the 3-Judge
bench of this Court had stated that if such criteria is agreed, then
most of Delhi would be forest.
49. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent(s) submits that
there are enough safeguards in the State of Goa for protection of
trees. The Goa Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 is
strictly enforced in this regard. The respondent further submits that
the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change Guidelines as
well as the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 have been clear and
unambiguous where it has exempted the application of FCA 1980
on areas which are less than 1 (one) ha and where not more than
75 trees have to be cut vide letter dated 03.01.2005 of Ministry of
Environment and Forest and also Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights
Act, 2006.
50. The learned counsel for the respondent(s) submits that the parameters
used by FSI is to map the forest cover and the tree cover in India.
This is distinguished from the Forest area and forest land which
has been dealt with by this court in the Godavarman case (supra)

22 (2011) 1 SCC 744 Para 30.
724 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in detail since 12.12.1996. The counsel drew our attention to the
definition of ‘Forest Cover’ given by the FSI based on the “Minimum
Mappable Area” available with FSI from Satellite Data. At present, the
Minimum Mappable Area available to FSI for forest cover assessment
is 1 (one) hectare since 2001 based on the resolution of satellite
data. Prior to 2001, the Minimum Mappable Area for forest cover
was 25 hectares from India State of Forest Report 1989 to India
State of Forest Report 1999 and the same was 400 ha in 1987. The
India State of Forest Report, 2017 which clearly shows that the FSI
is describing the term ‘forest cover’ in all its India State of Forest
Reports based on the “Minimum Mappable Area” available to them
through Satellite Data only based on the technological status and
not on any other parameters. Thus, description of the forest cover
by FSI was based on the availability of high resolution of Satellite
data which has advanced/improved over period of time. Thus, in
future, due to technical advancement, FSI might be able to map
minimum forest area even less than 1 (one) hectare. However,
the States cannot keep on changing the criteria for identification of
deemed forests based on such parameters which have been set
for an entirely different purpose. Therefore, respondent(s) submit
that there is no-co-relation between the parameters set by FSI for
identifying deemed forest based on Minimum mappable area and
identification of the said area by respective states under the FCA
1980, in view of the Judgment dated 12.12.1996 in TN Godavarman
case (supra), of this Court.
51. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the
0.1 density argument is acceded by this Court, then every 10,000 sq.
metres plot which has 10 to 20 trees would have to be determined
as a forest and a cumbersome prior clearance would be required on
every private land. They also submit that the State of Goa is placed
uniquely in the Geographical ecosystem whereas per FSI, the total
area under forest cover is about 60.2% under Forest Cover and
another 8% as tree cover. This is almost three times the national
average and twice the national goal. Thus, in addition to the 68%
forest and tress cover, there are areas under the Coastal Regulation
Zone Notification; areas under Ecologically Sensitive Area; areas
under riverine and other wetlands; areas of no development where
gradient is 25%. In other words, no, or very minimal area would
be available for any future development. Hence, they submit the
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 725

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

approach of the appellant would amount to punishing those people
who have diligently planted trees on the private land for increasing
the green cover of Goa.
52. The counsel for the respondent(s) also drew our attention to Part II of
the Lafarge Judgement (supra) relating to Guidelines to be followed
in future cases dealing with disputes regarding what constitutes a
forest, wherein it is stated that if the project proponent makes a claim
regarding the status of the land being non-forest and if there is any
doubt then the site shall be inspected by the State Forest Department
along with the regional office of Ministry of Environment & Forest
to ascertain the status of forest, based on which the certificate in
this regard would be issued. In all such cases, it would be desirable
for the representative of the State Forest Department to assist the
Expert Appraisal Committee. In view of the above, if there is any
doubt on the criteria for identification of forests, it is the State Forest
Department and the Regional Office of Ministry of Environment,
Forest & Climate Change, which would be the deciding authority.
53. The counsel on behalf of the respondent(s) lastly submits that the
criteria for identifying the forests and the process therein by different
States is under an Order of this Court dated 12.12.1996 in the TN
Godavarman case (supra). This Court mandated that the State
Government to evolve the criteria as per their local situation and
considering the fact that Forest, being a concurrent subject, needs
to be determined as such by the State Government for applicability
of the FCA 1980.
54. In the light of the above submissions, learned counsel for the
respondent(s) pray for dismissal of the appeals.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:
55. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, we are
of the considered view that the following points would arise for our
consideration:
1. Whether the impugned order of the tribunal requires
to be affirmed or reversed?
2. Whether any further directions requires to be issued
in the facts and circumstances? And if so, what
directions or orders?
3. What order?
726 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

RE: POINT NO.1
56. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay in Writ Petition No.162 of 1987, disposed of on 27.11.1990,
had taken note of the guidelines issued for division of forest area for
non-forest purposes under the FCA 1980 and pursuant to the same
the State of Goa proposed certain criteria for identifying forest and
the consequent application of the FCA 1980 to private forest. The
then existing criteria are as follows: -
i. 75% of the tree composition should be forestry
species.
ii. The area should be contiguous to the government
forest and if in isolation the minimum area should be
5 (five) hectares;
iii. The canopy density on the plot should not be less
than 0.4.
Subsequently, this Court in T.N. Godavarman Case (supra)23 vide
order dated 12.12.1996 directed the State Governments to constitute
within 1 (one) month an Expert Committee to: -
i. Identify the areas which are “forest”, irrespective of
whether they are so notified, recognized or classified
under any law and irrespective of ownership of the
land of such forest;
ii. Identify areas which were earlier forests but stand
degraded, denuded or cleared and;
iii. Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging
to private persons.
57. Pursuant to the same the Government of Goa constituted Sawant
Committee with terms of reference as indicated in Para 5 of TN
Godavarman case (supra) by order dated 12.12.1996, the said
Committee adopted the criteria (referred to herein above as then
existing) which was also based upon the Shivanand Salgaocar’s
case (supra). The criteria so determined was published in public
notice dated 08.02.1997 and this was not challenged by anyone
including the appellant herein.

23 (1997) 2 SCC 267
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 727

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

58. It would be apt and appropriate to note at this juncture that in the
matter of Tata Housing (supra) this Court had an occasion to
consider the said criteria and to examine as to whether the report
of the Sawant Committee is to be accepted or otherwise and the
question so formulated in that regard reads as under: -
“11. Thus, the question which falls for consideration of this
Court is whether the High Court was justified in accepting
the Third Interim Report of the Sawant Committee and
allowing the writ application on the basis thereof. For
deciding this question, it would be necessary to refer to
the Second Interim Report of the Sawant Committee in
which it has laid down three criteria for classifying any land
as “forest”. Relevant portions of the said Report run thus:
“After the formation of the Committee, it was first decided
to get the forest cover through NRSA, Hyderabad but
seeing the time involved and nature of interpretation, it
was decided to carry out the exercise through physical
verification by the departmental staff only. Nature of
interpretation means the satellite data gives the natural
green cover which includes most of the plantation/seasonal
crops such as cashew, coconut, areca nut etc. For the
purpose of classifying ‘forest’ such growth cannot be
considered. The Committee has taken the stand that for
considering any area as forest:
(i) 75% of its composition should be forestry species.
(ii) The area should be contiguous to government forest
and if in isolation the minimum area should be 5
hectares.
(iii) The canopy density should not be less than 0.4.
The above criteria which was in existence with the Forest
Department, Government of Goa has been approved by
the Government of Goa.
***
Based on the satellite imageries, toposheets, the areas
outside the government forests have been marked on
the map and the forest officials have done the physical
verification of such areas applying the above criteria.
728 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

***
The Committee has procured the maps of 1978 from the
Town and Country Planning Department which have been
prepared based on the aerial photographs of 1960 and
toposheets of 1960. In these maps natural green cover
has been shown but again it does not either speak about
the density or the species composition…. This natural
green cover (pvt.) outside the government forests being
very high compared to the figure likely to be arrived at by
the Committee finally under the classification of private
forests, it is obvious as this private green cover includes
all types of vegetation and of all density class including
cashew crop which may not be fitted into the criteria taken
for identification of private forests.”
59. After having examined the records of the Sawant Committee, this
Court in Tata Housing (supra) observed that the three criteria
prescribed in the 2nd Report was just and proper and in conclusion
it has been held: -
“12. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid passages from
the Second Interim Report of the Sawant Committee it
would appear that the Committee had categorically laid
down three criteria for identifying a land to be forest and
it had rejected the Satellite Imagery and Toposheets of
1960 and Nature Green Cover Maps as the relevant
criteria for classifying any land to be forest. In the Third
Interim Report of the Sawant Committee in which it was
reported that the appellants› plot was a forest, curiously
enough, the three criteria referred to above, which were
earlier followed by the Committee for holding a land to be
a forest land, were abandoned. Instead, the Third Interim
Report laid down principally the following criteria:
(i) Satellite Imagery and Toposheets of 1960.
(ii) Report of the Sub-Committee for maintaining Nature
Reserve Green Belt around cities, particularly with
reference to the map prepared for nature reserve
on hill slopes.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 729

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

(iii) Enumeration of the plants in a 50-metre-wide belt
adjoining the boundaries of the appellants’ plot on
three sides i.e. the north, east and west, but excluding
the south side which had a huge public structure
admeasuring 1000 sq metres.”
18. This being the position, we are of the view that the
Third Interim Report of the Sawant Committee, having
been based upon the criteria which were rejected by it in
its previous report, cannot be accepted as there was no
ground for making a departure therefrom while submitting
the Report in relation to the appellants’ plot. The Committee
was not justified in holding the appellants’ plot to be a
forest land on the basis of an altogether different criteria
for which there is no reasonable nexus, especially when
none of the three criteria laid down in the Second Interim
Report has been adhered to. Thus the High Court was
not justified in accepting the Third Interim Report of the
Sawant Committee and concluding on the basis thereof
that the appellants’ plot was a forest.”
60. These aspects were well within the knowledge of the petitioner/
appellant herein inasmuch as they were parties to the proceedings in
Tata Housing (supra). Therefore, they cannot feign ignorance about
the reports of the Expert Committees. Also, the appellant, asserting a
public cause, cannot be considered unaware of the criteria proposed
by the Committee. These criteria as recommended by the Committee
were published in the public notice dated 08.02.1997 and have been a
subject of agitation by the appellant/petitioner across various forums.
Hence, the appellant/petitioner having not raised its little finger to
the criteria as prescribed and published in the public notice dated
08.02.1997 is estopped from raising the said issue at this stage. On
this short ground itself the appeal has to fail and appellant has to
be non-suited. However, in the teeth of contentions having raised
with the merits of the case, we do not propose to nip this litigation
at the bud but propose to examine the claim on its merits so as to
avoid any repetitive litigation in future and ensuring finality in such
matters with the object of putting an end to the litigation that has
arisen in this regard.
730 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

61. The appellants have also made valiant attempts to buttress their
arguments with regard to the criteria to be adopted for determination
of an area to be declared as forest by relying upon the pronouncement
of this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of
India24 by its order dated 26.09.2005 whereunder the concept of
NPV was verified to determine economic loss caused on account
of deforestation. Hence, we deem it proper to extract the relevant
paragraph of the said order and it reads as under: -
“49. Regarding the parameters for valuation of loss of forest,
we may only note as to what is stated by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government in its handbook laying
down guidelines and clarifications up to June 2004 while
considering the grant of approval under Section 2 of the FC
Act. Dealing with environmental losses (soil erosion, effect on
hydrological cycle, wildlife habitat, microclimate upsetting of
ecological balance), the guidelines provide that though technical
judgment would be primarily applied in determining the losses,
as a thumb rule, the environmental value of one hectare of fully
stocked forest (density 1.0) would be taken as Rs 126.74 lakhs
to accrue over a period of 50 years. The value will reduce with
density, for example, if density is 0.4, the value will work out at
Rs 50.696 lakhs. So, if a project which requires deforestation
of 1 hectare of forest of density 0.4 gives monetary returns
worth over Rs 50.696 lakhs over a period of 50 years, may be
considered to give a positive cost-benefit ratio. The figure of
assumed environmental value will change if there is an increase
in the bank rate; the change will be proportional to percentage
increase in the bank rate. Ms Kanchan Chopra, while conducting
a case study of Keoladeo National Park in respect of economic
valuation of biodiversity at the Institute of Economic Growth,
Delhi as a part of the Capacity 21 Project sponsored by UNDP
and MoEF, Government of India examined the question as to
what kind of values are to be taken into consideration. As per
the study, different components of biodiversity system possess
different kinds of value : (1) a commodity value (as for instance
the value of grass in a park), (2) an amenity value (the recreation
value of the park), and/or (3) a moral value (the right of the flora

24 (2006) 1 SCC Page 1.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 731

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

and fauna of the park to exist). It is recognised that it is difficult
to value an ecosystem, since it possesses a large number of
characteristics, more than just market-oriented ones. It also
leads to the need to carry out a biodiversity valuation both in
terms of its market linkages and the existence value outside
the market as considered relevant by a set of pre-identified
stakeholders. It is, however, evident that while working out the
biodiversity valuation, it is not trees and the leaves but is much
more. Various techniques for valuing biodiversity that have been
developed to assess the value of living resources and habitats
rich in such resources have been considered by the author
for her case study while considering the aspect of value, their
nature and stakeholders’ interest. Insofar as the value of ecology
function in which the stakeholders or scientists, tourists, village
residents, non-users, the nature of value is — regulation of
water, nutrient cycle, flood control. These instances have been
noted to highlight the importance of the biodiversity valuation
to protect the environments. The conclusions and the policy
recommendations of the author are:
“Biodiversity valuation has important implications for decision-
making with respect to alternative uses of land, water and
biological resources. Since all value does not get reflected
in markets, its valuation also raises methodological problems
regarding the kinds of value that are being captured by the
particular technique being used. Simultaneously, in the context
of a developing country, it is important to evolve methods
of management that enable self-financing mechanisms of
conservation. This implies that biodiversity value for which a
market exists must be taken note of, while simultaneously making
sure that the natural capital inherent in biodiversity-rich areas is
preserved and values which are crucial for some stakeholders
but cannot be expressed in the market are reflected in societal
decision-making.
A focus on both the above aspects is necessary. It is important
to take note of the nature of market demand for aspects
of biodiversity that stakeholders, such as tourists, express
a revealed preference for by way of paying a price for it.
Simultaneously, it is important to examine the extent to which
a convergence or divergence exists between value perceptions
732 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of this and other categories of stakeholders. It is in this spirit
that two alternative methodologies are used here to arrive at
an economic valuation of biodiversity in Keoladeo National
Park. The travel-cost methodology captures the market-linked
values of tourism and recreation. It throws up the following
policy implications:
1. Keeping in mind the location of the park and the consequent
joint product nature of its services, cost incurred locally is
a better index of the price paid by tourists. It is found that
demand for tourism services is fairly insensitive to price. A
redistribution of the benefits and costs of the park through
an increase in entry fee would not affect the demand for
its services.
2. Cross-substitution between different categories of
stakeholders can improve the financial management of
the wetland. A part of the proceeds can go to the local
management. Also, high-income tourists, scientists and
even non-users with a stake in preservation can pay for
or compensate low-income stakeholders for possible loss
in welfare due to limits on extraction and use.
3. However, the limit to such a policy is determined by the
number of visitors and their possible impact on the health
of the wetland. Such a constraint did not appear to be
operational in the context of the present park.
Identification and ranking of values of different aspects of
biodiversity resources as perceived and expressed by different
categories of stakeholders namely scientists, tourists, local
villagers and non-users is an important object in the process
of valuation. In the KNP study, a fair degree of congruence
in respect of ecological function value and livelihood value
is discovered to exist in the perceptions of diverse groups.
Stakeholders as diverse as scientists, tourists, local villagers
and non-users give high rankings to these uses.”
It has been so held hereunder that a Committee is to be constituted
to formulate base on which NPV could be calculated. It has been
further held that the NPV has to be worked out on economic principles.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 733

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

62. Pursuant to the afore-stated directions by this Court, the Committee
so constituted had examined the recommendations of the Central
Empowered Committee which was accepted and the NPV rate was
fixed for a period of three years. The said Committee classified forest
into three types, namely, (i) very dense; (ii) moderately dense and; (iii)
open, which was based on the maps prepared by NRSC, Hyderabad.
It would be pertinent to note that the appellant is attempting to import
the figure of 1 (one) hectare in place of 5 (five) hectares (as indicated
in the prescribed criteria by State of Goa) solely on the ground that the
NPV cost therein was determined by this Court on per hectare basis.
It is relevant to observe that the analogies employed to calculate the
forest coverage area, which the appellant is attempting to introduce,
may be incongruent and unrelated to the identification or demarcation
of forest area. This process necessitates the application of a distinct
yardstick. The process of identification has been gone into by the
experts as reflected from the Sawant Committee report and accepted
by this Court in Tata Housing (supra). Hence, it would not be apt
and appropriate for us to sit in the arm chair of the experts and to
substitute our opinion or that of the appellants in contrary distinction
to the opinion expressed by the experts and as such we refrain from
doing so. As a consequence of the same the contention raised by
the appellants cannot be accepted and it deserves to be rejected
and accordingly, it stands rejected.
63. In fact, the process of physical demarcation of such forests in the
State of Goa seems to have attained finality by virtue of the reports.
The Final Report prepared by Deep Shikha Committee as also known
as Private Forest Review Report identified 46.11 sq. km. of area as
private forest which has been accepted by the Tribunal in OA No.479
of 2018 vide Order dated 18.08.2020 and the appeal filed by the
State of Goa against the said order in Civil Appeal No.01 of 2021
which has been dismissed by this Court by order dated 01.02.2021.
In other words, the issue relating to identification and demarcation
of private forests in the State of Goa has attained finality on three
criteria as indicated herein supra pertaining to forest tree composition,
contiguous forest land and minimum area should be 5 (five) hectares
and canopy density should not be less than 0.4. In the teeth of the
afore-stated facts and the orders passed by the Tribunals as affirmed
by this Court, the State of Goa has issued a gazette notification on
22.09.2022 notifying 46.11 sq. km. as private forest.
734 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

64. It is also curious to note that on the one hand the appellant has
been challenging the criteria adopted by Sawant and the Karapurkar
Committees for identification of private forest land in the State of
Goa before this Court and simultaneously has relied upon the said
criteria adopted by these Committees before the Tribunal in this
regard. The order of the tribunal dated 21.01.2015 rendered in OA
No.22 of 2013 (Western Bench) title as ‘Goa Foundation Vs. Union
of India and Others’ can be looked up.
65. At the cost of the repetition, it requires to be noticed that appellant is
seeking a change in the criteria being followed by State of Goa for
identification and demarcation of forest under private ownership or
private forest by contending that State should follow the same criteria
for identification of forest land as is being used by FSI, Dehradun
for describing “forest cover” i.e., all lands more than one hectare
area with 10% irrespective of land use, ownership and legal status.
This exercise is being carried out by FSI, primarily for assessment
of forest and tree cover and monitoring the period change based on
satellite remote sensing to:
i. Prepare State of Forest report on State-wise Forest cover
biennially, providing assessment of latest forest cover in the
country and monitoring changes therein;
ii. Conduct inventory in forest and non-forest areas and develop
database on forest tree resources and prepare thematic maps;
iii. Support State/UT Forest Departments in forest resources survey,
mapping and inventory.
In fact, para 1.3 of the report published by FSI in 2017, the distinction
in the term ‘Forest Cover’ and ‘Forest Area’ has been stated as under:
“The term “Forest Cover” as used in Indian State of Forest
Report refers to all lands more than one hectare in area with
a tree canopy of more than 10%, irrespective of land use,
ownership and legal status. It may include even orchards,
bamboo, palm etc and is assessed through remote sensing.
On the other hand, the term ‘Recorded Forest Area’ or
‘Forest Area” refers to all the geographical areas recorded
as ‘Forests’ in government records. Recorded forest area
mainly consists of Reserved Forests (RF) and Protected
Forests (PF), which have been notified under the provisions
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 735

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

of Indian Forest Act, 1927 or its counterpart State Acts.
Beside RFs and PFs, the recorded forest area may also
include all such areas, which have been recorded as
forests in the revenue records or have been constituted
so under any state Act or local laws.
Recorded Forest area may have blank areas with
tree density less than 10 % such as degraded lands,
wetlands, rivers, riverbeds, creeks in mangroves, snow
covered areas, glaciers and other snow covered .areas,
alpine pastures, cold deserts, grasslands etc. As per the
definition of forest cover, such areas are excluded from the
assessment of the forest cover. On the other hand, there
are areas outside the recorded forests with tree patches of
one hectare and more with canopy density above 10%. For
example plantations on the private community lands, road,
rail and canal sides, rubber, tea and coffee plantations etc.
Such areas also constitute forest cover and are li included
in the forest cover assessment.”
66. Upon examining the FSI Report, a clear distinction emerges
between ‘Forest Cover’ and ‘Recorded Forest Area.’ ‘Forest Cover’
encompasses all lands exceeding 1 (one) hectare in size with a
tree canopy exceeding 10%, regardless of land use, ownership, and
legal status. This category may encompass various features like
orchards, bamboo groves, palm plantations, etc., and is evaluated
through remote sensing techniques. Conversely, the term ‘Recorded
Forest Area’ or ‘Forest Area’ refers to all geographic areas officially
designated as ‘Forests’ in government records. Recorded forest areas
primarily include Reserved Forests (RF) and Protected Forests (PF),
which are notified under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927,
or equivalent State Acts. In addition to RFs and PFs, the recorded
forest area may also cover regions recorded as forests in revenue
records or established as such under any State Act or local laws.
67. The State of Goa is one of the smallest States in the country having
geographical area of 3,702 sq. km. As per the India State of Forest
Report, 2017 published by FSI, the forest cover of Goa is 2,229 sq.
km. which is 60.21% of the total geographical area of the State. It is
three times higher than the National Forest Cover which is 21.54%. If
the tree cover of the State is included which is 323 sq. km. the total
736 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

forest and tree cover of Goa works out to be 2,552 sq. km. which
is 68.94% of the geographical area of the State. As rightly pointed
out by Mr. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of
Goa the change of existing criteria in determining the deemed forest
would have a negative impact on the conservation measures being
undertaken hitherto and the reasons enumerated in paragraph 15
could support the said contentions. It reads as thus: -
(i) All open forest area (10% to 40 % canopy density} under
private ownership shall be identified as deemed forest in
the state of Goa, whereas most of this open forest area
is habitation area having trees planted traditionally by
the people around. their houses for meeting their daily
needs of food, fruits, firewood, small timber, agriculture
implement etc.
(ii) If a person wants to plant 10 trees preferred by him like
Mango, Tamarind, teak, jackfruit, chickoo, kathal, etc in his
own land of one hectare for the above mentioned needs
it will cross the threshold of 0.1 canopy density and be
declared as private forests.
(iii) It will be a huge disincentive for the small land owners,
whose lands will fall under private forest and they will be
compelled to seek approval under FCA, 1980 from the
Central Government for every parcel of land which may
discourage the people of Goa to plant, protect and conserve
trees on their lands. Such land owners would lose their
right to use their own land for their bona fide needs in view
of stringent conditions as laid down in various provisions
of the FCA, 1980.
(iv) This criteria being independent of ownership, will also
attract almost all of the government, private office and
residential complexes, educational and other institutions
since one hectare criteria with 0.1 canopy density will be
applicable to the entire state of Goa.
(v) The people, who have cleared the forest / trees on their
land before 1996, would appear to be in advantageous
position in the eyes of private forest owners.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 737

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

(vi) It may give a wrong message to private land holders to
not only destroy existing forests/ tree vegetation but there
would be no incentive for planting trees or helping in their
conservation in ·. view of the restrictions being placed on
the usage of their own land.
(vii) As per order dated 12.12.1996 passed by this Hon’ble Court
in T. N. Godavarman Vs Union of India, W.P No.202/1995,
Govt. of Goa initiated the process of identification of private
forests in true spirit following the existing criteria. It is being
confirmed using satellite imageries and ground verification
by a Review Committee at present. These criteria as
mentioned in above para number 4 were formulated by
State of Goa way back in 1991 based on the High Court
of Bombay order in Writ petition No.162/1987, Shivanand
Salgaonkar Vs. Tree officer & others. And it has taken
almost two decades to identify and demarcate this private
forest area on the ground, which is still not complete and is
being done presently by the Review Committee. Reducing
the criteria to 0.1 Canopy Density and 1 Hectare will again
restart the process to bring large number of private lands
with few trees under private forests thereby adversely
impacting even the small land owners who have protected
trees in good spirit.
(viii) It will be a huge burden on small land owners (i) to find
alternative land for Compensatory Afforestation and (ii) to
pay Net Present Value (NPV) for his own small bonafide
needs such as extension/ construction of even one room
use of even small part of his land, and for planting of trees
by removal of existing trees on his own land under CA.
(ix) It will put serious pressure on available land for development
of the State and bonafide aspirations of its people including
conservation imperatives.
(x) In the State of Goa, geographically available land of 3702
Sq. Km has been divided into Eco Zone 1, Eco Zone 2
and Developable Zones, under the Regional Plan Goa
2021 under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. In
so far as Eco Zone- 1 IS concerned, it comprises Forest
(Protected/Reserved/National Park/Wildlife Sanctuaries),
738 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Mangrove Forest, identified Private Forests till 2008, Water
Bodies/nallas/ponds and paddy fields/khazan lands. Eco
Zone 1 constitutes 50.94 % of the geographical area of
the State and is completely a ‘No Development Zone’. In
so far as Eco Zone- 2 is concerned, it comprises orchards,
natura! cover, cultivable land, salt pans and fish farms/mud
flats. Eco Zone-2 constitutes 31.42% of the geographical
area of the State where development is restricted to the
land use which is completely regulated. Together Eco Zone
1 & 2 constitutes 82.37% of the geographical area of the
State leaving behind 17.63% of land as Developable Zones
in which also development is regulated and restricted. A
copy of the forest cover map of state of Goa as per India
State of Forest Report, 2017, FSI Dehradun is annexed
hereto and marked as Annexure – B.
68. It is necessary to mention at this juncture, the application of criteria
cannot be universally standardized across the country, as it is
contingent upon the specific geography and geographical conditions
prevalent in each State. Each State possesses its distinctive
geographical features, and as a result, the criteria may vary from
one State to another. In this regard, it would be apt to consider the
criteria/parameters formulated by various States to identify the private
forest as indicated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
No. 1, 4 to 8 dated 07.05.2019 are as under:

State Description of the Criteria/parameters
Andhra Pradesh All private lands bearing natural tree growth more
and Telangana than 0.40 density and having an extent of 10
hectares, shall be treated as forest subject to
the conditions that it should not adversely affect
customary rights of ‘Tribal Land owners’.
Arunachal Areas recorded as forest in the government records
were only treated as forests for the purpose of the
Pradesh
FC Act. Expert committee did not formulate any
parameter to classify an area as ‘forest’ by dictionary
meaning.
Assam Minimum forest area of Ten hectare and more
under private ownership were treated as ‘forest’ by
dictionary meaning.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 739

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

Chhattisgarh A patch of land irrespective of their ownership will
and Madhya be deemed as ‘forest’ if
Pradesh (a) Its area is not less than 10 hectares.
(b) It is covered with naturally growing timber, fuel
wood and yielding trees.
(c) Average number of trees standing on it is 200
or more tree per hectare.
Goa A patch of land irrespective of their ownership will
be deemed as forest if
a. 75% of the crop composition of such lands should
be of from forest species and
b. Area should be either be contiguous to
Government Forest land or in isolation the
minimum area so identified should be 5 hectares.
In case of mangroves, area less than 5 hectares
is also considered a forest whether or not in
contiguity to Government Forest land.
c. Minimum 0.40 canopy density.
Himachal Compact blocks of wooded land above 5 ha in extent.
Pradesh
Karnataka a. Government land parcels with area of 2 hectares
and above, minimum density 50 naturally grown
trees per hectares of girth at breast height 30
cm and above
b. Block plantations on Government lands with area
of 2 hectares and above having minimum density
of 100 planted trees per hectares of 30 cm and
above girth at breast height and
c. Private lands with area of 5 hectares & above,
minimum density of 50 naturally grown trees per
hectares of 30 centimetres and above girth at
breast height.
Maharashtra Following parameters were followed
a. An area which falls under the definition of word
‘forest’ and
b. All the mangroves shall be treated as ‘forest’
740 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Meghalaya An area would be ‘forest’ if it is a compact or
continuous tract of minimum 4 hectares land,
irrespective of ownership, and where-
a. More than 250 naturally growing trees per hectare
of 15 cm and highest diameter at breast height
(DBH) over bark are present or
b. More than 100 naturally growing bamboos clumps
per hectare are present in case of the tracts
containing predominantly sympodial bamboo.
Odisha Those areas which are 5 hectares or more in extent
in one continuous patch of private land covered with
plantations and/or natural growth.
Rajasthan Area not less than 5 hectares and having not less
than 200 plants per hectare were treated as ‘forest’
by dictionary meaning.
Sikkim Contiguous patch of minimum 10 hectares area
having more than 0.40 crown density were treated
as ‘Forest’ by dictionary meaning.
Uttar Pradesh Minimum 3 hectares area with minimum 100 trees
per hectare in Vindhya & Bundelkhand region and
minimum 2 hectares area with minimum 50 trees
in Terai & Plain areas were treated as ‘Forest’
by dictionary meaning, subject to the following
conditions;
a. Trees means naturally grown perennial trees
b. Shrubs will not be counted among trees
c. Minimum area of land will be based on gata-wise
d. In case of private land, in case a gata is registered
in name of several persons in the form of
minjumula, then area of each minjumula will be
considered for area limit.
e. Plantations raised on government and private
land will not be considered as forest.
West Bengal Compact patches of minimum 1 hectare area having
minimum crown density of 0.40 were treated as
‘forest’ by dictionary meaning.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 741

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

Dadra & Nagar Private/Government areas with minimum 5 hectares
Haveli or more having tree vegetation with species variations
and required stocking area to be treated as ‘forest’
by dictionary meaning.
6. In view of the above, we summarise our discussion as under:
i. Firstly, the existing criteria for identification of private forests in
the State of Goa are adequate and valid, hence, they require
no alteration. The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change guidelines, as well as the Scheduled Tribes & other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006, are clear and unambiguous, as they have exempted the
application of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, on areas that
are less than 1 hectare and where not more than 75 trees have
to be cut. Reference can be made to the communication dated
03.01.2005 of MoEF. Further, it can be noticed if the criteria
i.e., the canopy density of 0.4 and minimum area of 5 ha is
reduced to 0.1 and 1 ha as contended, respectively, it will result
in the plantations of coconut, orchards, bamboo, palm, supari,
cashew, etc., grown by farmers on their private lands into the
category of ‘private forest’. The effect would be that even for
a minor development on the concerned land, the permission
of the Government under the FCA 1980, for the landholders,
would become indispensable. It would be of necessity to note
that none of the States have adopted the criteria proposed by
the appellant, namely the 0.1 density criteria, as it would result
in opening a pandora’s box, and it would result in all the States
undertaking the task of reassessing the forest area all over again
which has since been settled on the basis of existing criteria.
ii. Secondly, it has been noticed that appellant is attempting to
take a contrary stand on the issue of criteria for the identification
of forests, namely, suggesting a change in criteria for the
identification of deemed forests under private ownership. On
the one hand, the appellant is challenging the criteria adopted
by the Sawant and Karapurkar Committees for the identification
of inter alia private forests and on the other hand has relied
on the same criteria adopted by these two committees for the
identification of forests, including private forests, before the
Tribunal, as has been observed by the Tribunal in its judgement
742 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

rendered in O.A. No.22 of 2013 on 22/01/2015 in the matter
of Goa Foundation v Union of India & Others and in O.A.
No.479 of 2018 in the matter of Goa Foundation v State of
Goa & Others. Thus, appellant cannot be permitted to approbate
and reprobate. The appellant has also failed in its endeavour
to have the second interim report of the Sawant Committee
and the criteria laid down thereunder to be revisited in Tata
Housing (supra) and before the Tribunal in Nisarga (supra).
In fact, appellant and another NGO had argued before the
Tribunal in Nisarga (supra) that the criteria ought to be 10%
canopy density, which did not find favour with the Tribunal in
the teeth of Tata Housing (supra), and said order passed in
Nisarga (O.A. No.19 of 2013) has attained finality.
iii. Thirdly, this Court vide its order dated 12.12.1996 had
expressly delegated the task of identifying forest areas to
Expert Committees to be constituted by State Governments,
thereby recognising that there can be no uniform criteria for
such identification across the country.
7. In light of the above conclusion, we are of considered view that the
present appeals would not merit acceptance and accordingly same
stand rejected and the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 is upheld.
Consequently, the interim order dated 04.02.2015 passed in I.A.
No.3845 of 2015 in WP No.202 of 1995 is vacated. I.A. No.40261
of 2017 filed by Respondent No.1 and I.A. No.116496 of 2022 filed
by the impleading party (CREDAI), are allowed. We also place on
record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. K. Parameshwar as
Amicus Curiae.

Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.