Adequate, Valid, Require No Alteration: SC Dismisses Challenge To Goa's Criteria For Identifying Forests

The Supreme Court has upheld the criteria set by the State of Goa for identifying 'forests' in the State.

The Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that, "If the tree cover of the State is included which is 323 sq. km. the total 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... the change of existing criteria in determining the deemed forest would have a negative impact on the conservation measures being undertaken".

Senior Counsel Sanjay Parikh appeared for the appellant, while Counsel Nalin Kohli and Counsel Sanjay Upadhyay appeared for the State.

In this case, the appeals focused on the criteria the State of Goa set for identifying 'forests' in the State, tracing back to guidelines issued in 1991 after the Bombay High Court judgment of Shivanand Salgaocar v. Tree Officer & Ors.

Committees were formed to identify private forests, applying criteria such as minimum area, proximity to larger forest areas, crop composition, and crown density. Legal challenges arose regarding the criteria's application, leading to the formation of various committees and subsequent litigation.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) set aside the applications challenging the criteria, prompting an appeal. The Supreme Court, in a related matter, directed the State not to issue 'No Objection Certificates' for conversion of plots with specific natural vegetation characteristics.

The Supreme Court reached the following conclusions:

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. 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. 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.

iii. Thirdly, this Court 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.

In light of the same, the appeals were rejected.

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Counsel Sanjay Parikh, Counsel Srishti Agnihotri

Respondents: Counsels Nalin Kohli, Sanjay Upadhyay, Counsel Suhashini Sen and Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi

Cause Title: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India

Click here to read/download Judgment