Supreme Court Upholds NGT Ruling on Forest Conservation in Uttarakhand

In a crucial environmental ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal challenging the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) judgment in the case of Chandra Prakash Budakoti v. Union of India & Ors.. The case revolved around allegations of illegal deforestation and environmental violations in Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. The Court upheld the NGT’s decision that land in Khasra No. 605 was classified as ‘banjar’ (barren) land and did not qualify as a deemed forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, it directed authorities to investigate potential violations in Khasra Nos. 512 and 514.

Background of the Case

The case was initiated by the appellant, Chandra Prakash Budakoti, a journalist and editor of the Hindi newspaper Jan Lok Kesari. He filed a public interest application before the NGT, citing concerns about illegal tree felling and land misuse by Mahananda Spa and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand.

The main allegations included:

• Unlawful deforestation in private forest lands in Khasra Nos. 512, 514, and 605.
• Illegal construction by Mahananda Spa and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. without environmental clearance.
• Blasting activities in the fragile Himalayan region, endangering ecological balance.
• Failure of district authorities to prevent these environmental violations.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Appellant)

The appellant contended that:

• The land in Khasra No. 605 should be treated as a deemed forest as per the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, where the Supreme Court ruled that forests should be understood in their dictionary sense, regardless of ownership.
• Google satellite images from 2007 to 2014 showed progressive degradation of forest cover in Khasra No. 605.
• Tree species such as Oak and Kukat were felled illegally, and construction was carried out without necessary clearances.
• The state authorities failed to take timely action to prevent environmental destruction.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, including the State of Uttarakhand and Mahananda Spa and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., countered these claims:

• Khasra No. 605 was classified as ‘banjar’ land in the revenue records dating back to 1938.
• The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, applies only to land recorded as a forest in revenue records, which was not the case here.
• Construction activities were undertaken after obtaining due environmental and building permissions.
• There was no evidence of blasting activities in the area.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta analyzed the reports submitted by various authorities, including the Forest Survey of India and the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Court made the following observations:

• The revenue records classified Khasra No. 605 as ‘banjar’ land, not forest land.
• The site inspection reports showed no evidence of fresh tree felling or blasting operations.
• The environmental clearance process was duly followed, and the project was not in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act.
• While the Forest Survey of India reported progressive forest degradation, the discrepancy in land area measurements raised doubts about its accuracy.

The Court stated:

“The land in Khasra No. 605 was not considered a deemed forest by the Forest Department. The provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act are not applicable to this land.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s ruling with the following directives:

• Khasra No. 605 was confirmed as non-forest land, and construction activities were allowed to continue.
• The State of Uttarakhand and the Ministry of Environment and Forests were directed to investigate violations in Khasra Nos. 512 and 514.
• The authorities were given three months to complete their inquiry and take appropriate action.

Legal Analysis

The Court’s ruling reinforced the importance of revenue records in determining forest land classification. It reaffirmed the principles established in the T.N. Godavarman case, clarifying that:

• Land recorded as forest in revenue records automatically falls under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• Lands not classified as forests in historical records require conclusive proof before applying forest conservation laws.

Additionally, the judgment emphasized that allegations of environmental violations must be substantiated with concrete evidence, and generalized claims cannot be the basis for legal action.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for environmental governance and real estate development in ecologically sensitive regions:

• Clarity on Forest Classification: The case establishes that revenue records play a crucial role in determining whether a land parcel qualifies as forest land.
• Balanced Approach: While protecting genuine forests, the judgment ensures that private property rights are not unfairly restricted.
• Enforcement of Environmental Laws: The Court’s directive for further investigation into Khasra Nos. 512 and 514 reaffirms that violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act will not be overlooked.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chandra Prakash Budakoti v. Union of India serves as a landmark ruling in balancing environmental protection with legal property rights. While dismissing the claims regarding Khasra No. 605, the Court ensured that allegations of illegal construction and deforestation in Khasra Nos. 512 and 514 would be thoroughly investigated. This judgment reinforces the need for clear documentation and regulatory compliance in environmental disputes.

Petitioner Name: Chandra Prakash Budakoti.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 24-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Chandra Prakash Buda vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category