# In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 59
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-01-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.12234-35 of 2018
- **Bench:** B. R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, Prashant Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/in-re-t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-india-and-others-37450
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

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
[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]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,808 of 86,607. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39808 for what follows._

* Author
[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
[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 exparte 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%).