IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 29 November 2021

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 10 S.C.R.

AIN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995)

NOVEMBER 29, 2021

B

[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAIAND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ]

Environmental laws: Sustainable development – Preservationof the environment and ecology – Delhi Metro Project – Phase IVof MRTS Project – Implementation of, vis-a-vis preserving theCecology and environment of the areas surrounding the alignment ofthe metro railway – Issues pertaining to degradation of environmentand ecology resulting in ‘Climate Change’ and problem of‘greenhouse gas emissions’ – Held: Metro Projects has resulted inloss of vegetation as well as flora and fauna in certain areas –DImplementation of Phase IV of MRTS Project is a further threat tothe ecology of NCT of Delhi/NCR – Thus, to meaningfully arrest theproblem of declining tree cover, the civil society to be given thecollective responsibility to carry out reafforestation activities –Issuance of direction having regard to the precautionary principleas well as principle of sustainable development by ensuring citizens’Eparticipation in the preservation of the environment and ecology –Direction to concerned departments to conceive plan of action forplanting of saplings and trees in NCT of Delhi – Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 – Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 –Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 – Wildlife Protection Act, 1972F– Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Lafarge Umiam Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India& Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954; MilindPariwakam & Anr. Vs. Union of India OriginalApplication No. 52 of 2015 (order dated 13.03.2015);Vimal Bhai Vs. Union of India Appeal No.7 of 2012G(order dated 07.11.2012);T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad Vs Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition(Civil) 202 of 1995 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2011] 7 SCR 954H

JURISDICTION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I. A. Nos.169030 of 2019 and 105674 of 2020.

In

Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995

With

I. A. Nos.142873 of 2021, 142876 of 2021 and 144462 of 2021 inI. A. No.105674 of 2020 In Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995.

(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)

Tushar Mehta, SG, Balbir Singh, ASG, R. Ravindra Raizada, BarunKr. Sinha, Nikhil Goel, AAGs, Rajiv Dutta, Ashok Sharma, Vikas Mahajan,Nakul Dewan, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Suhaan Mukerji, VishalPrasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, M/s PLR ChambersAnd Co., Syed Mehdi Imam, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel Husain,T. Harish Kumar, M/s Mitter & Mitter Co., M/s Lawyer S Knit & Co.,Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Manan Verma, Vinod Sharma, Anil Kumar,Binod Kumar Singh, Parijat Som, Tarun Johri, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave,D. L. Chidanand, S. S. Rebello, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Shyam Gopal, SugoshSubramanyam, G. S. Makker, Sarojanand Jha, M. R. Shamshad, ShovanMishra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, G. Prakash, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms.Beena Prakash, Manan Sanghai, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar,Siddhesh Kotwal, Nirnimesh Dube, Akash Singh, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi,Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Chirag M. Shroff, Mahfooz A. Nazki, PolankiGowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K. V.Girish Chowdary, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Raj Kishor Choudhary, ShuvodeepRoy, Ishaan Borthakur, Upendra Mishra, Avijit Mani Tripathi, ShauryaSahay, Kynpham Kharlynydom, Ravindra Lokhande, Sudarsh Menon,Soumen Talukdar, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Ajay Bansal, Kuldip Singh,Gaurav Yadava, Ms. Veena Bansal, Sourav Jindal, Abhishekh Garg,Akshay Goyal, Sushil Kumar Anand, Pravin Swaroop, Aravindh S., MrinalGopal Elker, Manish Yadav, Sunny Choudhary, Manoj Kumar,Raghuvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Narendra Kumar, ArpitParkash, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,Kamlendra Mishra, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Mrs. BihuSharma, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Dr. MonikaGusain, Kumar Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Gopal Balwant Sathe,Naveen Kumar, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy,M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Saket Singh, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, A

B

CD

EF

G

H

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

ASunil Dogra, Vivek Vishnoi, Abhishek Sharma, Sarvam Ritam Khare,Nihar, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari,Kaushik Choudhury, B. K. Pal, Chirag M. Shroff, Abhishek Atrey,M/s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Ashok Mathur,M/s Arputham Aruna and Co., Raj Kumar Mehta, Rajesh Singh,Mrs. Rekha Pandey, K. L. Janjani, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, A. VenayagamBBalan, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, T. Mahipal,Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Himanshu Shekhar,Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Bikash Chandra, RajeevKumar Deora, Inder Mohan Singh, Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, Ms. VishiAggarwal, V. Balachandran, P. R. Ramasesh, Rajiv Mehta, Rathin Das,CSudhir Kulshreshtha, Rakesh K. Sharma, Prashant Kumar, P.Parameswaran, S. R. Setia, M/s Parekh & Co., H. S. Parihar, Ms. BinaMadhavan, T. N. Singh, A. N. Arora, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Vikrant SinghBais, E. M. S. Anam, Umesh Bhagwat, E. C. Agrawala, RanjanMukherjee, Gopal Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. C. K. Sucharita,Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Ejaz Maqbool, M/s Corporate Law Group, Ms.DBinu Tamta, P. N. Gupta, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ms. MadhuMoolchandani, D. N. Goburdhan, Naresh K. Sharma, Jai Prakash Pandey,Ms. Rachna Srivastava, C. L. Sahu, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Rauf Rahim,Rajat Joseph, Mrs. Nandini Gore, M/s M. V. Kini & Associates, Mohd.Irshad Hanif, Ms. Divya Roy, Radha Shyam Jena, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao,ET. V. George, Neeraj Shekhar, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Ms. S. Janani,Surya Kant, Amit Anand Tiwari, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, M/s K. J.John & Co., S. C. Birla, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Punit Dutt Tyagi,Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ajit Pudussery, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Mrs. Bina Gupta, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Ms. BabyKrishnan, Ms. Charu Mathur, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Irshad Ahmad,FAniruddha P. Mayee, Rajeev Singh, Ramesh Babu M. R., Shiva PujanSingh, Shibashish Misra, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ms. K. V. BharathiUpadhyaya, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ram SwarupSharma, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rajesh, Lakshmi Raman Singh, K. V.Vijayakumar, Gopal Prasad, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, B. V. Deepak, P.GV. Yogeswaran, Ms. A. Sumathi, A. T. M. Sampath, M. C. Dhingra, Ms.Sumita Hazarika, Abhishek Chaudhary, M. Yogesh Kanna, SomeshChandra Jha, Ms. Adarsh Nain, Ms. Seita Viadyalingam, V. N.Raghupathy, P. K. Manohar, Nishanth Patil, James P. Thomas,Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Guntur Pramod Kumar,Shubhranshu Padhi, P. S. Sudheer, Advs. for the appearing parties.H

By Courts Motion

A

The Order of the Court was passed by

NAGARATHNA J.

IA Nos.169030/2019 & 105674/2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995 With IA Nos.142873/2021, 142876/2021 & 144462/2021 In I.A.No.105674/2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995

B

1. Heard Sri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearingfor Union of India and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd; Sri Chirag M.Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Government of National CapitalTerritory of Delhi (for short, the ‘GNCTD’), and Sri Rajiv Dutta, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the applicants and perused the material onrecord.

C

2. IA Nos.169029 and 169030 of 2019 have been filed by theapplicant viz., Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (for short, the ‘DMRC’).

D

3. By order dated 02.02.2021, IA No.169029 of 2019 forimpleadment was allowed and the applicant – DMRC was impleaded asparty respondent in the matter for the purpose of passing orders on IANo.169030 of 2019.

4. The following prayers are sought in IA No.169030 of 2019 :

E

(a) Refer the matter to the Central Empowered Committeeappointed by this Hon’ble Court for detailed considerationand examination of the proposal of the applicant forconstruction of metro alignment, tunnels and metro stationforming part of 22.34 km Aerocity - Tughlakabad MetroCorridor, being proposed for construction for Phase-IV ofthe MRTS Project on South Central/morphological Ridgeas enclosed in Annexure P-1.

F

(b) Allow the Applicant for carrying out the aforesaid Alignment,Tunnelling/ station/shaft construction activity, in the SouthCentral/Morphological Ridge for construction of the tunnelsGand metro corridor forming part of 22.34 km Aerocity -Tughlakabad Metro Corridor being proposed forconstruction for Phase-IV of the MRTS Project, under thesupervision of the Ridge Management Board.

H

1150SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(c)Pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deemfit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.5. IA No.105674/2020 has been filed by the applicant-DMRCseeking the following prayers:

(i) Allow the instant application, by declaring (1) the 5.34 kmBstretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspuri to Peeragarhi;(2) 1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain, (3) areaadmeasuring 16097.75 sqm land located at Mangolpuri, and(4) area admeasuring 55.78 sqm at Krishna Park are non-forest areas and there is no requirement for the applicantCto obtain permission for diversion of these lands as Forestland under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

(ii) Permit the applicant to carry out the construction activitiesof Phase-IV of Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System Projecton the locations referred to in prayer (i) above, without anyrestrictions in the larger interest of the Project.D

(iii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fitand proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.6. I.A. No.144462/2021 has been filed by the GNCTD seekingpermission to file the additional documents in I.A. No.105674/2020. Thesaid application contains:E

(i) Report of Deputy Conservator of Forest, West ForestDivision, GNCTD, on DMRC proposal for construction ofcorridor from Janakpuri to Derawal Nagar, Delhi (AnnexureA-1); F(ii)Copy of submissions of GNCTD dated 24.02.2021 in thematter of DMRC and P.C. Prasad Vs. UOI (Annexure A-2);

(iii) Minutes of Meeting of the Ridge Management Board (forshort, the ‘RMB’) dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure A-3) inwhich Agenda Item No.8 is relevant which is concerningGthe construction of metro line (Aerocity – TughlakabadCorridor) of Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System (for short,the ‘MRTS’) Project Phase IV.

The RMB has noted that the DMRC has submitted theproposal for use of forest land for construction of metroH

line, stations and other operational requirement of DelhiMRTS Project Phase IV. The length of alignment fallingunder Southern Ridge, South Central Ridge andMorphological Ridge is 2.844 km, 1.491 km and 3.774 kmrespectively, giving further details of the exact location ofthe railway alignment in the forest land of the Ridges referredto above. It is also noted that 1109 trees are proposed to befelled in certain parts of the Southern Ridge, South CentralRidge and Morphological Ridge. Since the CentralEmpowered Committee (for the sake of conveniencehereinafter referred to as the ‘CEC’) is visiting the entirerailway alignment, the consideration of the matter wasdeferred.

(iv) Submissions of GNCTD dated 29.05.2021 through theDepartment of Forest & Wildlife, GNCTD and in the matterof DMRC is at Annexure A-4.

(v) The reply of GNCTD dated 29.05.2021 to the CEC is atAnnexure A-5 in IA No.144462/2021.

(vi) The affidavit of the Conservator of Forest, GNCTD, dated15.09.1997 filed before this Court is at Annexure A-6. Thesaid affidavit is accompanied by nine annexures giving thedetails of protected forest, forest land and plantation areasunder the management of Department of Forest, GNCTD.

7. I.A. Nos.142873/2021 and 142876/2021 have been filed by theapplicants in I.A. No.105674/2020 who have prayed for intervention/impleadment as party respondents and have also sought appropriatedirections for accepting and allowing the bona fide objections filed bythe applicants and for rejecting Report No.8 of 2021 dated 13.05.2021filed by the CEC in terms of the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by thisCourt in IA No.105674/2020 along with other directions sought in theprayer of the instant IA No.142876/2021.

8. In IA No.142876/2021, the applicants viz., Dr. PC Prasad andAditya N. Prasad have filed their objections to Report No.8 of 2021dated 13.05.2021 in IA No.105674/2020 and contended that the aforesaidapplication(s) filed by the DMRC is not maintainable as this Court cannotgrant a declaration that certain areas are non-forest areas in the NationalCapital Territory of Delhi (for short, the ‘NCT of Delhi’). It is averred A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat DMRC ought to have approached the Regional Office of the Ministryof Environment, Forest & Climate Change (for short, the ‘MoEF&CC’),Government of India (for short, ‘GoI’), as per the Guidelines laid downby this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining Corporation Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors. – (2011) 7 SCC 338; that DMRC has directly approachedthis Court seeking a declaration without first approaching the MoEF&CC,BGoI; that in fact, DMRC has already addressed letter dated 25.08.2020to the Deputy Conservator of Forest (West Forest Division), GNCTD,informing that it is in the process of applying for permission to use variousland for the purpose of project as per FC Act, 1980; that DMRC hasundertaken that in case diversion of forest land is denied it would realignCthrough the alternative route. A copy of the said letter is produced asAnnexure-17 in IA No.105674/2020.

9. Objections have also been raised to the CEC Report No.8/2021 filed in IA No.105674/2020 by the aforesaid applicants in IANo.142876/2021 which are summarized as under :

D

(i) That none of their submissions raised before the CEC hasbeen recorded nor referred to in the said Report.

(ii) The Chief Wildlife Warden and the concerned TreeOfficer(s) were not invited for the hearing nor havecomments been sought from the said officers by the CEC.

E

(iii) It is stated that majority of the areas where DMRC isproposing to construct have been identified as ‘deemedforest’ areas in the affidavit dated 15.09.1997 submitted bythe Conservator of Forest, GNCTD, before this Court inthis very matter.F

(iv) The metro line cannot be allowed to be constructedbypassing the requirement of obtaining forest clearanceunder the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, the‘FC Act, 1980’).

(v) DMRC has to follow the statutory scheme of the FC Act,G1980 before any forest land is diverted for non-forest use.The statutory scheme under the said Act has been highlightedas under :

(a) The officers of the Forest Department have to fill out theform under section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 providing detailsH

of the project sought to be constructed on forest land, acost-benefit analysis as well as alternatives examined withdetailed recommendations accepting or rejecting theproposal.

A

(b) Then the proposal has to be placed before the RegionalEmpowered Committee which looks at all linear projectsincluding the metro in the present case; B

(c) The Regional Empowered Committee has to recommendthe project and grant Stage I approval (in-principle approval).(d)Thereafter, as per the decision of the National GreenTribunal in Milind Pariwakam & Anr. Vs. Union of India,Original Application No.52 of 2015 (order dated 13.03.2015),an order of the State Government under section 2 of theFC Act, 1980 has to be passed after the State I clearance,before any non-forest activity can be carried out on forestland.

C

D

(e) The National Green Tribunal in Vimal Bhai Vs. Union ofIndia, Appeal No.7 of 2012 (order dated 07.11.2012) hasheld that the order under section 2 is appealable under section16(e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and no partycan be left remediless which is why the State Governmentorder under section 2 is a pre-requisite before any action isEtaken.

(f) Para 1.14 of the Guidelines issued under the Forest(Conservation) Rules, 2003 (for short, the ‘FC Rules, 2003’)states that where projects involve both forest and non-forestlands, works should not be started on non-forest land tillapproval of the Central Government for release of forestland under the Act has been obtained unless and to theextent permitted by the Rules or guidelines issuedthereunder.

F

(vi) It is also stated that the construction of Phase IV of MRTSproject cannot be permitted unless a critical study is carriedout under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (forshort, the ‘DPT Act, 1994’) before felling of trees.

G

(vii) The CEC has ignored in its report that ‘Najafgarh drainbasin’ in New Delhi has been identified as a critically polluted H

1154SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aarea by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in theComprehensive Environment Pollution Index (CEPI) Report,2009.

(viii) It is also stated that ambient air quality in respect of noisehas also to be taken into consideration.B

(ix) The objections in the aforesaid interlocutory application alsostate that the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972to be considered if trees are proposed to be felled and thethreat to the eco system in the context of the wildlifeprevalent in the particular eco system.

C(x)It is also stated that the Deputy Conservator of Forest (WestForest Division), GNCTD, by its order dated 28.02.2020and letter dated 11.08.2020, has restrained DMRC fromcarrying out any construction activity on the 5.34 km onRoad No.26 between Vikaspuri to Peeragarhi and NajafgarhDdrain as the DMRC illegally felled trees and barricaded thearea for construction activity relating to Janakpuri West toR.K. Ashram corridor.

(xi) The objections have also averred about the economic valueof the trees.

E10. By order dated 02.02.2021, this Court had directed copies ofthe instant applications including the amended application to be servedupon the CEC and directed the CEC to file its reports in the matter.

11. The CEC has submitted Report No.8 of 2021 in IA No.105674of 2020 and Report No.10 with Corrigendum dated 09.09.2021 in IAFNo.169030 of 2019 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995. The said reports havebeen taken on record.

12. According to DMRC, which is a government companyincorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and which is engaged inDelhi MRTS Project to provide a pollution free transport system to theGpeople of the NCT of Delhi/National Capital Region (for short, the‘NCR’), it has sought the aforesaid prayers with regard to a declarationthat (i)5.34 km stretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspuri toPeeragarhi;H

(ii) 1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain;A

(iii) area admeasuring 16097.75 sqm land located at Mangolpuri;and

(iv) area admeasuring 55.78 sqm at Krishna Park are non-forest areas and hence, the requirement to obtainpermission for diversion of these lands as forest land underthe FC Act, 1980 would not arise.

B

13. As a sequel, permission has been sought by the applicant-DMRC to carry out the construction activities of Phase-IV of MRTSProject on the aforesaid locations without any restrictions as such.

C

14. In IA No.105674/2020, according to the applicant-DMRC,61.679 Km of Phase IV of MRTS Project has been proposed, which,inter alia, includes the following construction proposed to be undertaken:

(i) 20.201 km Metro corridor from Aerocity to Tughlakabad, D

(ii) 28.920 km corridor from Janakpuri West to R.K. Ashram,and (iii)12.558 km metro corridor from Mukundpur to Maujpur.

15. The total cost of Phase-IV of MRTS Project is estimated tothe tune of Rs. 24948.65 crores.

E

16. This Court vide its order dated 06.09.2019 in WP(C) No.13029of 1985, observed that the parties have to ensure that there would be nodelay caused in Phase IV of the Project and that the requisite amounthas to be released in a timely manner to the acquiring authority. Thecommencement of Phase IV of MRTS Project by construction of civilworks was made in November, 2019 and the said project is to becompleted and commissioned by June, 2024.

F

17. The application being IA No.105674/2020 contains the followingsteps that have been taken so far which are encapsulated as under:

G

(i) The Detailed Project Report (DPR) of 103.93 km longPhase -IV MRTS Project was submitted to the UnionGovernment and the GNCTD. The project report wasreviewed in terms of the New Metro Policy, 2017 and thealignment was thereafter finalized in April, 2018.

H

A(ii)It appears that in the period from 2018 to 2020, the DMRCcarried out tree survey and applied for permission for cuttingtrees before the concerned department of Forest andWildlife, GNCTD.

(iii) The concerned Public Works Department (PWD) hasBgranted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for carrying outthe construction activity on the Right of Way (ROW) in theyear 2019.

(iv) Similarly, permission has been obtained from the PoliceDepartment for diversion of traffic between Janakpuri andCMukarba Chowk and NOC from Irrigation and FloodControl Department have also been taken.

(v) A contract has also been awarded for construction ofelevated viaduct at the pertinent places and for 10 elevatedstations on Janakpuri West-R.K. Ashram corridor.

D(vi)From December, 2019 to August, 2020, the officials of theForest Department and DMRC have conducted various jointsite visits regarding permission for felling of trees fallingwithin the area of Metro alignment. But no exactdemarcation of forest areas has been made.

E(vii)The Deputy Chief Conservator, Forest & WildlifeDepartment, GNCTD vide his letter dated 28.02.2020,restrained the DMRC from carrying out any constructionactivity at Najafgarh drain till necessary approval was issuedby the concerned authorities.

F(viii) By another letter dated 02.07.2020 issued by the ForestDepartment, the site near the railway line adjacent toMangolpuri Industrial Area was stated to fall under thecategory of “Deemed Forest” as per the Affidavit dated15.09.1997 filed in this case before this Court by GNCTD.Therefore, the DMRC was requested to approach theGCentral Government for grant of permission for diversionof forest land under the FC Act, 1980.

(ix) The Forest & Wildlife Department, GNTCD in its letterdated 07.07.2020, stated that one patch of Line 8 fromJanakpuri (West) to Mukarba Chowk falls within theH

category of “Deemed Forest” and therefore, approval hadto be taken from the Central Government for diversion offorest land.

(x) On 05.08.2020, the Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD,directed the DMRC and PWD officials to attend a jointsite visit on 10.08.2020 for ascertaining the exact locationof 5.34 km area on Road No.26 between Keshorpur toMukarba Chowk, as Road No.26 was mentioned as Forest/Planation Area in the affidavit dated 15.09.1997 filed beforethis Court in the main writ petition.

(xi) As the exact location of the forest area could not beascertained in the joint site visit, the Forest & WildlifeDepartment, GNCTD, requested the applicant – DMRC toapproach the PWD to mark the area as forest area in termsof the affidavit dated 15.09.1997 filed before this Court.

(xii) The Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD, also statedthat the Najafgarh drain is marked as a plantation area asper Geospatial Delhi Ltd. (GSDL) Map and hence, noconstruction activity has been carried out on the said area.

(xiii) Thereafter, on 14.09.2020, the Forest & WildlifeDepartment, GNCTD, permitted construction activity in thenon-forest area subject to seeking approval of the competentauthority vis-à-vis the trees in the said non-forest area.

18. In the above circumstances, the present application has beenfiled by the DMRC before this Court seeking permission to carry outconstruction activities of Metro Rail on the following stretches/locations:

(a) A stretch of 2.99 km, falling on Road No.26 betweenKeshopur to Mukarba Chowk being part of 28.920 kmextension of Line-8 of MRTS Project; from Janakpuri Westto R.K. Ashram of Phase IV Metro Project beingconstructed by the Applicant, which area forms part of RoadNo.26 (5.34km) classified as Forest Area/Plantation areaby the Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD, in the abovenoted Affidavit dated 15.09.1997.

(b) An area admeasuring 1288.973 sqm at Najafgarh drain,classified as Forest Area/Plantation Area, by the Forest &

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1158SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AWildlife Department, GNCTD, under Irrigation & FloodControl Department.

(c) An area admeasuring 16097.75 sqm at Mangolpuri forconstruction of Mangolpuri Metro Station, classified asForest Area by the Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD,Bon the basis of availability of 100 trees per acre in an areaabove 2.5 acres.

(d) An area admeasuring 55.78 sqm; 36.475 mt of which formspart of Road No. 26 (5.34km) at Krishna Park forconstruction of Entry/Exit of underground station at KrishnaCPark of the Metro corridor/project.

19. Several averments have been made in the aforesaid applicationto contend that the aforesaid areas in respect of which the permission issought, for carrying out the construction activity of Phase IV MetroRail, are not forest areas and permissions/approvals are not required.DThey are summarized as under:

(i) The project involves a huge capital expenditure andstoppage of construction activities and consequent delay incompletion of the project would involve heavy financialimplications owing to cost escalation, which would have aEcascading effect on public exchequer.

(ii) The DMRC has undertaken the proposed project with aview to providing the citizen of NCT of Delhi/NCR a viablepublic transport option so as to reduce vehicular congestionon the road and consequently, reduce pollution in the NCTof Delhi/NCR.F

(iii) The operation of Metro project has resulted in severaladvantages to the public at large.

(iv) There would be a greater advantage to the public at largeand essentially in the form of saving travel time and reducingGthe degree of pollution in the NCT of Delhi/NCR.

(v) Any delay in the commissioning of the project, on the otherhand, would jeopardise the object and purpose of DMRCto provide efficient transport facility to the citizens.

(vi) Hence, in IA No.105674 of 2020, the DMRC has sought aHdeclaration that -

(a) the 5.34 km stretch on Road No.26 between VikaspuriAto Peeragarhi; (b)1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain;

(c) area admeasuring 16097.75 sqm land located atMangolpuri; and B

(d) area admeasuring 55.78 sqm at Krishna Park are non-forest areas and there is no requirement for theapplicant to obtain permission for diversion of these landsas Forest land under the FC Act, 1980.

C

20. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.02.2021, the CEChas submitted its Report No.8 of 2021 dated 13.05.2021 in IA No.105674of 2020. The relevant portions of the said report read as under:

“17. Since this IA No. 105674 of 2020 filed by DMRC Limitedmainly relates to the question of applicability of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 to road side planted trees specific to theMetro corridor between Janakpuri West to R. K. Ashram and theissue raised in the W.P.(C) No.1774 of 2021 before the High Courtof Delhi and before the CEC by the same petitioners mainly relatesto proposed felling of 11,545 trees for implementation of the entirePhase IV of the Metro project, the CEC will submit a detailedreport in the matter separately and along with the Report in IANo.91869 of 2020 filed by the DMRC Ltd relating to the MetroCorridor between Aerocity and Tughlakabad.

D

E

18. The felling of planted trees outside the forest are regulatedunder the provision of the Delhi Prevention of Trees Act, 1994(DPT Act, 1994). The definition of a ‘tree’ under DPT Act, 1994is as follows:

F

“tree means any woody plant whose branches spring from andare supported upon a trunk or body is not less than fivecentimetre at a height of thirty centimetres from the groundlevel and is not less than one meter in height from the groundlevel.”

G

Thus all plants of and above one meter in height are treated astrees under this Act.

H

The DPT Act, 1994 also prescribes planting of a minimum of 10times the number of trees for every tree felled. The Applicant istherefore required to obtain the requisite permission under theDPT Act, 1994.

A

19. Keeping in view the above discussions CEC is of the consideredBview that the PWD land along Road No.26 on which the plantedtrees are seen are neither notified as ‘forest’ nor recorded in anygovernment records as ‘forest’. These trees not being of naturalorigin cannot be branded as ‘forest’ for the purpose of Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980. It is therefore recommended forconsideration of this Hon’ble Court that the prayer of the ApplicantCto declare that the 5.34 km stretch of Road No.26 betweenVikaspuri to Peeragarhi, 1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain,16097.75 sqm land located at Mangolpuri and 55.78 sqm of KrishnaPark are non-forest areas is allowed, subject to the condition thatthe Delhi Metro Corporation Limited will fell the trees only afterDobtaining permission under Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994from the concerned authorities and after complying with theconditions associated with such approvals including compensatoryplanting of 10 times the number of trees close to the site fromwhere the trees are being felled.”

21. Report No.10of 2021 in IA No.169030 of 2019 wherein theEaforesaid prayers have been extracted, pertains to the construction ofMetro alignment, tunnels and Metro stations located on Southern Ridge,South-Central Ridge and Morphological Ridge falling along the 23.62km long metro corridor between Aerocity and Tughlakabad Station inDelhi. With regard to the extent and importance of Delhi Ridge Area/

FMorphological Ridge Area and order of this Court in this regard, thefollowing has been observed in the said report:

“19. i) The Master Plan for Delhi Perspective, 2001, notified bythe Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 1st August, 1990,states that the Ridge in Delhi is defined as rocky out-crop ofAravalli Ranges stretching from the University in the North ofGUnion Territory boundary to the South and beyond. The DelhiRidge area extends over 7,777 ha out of which 87 ha falls inNorthern Ridge, 864 ha falls in Central Ridge, and 6200 hafalls in South Central Ridge and 6200 ha falls in SouthernRidge. The ridge area has been classified and included in theHMaster Plan (Land use Plan) as Regional Park.

ii) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi bynotification dated 24th May, 1994 under Section 4 of the IndianForest Act, 1927 notified the 7,777 ha of Delhi Ridge area asReserved Forests commonly referred to as Notified Ridge Area.The Delhi Ridge serves as the green lungs for Delhi and acts as abuffer against rising pollution levels. The pressures of rapidurbanization in Delhi have, over the years, threatened and adverselyaffected the forests in Delhi Ridge area. The Ridge area thusidentified needs to be conserved with utmost care and should beafforested with the indigenous species with minimum of artificiallandscape.

iii) This Hon’ble Court has passed a series of directions in WritPetition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 for conservation and protectionof Delhi Ridge. Pursuant to this Hon’ble Court order dated 29thSeptember, 1995 the Government of NCT of Delhi by order dated5th October, 1995 constituted the Ridge Management Board(RMB) under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Delhi. TheBoard has been assigned various functions, relating to conservationand protection of Ridge. These include execution of themanagement scheme for the Ridge Forests, protection ofboundaries, of the Ridge and preparation and execution of detailedplans for up gradation of the Ridge.

iv) This Hon’ble Court by order dated 101h October, 1995directed that the Ridge Management Board shall ensure thatthe Ridge is not occupied or encroached by any person forany unauthorised purpose. This Hon’ble Court further directedthe Chairman RMB to file an affidavit by a responsible officerafter every eight weeks, indicating the progress made in preservingthe status of the Ridge as a forest and also keeping it free fromencroachers.

v) This Hon’ble Court, by order dated 25;01.1996 and 13.03;1996in IA No.18 and IA No.22 in Writ Petition (C) 4677 of 1985 directedthat the uncultivated surplus land of Gaon Sabha falling. in theRidge area may be excluded from vesting in Gaon Sabha u/s 154of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and made available for thepurpose of Reserved Forest.

vi) The Government of NCT of Delhi in compliance of the abovesaid orders of this Hon’ble Court issued Notification dated 2nd AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

April, 1996 u/s 154 of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 declaring10,517 acres (about 4,206.68 ha) of uncultivated land of GaonSabha situated in Southern Ridge as surplus land and excludedthe same for vesting in Gaon Sabha. Further by Notification dated2nd April, 1996 placed the said 4206:68 ha land at the disposal ofthe Forest Department of Delhi Government and this 4206.68 haof land stands included in the 7777 ha of Notified Ridge Area.

A

B

vii) This Hon’ble Court by order dated 9th May, 1996 directedthat the Ridge is to be kept free from encroachers and itspristine glory must be maintained for all times.

viii) The Geological Survey of India (GSI) in the year 2001-02carried out geological and geomorphological mapping 0f about1482 sq km area of NCT of Delhi on 1: 10,000 scale with a viewto provide the base map for seismic microzonation of Delhi andwhich map was published in the year 2006. In the geologicaland geomorphological map prepared by the GSI the land formsfound to be under rocky surface have been included andshown under the geomorphic unit “residual hills I Ridges”. Itis relevant to mention that all the areas identified as Residual HillsI Ridges in the geological and geomorphological mapping done bythe GSI are not included and shown as Ridge areas in the MPD2001 and MPD 2021. For example, the areas betweenTughlakabad to Okhla via Greater Kailash and Nehru Place havebeen identified as Ridge areas in the said Report of GSI but arenot included as Ridge areas in the MPD 2001 and MPD 2021.

C

D

E

ix) Initially, the clearance from the Ridge Management BoardFand the permission of this Hon’ble Court was being insisted upononly in respect of the Notified Ridge Areas. This Hon’ble Courtby order dated 23.03.2007 has granted permission to the DelhiMetro Rail Corporation Limited for use of forest land and non-forest land falling in the Delhi Ridge area for the construction ofthe Central Secretariat -Qutab Minar -Gurgaon corridor of theGmetro line and by order dated 07.12.2007 has granted permissionfor use of forest land and non-forest land for construction ofExpress Metro Link to the Airport through the Central Ridge.

x) Subsequently by order dated 03.11.2011 the Hon’ble High Courtof Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3339 of 2011, filed by Shri H

Ashok Kumar Tanwar, held that lands situated outside the NotifiedRidge Areas but which have morphological features conformingto the ridge should be given the same protection as is given to thenotified areas. Consequently, all the concerned agencies wererestrained from carrying out construction works on such lands(Morphological Ridge) also referred to as “Extended Ridge Area”till necessary clearance from the Ridge Management Board andthrough the CEC the permission of this Hon’ble Court is firstobtained.

20. This Hon’ble Court by orders issued from time to time,since 02.11.2012 and till 06.09.2019, has given permissionto various agencies of Central Government and DelhiGovernment for carrying out construction activities in notifiedRidge area on forest land and non-forest land situated outsidethe notified Ridge Area in extended Ridge Area MorphologicalRidge Area. These include the Border Roads Organization,the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry ofDefence, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Textiles,South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, Central Public Works Department, NationalHighways Authority of India (NHAI} and the Delhi Police.”

22. The observations and recommendations are given in paragraph21 of Report No.10 of 2021 in IA No.169030 of 2019 which read asunder:

“OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

21. After considering that

i) the project is in public interest;

ii) it is proposed to construct the 23.62 km long Aerocity toTughlakabad corridor Mass Rapid Transport System forming partof Phase IV Project in Delhi at an estimated cost of Rs. 8230crores and scheduled to be commissioned by year 2024;

iii) the metro corridor will serve the densely populated areas andis integrated with

a) Airport Express Line which provides metro connectivity ofSouth Delhi to Indira Gandhi International Airport; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

b) Samaypur Badli to HUDA City Centre (Yellow Line) atexisting Chhatarpur Metro Station which integrates the metroconnectivity of South Delhi to Gurgaon and Faridabad; A

iv) the vehicular traffic of IG Airport from Delhi will be drasticallyreduced with consequent reduction in traffic on NH-8, Mahipalpur-Mehrauli Road, Mehrauli - Badarpur Road apart from the MetroProject providing the connectivity to Line-6 at Tughlakabad forcommuters of Faridabad; B

v) the total Ridge Area involved including Morphological Ridge is12.97 ha extending over a length of 5.29 kms. Out of this 12.97 haan area of 4.5 ha will be for tunnels 20 m below the ground whilethe remaining 8.4 ha is required for constructing Metro Stations; C

vi) since tunnel boring machines will be used surface breaking islimited to 8.4 ha. required for constructing rnetro stations andtherefore there will be minimal impact to the ecology or structureon Ridge I Morphological Ridge; D

vii) the land required oh permanent and temporary basis has beenrestricted to 14865 sqm and 69793 sqm respectively with minimalimpact. The 69793 sqm land, held on temporary basis, shall berestored back after the completion of the Project;

viii) it is not possible to align the corridor outside the ridge area; ·

E

ix) the total number of trees involved is 6961 trees break up being1072 trees located in 12.97 ha over a length of 5:29 km in RidgeArea including Morphological Ridge, 2536 trees located in 3.79has identified as deemed forest over a length of 0.97 kms and3353 trees located on 27.06 Ha non-forest land over a length ofF17.35 km. A total of 2195 trees out of 6961 trees are to betransplanted while the remaining 4766 trees are to be felled;

x) the compensatory planting will involve about 34,000 saplings(ten times 3353 trees to be felled/transplanted) and will be locatedon land made available by DDA while transplantation of 2195trees will be undertaken on open lands of DDA, Ministry ofDefence and multiple land owing agencies in the vicinity of theProject; G

xi) the corridor proposed has been found to be the most feasibleroute economically, environmentally and technically for the purposeof daily ridership and will be covering a sizeable population; H

xii) the Ridge Management Board has recommended the proposal;

xiii) no viable alternative is feasible and the use of the ridge areahas been restricted to the minimum; and

xiv) this Hon’ble Court by orders issued from time to time has forsite specific projects given permission to various CentralGovernment agencies and Delhi Government for carrying outconstruction activities on forest land, deemed forests and non-forest land situated

a) in the Notified Ridge Area

b) outside the Notified Ridge Area but located in extendedRidge area/ Morphological Ridge area which havemorphological features.

It is recommended that this Hon’ble Court may consider permittinguse of 7.42 Ha. Ridge area including Morphological Ridge and3.79 Ha of deemed forest land involving 6961 trees (break upbeing felling of 4766 trees and transplantation of about 2195 trees)for construction of metro alignment tunnels and metro stations inthe Southern Ridge, South Central Ridge and Morphological Ridgealong the 23.62 km Aerocity -Tughlakabad Metro Corridor formingpart of Phase IV of the Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS)Project subject to the following conditions :

a) The Applicant Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited willdeposit 5% of the Project cost proportionate to the area fallingwithin the Southern Ridge, South Central Ridge andMorphological Ridge, with the Ridge Management Board Fundand which amount, under the close supervision of the RidgeManagement Board, will be used by the Forest Department ofDelhi Government for conservation and protection of the DelhiRidge.

b) The Applicant will obtain the statutory forest clearance fordiversion of 7.42 Ha. forest land falling in Southern Ridge,South Central Ridge and 3.79 Ha of deemed forest for non-forest use in accordance with the provisions of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 from the competent authority andshall comply with all the conditions that are laid down in theorder to be passed for diversion of forest land.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

c) The 25 Ha of land allotted by DDA for compensatoryafforestation in Dhusiras Village, Dwarka shall be notified asprotected forests under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act1927 and shall be managed by the Forest Department of DelhiGovernment.

d) The area falling within the Delhi Ridge area I MorphologicalRidge area will not be used for commercial purposes by theApplicant or any other party.

e) The Applicant shall pay Net Present Value as assessed bythe Forest Department, Delhi Government.

f) The applicant shall obtain necessary approvals under theDelhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 from the competentauthority before felling of trees standing on non-forest land.

g) Compensatory plantation of 34,000 saplings of indigenousspecies, being ten times in lieu of 3353 trees standing on non-forest land and proposed to be felled/transplanted, will beundertaken by the Forest Department of Delhi Governmenton the lands provided by ODA for the said purpose.

h) The cost of raising 34,000 saplings and raising compensatoryafforestation in lieu of the diversion for forest land for non-forest use. will be deposited in advance by the Applicant withthe Forest Department of Delhi Government who will undertakethe planting and maintenance of the above trees for sevenyears.

i) Transplantation of 2195 trees will be undertaken by DMRCon open identified lands made available by DOA, Ministry ofDefence and other multi land owing agencies including privatetrusts.

j) The transplantation of trees will be undertaken near theimpact area itself.

k) The felling of tress proposed is limited to the bare minimumrequired for execution of the project.

Note : By corrigendum dated 09.09.2021 to Report No.10 of2021 in IA No.169030/2019, the figure 12.98 Ha forest landto be read as 7.42 Ha of forest land.

23. The justification for Aerocity – Tughlakabad Corridor Projectis stated in paragraph 17 of the aforesaid Report i.e. Report No.10 of2021 as under:

“JUSTIFICATION FOR AEROCITY – TUGHLAKABADCORRIDOR PROJECT

17. i) According to DMRC the proposed metro Corridor is toserve the densely populated areas of Mahipalpur, Vasant Kunj,Chhatarpur, IGNOU, Maidangarhi, Neb Sarai, Saket, Khanpur,Sangam Vihar and Tughlakabad. The alignment is based on theproximity to the populated areas to be served and which areasare mostly along the Mahipalpur - Mehrauli Road and Mehrauli ~Badarpur Road. There have been and there still are manyconstraints while finalizing the alignment such as minimum distancefrom the Protected Monuments avoiding built up areas and at thesame time also minimizing the Ridge area as there are large extentof Ridge areas along the corridor. The present alignment is thebest fit alignment meeting the above constraints and alsosimultaneously meets the technical requirements of metroalignments/stations and proximity to the target population to beserved. There is a vast extent of Ridge on either side of thealignment because of which it has not been possible to shift thealignment out of Ridge area but efforts have been made tominimize the Ridge area involved. The daily ridership has beenestimated at 1.66 lakhs trips per day by 2024.

ii) The proposed Aerocity - Tughlakabad corridor is to be integratedwith Airport Express Line which provides metro connectivity ofSouth Delhi to Indira Gandhi International Airport. It is also to beintegrated with Samaypur Badli to HUDA City Centre Line (YellowLine) at existing Chhatarpur Metro Station which integrates themetro connectivity of South Delhi to Gurgaon and Faridabad.

iii) This corridor provides connectivity to Chhatarpur Mandir,IGNOU University, Karni Singh Shooting Range and ASIMonuments including Tughlakabad Fort, Adilabad Fort andGhyasuddin Tughlakabad Tomb.

iv) The vehicular traffic of IGI Airport from Delhi will getdrastically reduced with cbnsequent reduction in traffic on N~H-8, Mahipalpur - Mehrauli Road, Mehrauli Badarpur Road apart A

BC

DEF

G

H

Afrom the Metro Project providing the connectivity to Line - 6 atTughlakabad for commuters of Faridabad.

v) The reduction in vehicular traffic will also bring down thenumber of toad accidents and pollution levels.

vi) Public interest is involved in the completion of Aerocity toBTughlakabad corridor as this corridor is the most feasible routeeconomically, environmentally and technically for the purpose ofthe daily ridership and also will be covering a sizeable population.

24. It is noted in the aforesaid Report that the RMB in its meetingheld on 14.07.2021 is said to have stated that the original alignmentCproposed by DMRC involving minimum use of forest area (12.97 Ha)and minimum felling of trees (1072 trees) has recommended the proposalsubject to the following conditions:

(a) The User Agency shall obtain necessary permission fordiversion of forest area for non-forestry purposes as per provisionsDunder FC Act, 1980.

(b) The User Agency shall deposit 5% of the project costproportionate to the area falling within Morphological Ridge areato RMB fund on the lines of conditions imposed by Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) 202 of 1995 titledE“T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India and Ors.” formanagement of the Ridge.

25. As already noted, we have heard learned Senior Counsel andcounsel appearing for the respective parties at length and perused theearlier orders of this Court and the aforesaid reports submitted by theFCEC, the relevant portions of which are extracted above.

26. We have given our anxious consideration to the prayers soughtby the applicant – DMRC in these applications.

27. At the outset, we may preface our discussion by observingthat learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted atGthe Bar that in principle, their parties are not opposed to Phase IV ofMRTS Project. The main consideration is making available transportfacility to the public at large in NCR of Delhi in the form of Metro railwhile at the same time, preserving the ecology and environment of theareas surrounding the alignment of the metro railway.

H

28. To put it in a nutshell, the issue herein concerns sustainabledevelopment and preservation of the environment and ecology of NCTof Delhi/NCR.

29. An introspection on the issue raised before this Court woulddraw our attention to the grave and pressing problem the world overincluding India, namely, degradation of environment and ecology resultingin what is simplistically called ‘Climate Change’ and the problem of‘greenhouse gas emissions’.

30. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environmentat Stockholm in 1972, United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED) known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in1992; World Sumit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002and Glasgow Climate Change Conference currently held in October-November, 2021, have all voiced grave concerns about the globalenvironmental degradation resulting in extinction of certain flora andfauna and its cascading effect on planet Earth owing to man’s growingneed for development particularly economic development.

31. Projects such as the metro railway in question have alreadybeen implemented in parts of NCT of Delhi/NCR. One cannot lose sightof the fact that it has resulted in loss of vegetation as well as flora andfauna in certain areas. The implementation of Phase IV of MRTS Projectmay be a further threat to the ecology of NCT of Delhi/NCR.

32. To meaningfully arrest the problem of declining tree cover,the civil society must also be placed with the responsibility to carry outreafforestation activities. While we cannot ignore the importance ofgovernmental responsibility in materializing the goals of sustainabledevelopment through reafforestation, we strongly endorse the idea ofcollective responsibility towards ensuring a sustainable future. Theengagement, inclusion and participation of citizens and perhaps moresignificantly, the ownership of the sustainable development agenda byempowered citizens and community-level actors will contribute in asignificant manner to achieving the economic, social and environmentalpillars of the sustainable development agenda.

33. Citizens, as the ultimate beneficiaries of development, have acritical role to play, not just in terms of effort and action towards theachievement of the environmental goals but also in terms of the associatedmonitoring of the progress towards these goals.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A34. One of the important steps that Parliament has taken is tohave enacted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the FC Act,1980. The FC Act, 1980 is a short but effective enactment comprisingonly of five sections. Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 reads as under:

“2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forestBland for non-forest purpose.— Notwithstanding anything containedin any other law for the time being in force in a State, no StateGovernment or other authority shall make, except with the priorapproval of the Central Government, any order directing,—

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression“reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in thatCState) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used forany non-forest purpose;

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned byway of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority,Dcorporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managedor controlled by Government;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared oftrees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for thepurpose of using it for reafforestation.]

E[Explanation.—For the purposes of this section ‘‘non-forestpurpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land orportion thereof for—

(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants;F(b)any purpose other than reafforestation, (b)any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation,development and management of forests and wild-life, namely,the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wirelesscommunications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts,Gdams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines orother like purposes.]”

35. While interpreting the word “Forest”, this Court in this verymatter, speaking through J.S. Verma and B.N. Kirpal, JJ as their Lordshipsthen were, on 12.12.1996, have observed, inter alia, as under:

H

“It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception incertain quarters about the true scope of the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980 (for short the ‘Act’) and the meaning of the word“forest” used therein. There is also a resulting misconception aboutthe need of prior approval of the Central government, as requiredby section 2 of the Act, in respect of certain activities in the forestarea which are more often of a commercial nature. It is necessaryto clarify that position.

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view tocheck further deforestation which ultimately results in ecologicalimbalance: and therefore, the provisions made therein for theconservation of forests and for matters connected herewith mustapply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership orclassification thereof. The word “forest” must be understoodaccording to its dictionary meaning. This description covers allstatutorily ‘recognised forests, whether designated as reserved,protected or otherwise for the purpose of section 2(1) of the ForestConservation Act. The term ‘forest land”, occurring in section 2,will not only include “Forest” as understood in the dictionary sense,but also any area recorded as forest in the Government recordirrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understoodfor the purpose of section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted inthe Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forestsand the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to allforests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classificationthereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in thedecisions of this court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat(1987 (1) SCC 213). Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v.State of U.P. (1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 504), and recently in the orderdated 29[th] November, 1996 in W.P. (c) No. 749/95 (Supreme CourtMonitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun DevelopmentAuthority and Ors. (1985 (3) SCC 643) has, therefore, to beunderstood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We considerit necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from thedecisions of this court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perceptionof any State Government or authority. This has become necessaryalso because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan,even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for miningin such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government whichhas failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, willforthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedialmeasures without any further delay.

A

We further direct as under:-

B

I) General – In view of the meaning of the word “forest” in theAct, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government isrequired for any non-forest activity within the area of any ‘forest’.In accordance with section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity withinany forest in any State throughout the country, without the priorCapproval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is,therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind includingveneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forestpurposes and, are therefore, not permissible without prior approvalof the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is primafacie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act,D1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure totalcessation of all such activities forthwith.

The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except inaccordance with the Working Plans of the State Governments, asapproved by the Central Government. In the absence of anyEworking plan in any particular state, such as Arunanchal Pradesh,where the permit system exists, the felling under the permits canbe done only by the Forest Department of the State Governmentor the State Forest Corporation.

Each State Government should constitute within one month anFExpert Committee to:

(i) Identify areas which are ‘forests’ irrespective of whether theyare so notified, recognised or classified under any law, andirrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;

(ii) Identify areas which were earlier forest but stand degraded,Gdenuded or cleared; and

(iii) Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to theGovernment and those belonging to private persons.

36. We have considered the applications made by the applicantsHin the light of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the additional documents filed by GNCTD, Report Nos.8 and 10submitted by theCEC and the recommendations made therein and the objections filed bythe applicants vide I.A. No.142876/2021.

37. Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 12.12.1996, anaffidavit dated 15.09.1997 was filed by the Conservator of Forests,GNCTD. In the said affidavit under the head “Forest Areas and PlantationAreas along the Roads managed by PWD”, the State Government hasincluded the trees planted along the road side including Road No.26 inrespect of which the application is filed as part of Annexure IX of thesaid affidavit.

38. On the other hand, the DPT Act, 1994 regulates felling oftrees falling outside the notified forests and deemed forests. Under thisAct, the user agency has to bear the cost of raising and maintenance often times the number of trees to be felled.

39. Therefore, the crucial issue whether the areas through whichthe metro railway lines are to be constructed and pass through as notedhereinabove are forest areas or non-forest areas has to be determinedby GNCTD. In this context, we note that the applications have alreadybeen filed by DMRC under the FC Act, 1980 on 02.11.2020 before theChief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCA), GNCTD, seekingsanction under the FC Act, 1980, for conversion of 50,421 Ha of forestland for construction of underground stations at Krishna Park and elevatedcorridor to Keshopur to Mukarba Chowk from Janakpuri corridor inPhase-4 of MRTS project with a request to forward documents to theMoEF&CC, GoI for its consideration. Therefore, there has already beenan application made seeking permission for diversion of Forest land ornon-forest activity namely, the construction of the Metro railway line inrespect of the aforesaid areas.

40. Further, the MoEF&CC (Forest Conservation Division), GoI,has also communicated by its letter dated 14[th] November, 2019 to thePrincipal Secretary, Forest of State and Union Territories as under:

“2. Based on the recommendation of the FAC with regards to thedefinition of forests, the Ministry has decided as follows:

(i) India is a vast country with varied geo-physical units and soil-climatic conditions that has given rise to a number of forest types.There are variations even within the forest types.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

(ii) As far as developing criteria for ‘deemed forests’ is concerned,there cannot be any uniform criteria applicable to all forest typesor all states. There has to be different criteria for different foresttypes or states.

A

(iii) It is only that Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed states toBidentify their own forests, in fact the states, having well establishedforest departments, are in a better position, rather than MoEF&CC,to understand their own forests and needs, and should frame criteriafor their forests.

(iv) While framing criteria, due diligence should be exercised takingCinto to account spirit of order of Supreme Court, National ForestPolicy, the rationale of having adequate forests, site quality ofnaturally occurring forest species etc., for supporting a healthyenvironment.

(iv) The criteria so finalised by a state, need not be subject toDapproval of MoEF&CC. This issues with the approval ofcompetent authority.”

41. On perusal of Report No.8 of 2021 in IA No.105674/2020submitted by the CEC, it is observed that where any area is declared tobe forest area (within the meaning of the definition given by this Court inEthe aforesaid order dated 12.12.1995), for diversion of the said area fora non-forest purpose would require approval under the provisions of theFC Act, 1980. However, if there is need for felling of trees outside anyforest area then the provision of DPT Act, 1994 has to be compliedwith.

F42. As far as, 23.62 km long Metro Corridor between Aerocityand Tughlakabad stations in Delhi passing through Southern ridge, South-Central Ridge, Report No.10 of 2020 in IA No.169030/2019 states thatan extent of 7,777 Ha of land of Delhi Ridge Area falls in the NorthernRidge, Central Ridge and South-Central Ridge as well as the SouthernRidge. The Ridge area has been described in the Master Plan (Land useGPlan) as Regional Park.

43. By notification dated 24[th] May, 1994 under Section 4 of theIndian Forest Act, 1927, 7,777 Ha of Delhi Ridge area has been notifiedas Reserved Forest. It serves as the green lung for Delhi and acts as abuffer against rising pollution level and hence the Ridge area has to beHconserved with utmost care and should be afforested with the indigenous species with minimum of artificial landscape is the recommendation ofthe CEC.

44. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the RMB underthe Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Delhi, has been constituted for theconservation and protection of Ridge. This is to ensure that the Ridge isnot occupied or encroached upon by any person for any unauthorisedpurpose so as to preserve its status as ‘forest’.

45. Further, notifications have been issued to exclude areascomprising in the Ridge from the provisions of the Delhi Land ReformsAct and not vesting the same in the Gram Sabha.

46. This Court by order dated 03.11.2011 passed in WP(C)No.3339/2011, held that land situated outside the notified Ridge areasbut which have morphological features conforming to the Ridge shouldbe given the same protection as is given to the notified areas. Therefore,any construction work to be carried out on such lands also referred to as‘Extended Ridge Areas’, must have clearance from the RMB.Accordingly, recommendations have been made by the CEC in theaforesaid Report No.10 while also noting the recommendations of theRMB.

47. In view of the above discussion, having regard to the specificrecommendations of the CEC, the present interlocutory applications aredisposed of in the following terms:

(i) DMRC to file applications under the FC Act, 1980 to theChief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCI),GNCTD, seeking permission for diversion of the followingextents of land for the construction of Metro, Phase-IV ofMRTS Project with a request to forward the saiddocuments to the MoEF&CC, GoI, for its considerationunder Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980:

(a) 5.34 km stretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspurito Peeragarhi; (b)1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain;

(c) area admeasuring 16097.75 sqm land located atMangolpuri; and (d)area admeasuring 55.78 sqm at Krishna Park.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(ii)It is needless to observe that the Chief Conservator (Forest)and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, shall consider the saidapplication/s and forward the same to MoEF&CC, GoI,with his recommendations within a period of one monthfrom the date of receipt of the said application/s.

B(iii)MoEF&CC, GoI, on receipt of the application/s, shallconsider the same expeditiously and within a period of threemonths from the date of its receipt, communicate its decisionto the applicant-DMRC as well as to the Chief Conservator(Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCA), GNCTD.

C(iv)Insofar as the prayer sought by the Applicant-DMRC vis-à-vis South Central/morphological Ridge forming part ofAerocity-Tughlakabad Metro Corridor is concerned, havingregard to the recommendations made by the RMB, theDMRC is directed to file an application before the RMB soas to seek necessary permission for diversion of theDaforesaid Ridge areas for the purpose of Phase IV of theMRTS project passing through the said areas.

(v) On such application being made, the RMB shall make itsrecommendations on the same and forward a copy of thesaid recommendations to the Chief Conservator (Forest)Eand Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, as well as to theMoEF&CC, GoI, for its consideration under section 2 ofthe FC Act, 1980 within a period of one month from thedate of receipt of the said application.

(vi) MoEF&CC, GoI, shall on receipt of the said applicationFalong with the recommendations of RMB and the ChiefConservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, ifany, shall consider the said application within a period ofthree months from the date of its receipt.

(vii) DMRC shall also comply with all other conditions imposedGby the RMB and also the orders passed by this Court in thisvery matter concerning the management of the Ridge.

(viii) It is needless to observe that while considering the saidapplications, the directions and orders passed by this Courtreferred to above as well as the statutory scheme andHguidelines and parameters prescribed by MoEF&CC, GoI, shall be borne in mind by the concerned authorities. TheReports referred to above may also be taken intoconsideration.

(ix) Irrespective of and de hors the decision to be taken by theconcerned departments with regard to the recommendationsmade by the CEC in the aforesaid Report Nos.8 and 10,since the citizens of NCT of Delhi have had and wouldcontinue to have the facility of the metro rail, the GNCTDas well as DMRC are directed to conceive a plan of actionfor the purpose of planting trees in the NCT of Delhi. Forthat purpose, GNCTD may involve school and collegestudents, educational institutions, Non-GovernmentalOrganizations, Citizen Welfare Associations, public servantsand every citizen or person who is interested in the ecologyof NCT of Delhi to plant trees/saplings and ensure thatthey are nurtured and protected so that the NCT of Delhiwould in passage of time have more greenery leading toafforestation. The aforesaid direction is issued having regardto the precautionary principle as well as principle ofsustainable development by ensuring citizens’ participationin the preservation of the environment and ecology. It isneedless to observe that such a plan of action would beconceived by the Department of Forest and Environmentof NCT of Delhi in consultation with the Public WorksDepartment, Education Department and such otherdepartments who will involve themselves in ensuring theplanting of saplings and trees in NCT of Delhi. Such a planof action be conceived and the same be placed on recordbefore this Court within a period of twelve weeks forconsideration of this Court.

Nidhi Jain

Directions issued.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H