By Srijita Chakraborty
In ruling that any cutting or removal permission has to be in accordance with the definition of ‘forest’ in the historical case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India in 1997, the Supreme Court made it quite clear that this applies irrespective of the land being notified or not, meaning reserves or not.
The bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar upheld the quashing of the Allahabad High Court judgment that had permitted the owners of the lands to remove the cut-down trees on the grounds that the lands were not proclaimed as reserve forests under the Indian Forest Act of 1927. The apex court clarified that the wider meaning of “forest” under the Godavarman ruling includes any land recorded as forest in government records, irrespective of ownership.
The case related to land within a wildlife sanctuary in Balrampur district, Uttar Pradesh, notified in 1988. Prior to notification, farmers from Narainpur Jhingha village had exchanged agricultural land for forest land on the sanctuary’s outskirts due to crop damage by wild animals. Although the exchanged land was later afforested and became indistinguishable from the surrounding forest, it was never formally declared a reserve forest.
The dispute arose after some farmers illegally sold the exchange land to private respondents, who later sought permission to cut fallen and dry standing trees. While the High Court ruled in their favour in 2006, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the land’s full legal status due to the absence of relevant notifications and records.
Dismissing the appeal, the court said all procedures under forest and environmental laws continue to apply before granting any permission to cut or remove trees.