# IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1146
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-11-29
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/in-re-t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-india-ors-34617
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Environmental laws: Sustainable development - Preservation
of the environment and ecology - Delhi Metro Project - Phase IV
of MRTS Project - Implementation of, vis-a-vis preserving the
ecology and environment of the areas surrounding the alignment of
the metro railway - Issues pertaining to degradation of environment
and ecology resulting in 'Climate Change' and problem of
'greenhouse gas emissions' - Held: Metro Projects has resulted in
loss of vegetation as well as flora and fauna in certain areas -
Implementation of Phase IV of MRTS Project is a further threat to
the ecology of NCT of Delhi/NCR - Thus, to meaningfully arrest the
problem of declining tree cover, the civil society to be given the
collective responsibility to carry out reafforestation activities -
Issuance of direction having regard to the precautionary principle
as well as principle of sustainable development by ensuring citizens'
participation in the preservation of the environment and ecology -
Direction to concerned departments to conceive plan of action for
planting 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, 1972
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Lafarge Umiam Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India
& Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954; Milind
Pariwakam & Anr. Vs. Union of India Original
Application No. 52 of 2015 (order dated 13.03.2015);
Vimal Bhai Vs. Union of India Appeal No.7 of 2012
(order dated 07.11.2012);
T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad Vs Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition
(Civil) 202 of 1995 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 7 SCR 954
referred to
Para 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1147
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 in
I. 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, Barun
Kr. Sinha, Nikhil Goel, AAGs, Rajiv Dutta, Ashok Sharma, Vikas Mahajan,
Nakul Dewan, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal
Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, M/s PLR Chambers
And 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, Sugosh
Subramanyam, G. S. Makker, Sarojanand Jha, M. R. Shamshad, Shovan
Mishra, 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, Polanki
Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K. V.
Girish Chowdary, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shuvodeep
Roy, Ishaan Borthakur, Upendra Mishra, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya
Sahay, 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., Mrinal
Gopal Elker, Manish Yadav, Sunny Choudhary, Manoj Kumar,
Raghuvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Narendra Kumar, Arpit
Parkash, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,
Kamlendra Mishra, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Mrs. Bihu
Sharma, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Dr. Monika
Gusain, 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,
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B

## Text

_Characters 0–39,701 of 68,729. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39701 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
 [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1146
1146
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No.202/1995)
NOVEMBER 29, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI
AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ]
Environmental laws: Sustainable development - Preservation
of the environment and ecology - Delhi Metro Project - Phase IV
of MRTS Project - Implementation of, vis-a-vis preserving the
ecology and environment of the areas surrounding the alignment of
the metro railway - Issues pertaining to degradation of environment
and ecology resulting in 'Climate Change' and problem of
'greenhouse gas emissions' - Held: Metro Projects has resulted in
loss of vegetation as well as flora and fauna in certain areas -
Implementation of Phase IV of MRTS Project is a further threat to
the ecology of NCT of Delhi/NCR - Thus, to meaningfully arrest the
problem of declining tree cover, the civil society to be given the
collective responsibility to carry out reafforestation activities -
Issuance of direction having regard to the precautionary principle
as well as principle of sustainable development by ensuring citizens'
participation in the preservation of the environment and ecology -
Direction to concerned departments to conceive plan of action for
planting 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, 1972
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Lafarge Umiam Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India
& Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954; Milind
Pariwakam & Anr. Vs. Union of India Original
Application No. 52 of 2015 (order dated 13.03.2015);
Vimal Bhai Vs. Union of India Appeal No.7 of 2012
(order dated 07.11.2012);
T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad Vs Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition
(Civil) 202 of 1995 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 7 SCR 954
referred to
Para 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1147
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 in
I. 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, Barun
Kr. Sinha, Nikhil Goel, AAGs, Rajiv Dutta, Ashok Sharma, Vikas Mahajan,
Nakul Dewan, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal
Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, M/s PLR Chambers
And 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, Sugosh
Subramanyam, G. S. Makker, Sarojanand Jha, M. R. Shamshad, Shovan
Mishra, 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, Polanki
Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K. V.
Girish Chowdary, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shuvodeep
Roy, Ishaan Borthakur, Upendra Mishra, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya
Sahay, 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., Mrinal
Gopal Elker, Manish Yadav, Sunny Choudhary, Manoj Kumar,
Raghuvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Narendra Kumar, Arpit
Parkash, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,
Kamlendra Mishra, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Mrs. Bihu
Sharma, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Dr. Monika
Gusain, 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,
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
Sunil 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. Venayagam
Balan, 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, Rajeev
Kumar Deora, Inder Mohan Singh, Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, Ms. Vishi
Aggarwal, V. Balachandran, P. R. Ramasesh, Rajiv Mehta, Rathin Das,
Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Rakesh K. Sharma, Prashant Kumar, P.
Parameswaran, S. R. Setia, M/s Parekh & Co., H. S. Parihar, Ms. Bina
Madhavan, T. N. Singh, A. N. Arora, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Vikrant Singh
Bais, E. M. S. Anam, Umesh Bhagwat, E. C. Agrawala, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Gopal Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. C. K. Sucharita,
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Ejaz Maqbool, M/s Corporate Law Group, Ms.
Binu Tamta, P. N. Gupta, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ms. Madhu
Moolchandani, 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,
T. 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. Baby
Krishnan, Ms. Charu Mathur, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Irshad Ahmad,
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Rajeev Singh, Ramesh Babu M. R., Shiva Pujan
Singh, Shibashish Misra, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ms. K. V. Bharathi
Upadhyaya, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ram Swarup
Sharma, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rajesh, Lakshmi Raman Singh, K. V.
Vijayakumar, Gopal Prasad, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, B. V. Deepak, P.
V. Yogeswaran, Ms. A. Sumathi, A. T. M. Sampath, M. C. Dhingra, Ms.
Sumita Hazarika, Abhishek Chaudhary, M. Yogesh Kanna, Somesh
Chandra 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1149
By Courts Motion
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
1. Heard Sri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing
for Union of India and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd; Sri Chirag M.
Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi (for short, the 'GNCTD'), and Sri Rajiv Dutta, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants and perused the material on
record.
2. IA Nos.169029 and 169030 of 2019 have been filed by the
applicant viz., Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (for short, the 'DMRC').
3. By order dated 02.02.2021, IA No.169029 of 2019 for
impleadment was allowed and the applicant - DMRC was impleaded as
party respondent in the matter for the purpose of passing orders on IA
No.169030 of 2019.
4. The following prayers are sought in IA No.169030 of 2019 :
(a)
Refer the matter to the Central Empowered Committee
appointed by this Hon'ble Court for detailed consideration
and examination of the proposal of the applicant for
construction of metro alignment, tunnels and metro station
forming part of 22.34 km Aerocity - Tughlakabad Metro
Corridor, being proposed for construction for Phase-IV of
the MRTS Project on South Central/morphological Ridge
as enclosed in Annexure P-1.
(b)
Allow the Applicant for carrying out the aforesaid Alignment,
Tunnelling/ station/shaft construction activity, in the South
Central/Morphological Ridge for construction of the tunnels
and metro corridor forming part of 22.34 km Aerocity -
Tughlakabad Metro Corridor being proposed for
construction for Phase-IV of the MRTS Project, under the
supervision of the Ridge Management Board.
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
(c)
Pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. IA No.105674/2020 has been filed by the applicant-DMRC
seeking the following prayers:
(i)
Allow the instant application, by declaring (1) the 5.34 km
stretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspuri to Peeragarhi;
(2) 1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain, (3) area
admeasuring 16097.75 sqm land located at Mangolpuri, and
(4) area admeasuring 55.78 sqm at Krishna Park are nonforest areas and there is no requirement for the applicant
to obtain permission for diversion of these lands as Forest
land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
(ii)
Permit the applicant to carry out the construction activities
of Phase-IV of Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System Project
on the locations referred to in prayer (i) above, without any
restrictions in the larger interest of the Project.
(iii)
Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
6. I.A. No.144462/2021 has been filed by the GNCTD seeking
permission to file the additional documents in I.A. No.105674/2020. The
said application contains:
(i)
Report of Deputy Conservator of Forest, West Forest
Division, GNCTD, on DMRC proposal for construction of
corridor from Janakpuri to Derawal Nagar, Delhi (Annexure
A-1);
(ii)
Copy of submissions of GNCTD dated 24.02.2021 in the
matter of DMRC and P.C. Prasad Vs. UOI (Annexure A2);
(iii)
Minutes of Meeting of the Ridge Management Board (for
short, the 'RMB') dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure A-3) in
which Agenda Item No.8 is relevant which is concerning
the construction of metro line (Aerocity - Tughlakabad
Corridor) of Delhi Mass Rapid Transit System (for short,
the 'MRTS') Project Phase IV.
The RMB has noted that the DMRC has submitted the
proposal for use of forest land for construction of metro
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1151
line, stations and other operational requirement of Delhi
MRTS Project Phase IV. The length of alignment falling
under Southern Ridge, South Central Ridge and
Morphological Ridge is 2.844 km, 1.491 km and 3.774 km
respectively, giving further details of the exact location of
the railway alignment in the forest land of the Ridges referred
to above. It is also noted that 1109 trees are proposed to be
felled in certain parts of the Southern Ridge, South Central
Ridge and Morphological Ridge. Since the Central
Empowered Committee (for the sake of convenience
hereinafter referred to as the 'CEC') is visiting the entire
railway alignment, the consideration of the matter was
deferred.
(iv)
Submissions of GNCTD dated 29.05.2021 through the
Department of Forest & Wildlife, GNCTD and in the matter
of DMRC is at Annexure A-4.
(v)
The reply of GNCTD dated 29.05.2021 to the CEC is at
Annexure A-5 in IA No.144462/2021.
(vi)
The affidavit of the Conservator of Forest, GNCTD, dated
15.09.1997 filed before this Court is at Annexure A-6. The
said affidavit is accompanied by nine annexures giving the
details of protected forest, forest land and plantation areas
under the management of Department of Forest, GNCTD.
7. I.A. Nos.142873/2021 and 142876/2021 have been filed by the
applicants in I.A. No.105674/2020 who have prayed for intervention/
impleadment as party respondents and have also sought appropriate
directions for accepting and allowing the bona fide objections filed by
the applicants and for rejecting Report No.8 of 2021 dated 13.05.2021
filed by the CEC in terms of the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by this
Court in IA No.105674/2020 along with other directions sought in the
prayer of the instant IA No.142876/2021.
8. In IA No.142876/2021, the applicants viz., Dr. PC Prasad and
Aditya N. Prasad have filed their objections to Report No.8 of 2021
dated 13.05.2021 in IA No.105674/2020 and contended that the aforesaid
application(s) filed by the DMRC is not maintainable as this Court cannot
grant a declaration that certain areas are non-forest areas in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi (for short, the 'NCT of Delhi'). It is averred
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
that DMRC ought to have approached the Regional Office of the Ministry
of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (for short, the 'MoEF&CC'),
Government of India (for short, 'GoI'), as per the Guidelines laid down
by this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining Corporation Vs. Union of
India & Ors. - (2011) 7 SCC 338; that DMRC has directly approached
this Court seeking a declaration without first approaching the MoEF&CC,
GoI; that in fact, DMRC has already addressed letter dated 25.08.2020
to the Deputy Conservator of Forest (West Forest Division), GNCTD,
informing that it is in the process of applying for permission to use various
land for the purpose of project as per FC Act, 1980; that DMRC has
undertaken that in case diversion of forest land is denied it would realign
through the alternative route. A copy of the said letter is produced as
Annexure-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 IA
No.142876/2021 which are summarized as under :
(i)
That none of their submissions raised before the CEC has
been recorded nor referred to in the said Report.
(ii)
The Chief Wildlife Warden and the concerned Tree
Officer(s) were not invited for the hearing nor have
comments been sought from the said officers by the CEC.
(iii)
It is stated that majority of the areas where DMRC is
proposing to construct have been identified as 'deemed
forest' areas in the affidavit dated 15.09.1997 submitted by
the Conservator of Forest, GNCTD, before this Court in
this very matter.
(iv)
The metro line cannot be allowed to be constructed
bypassing the requirement of obtaining forest clearance
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, the
'FC Act, 1980').
(v)
DMRC has to follow the statutory scheme of the FC Act,
1980 before any forest land is diverted for non-forest use.
The statutory scheme under the said Act has been highlighted
as under :
(a)
The officers of the Forest Department have to fill out the
form under section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 providing details
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
of the project sought to be constructed on forest land, a
cost-benefit analysis as well as alternatives examined with
detailed recommendations accepting or rejecting the
proposal.
(b)
Then the proposal has to be placed before the Regional
Empowered Committee which looks at all linear projects
including the metro in the present case;
(c)
The Regional Empowered Committee has to recommend
the project and grant Stage I approval (in-principle approval).
(d)
Thereafter, as per the decision of the National Green
Tribunal 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 the
FC Act, 1980 has to be passed after the State I clearance,
before any non-forest activity can be carried out on forest
land.
(e)
The National Green Tribunal in Vimal Bhai Vs. Union of
India, Appeal No.7 of 2012 (order dated 07.11.2012) has
held that the order under section 2 is appealable under section
16(e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and no party
can be left remediless which is why the State Government
order under section 2 is a pre-requisite before any action is
taken.
(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-forest
lands, works should not be started on non-forest land till
approval of the Central Government for release of forest
land under the Act has been obtained unless and to the
extent permitted by the Rules or guidelines issued
thereunder.
(vi)
It is also stated that the construction of Phase IV of MRTS
project cannot be permitted unless a critical study is carried
out under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (for
short, the 'DPT Act, 1994') before felling of trees.
(vii)
The CEC has ignored in its report that 'Najafgarh drain
basin' in New Delhi has been identified as a critically polluted
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
area by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in the
Comprehensive Environment Pollution Index (CEPI) Report,
2009.
(viii) It is also stated that ambient air quality in respect of noise
has also to be taken into consideration.
(ix)
The objections in the aforesaid interlocutory application also
state that the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
to be considered if trees are proposed to be felled and the
threat to the eco system in the context of the wildlife
prevalent in the particular eco system.
(x)
It is also stated that the Deputy Conservator of Forest (West
Forest Division), GNCTD, by its order dated 28.02.2020
and letter dated 11.08.2020, has restrained DMRC from
carrying out any construction activity on the 5.34 km on
Road No.26 between Vikaspuri to Peeragarhi and Najafgarh
drain as the DMRC illegally felled trees and barricaded the
area for construction activity relating to Janakpuri West to
R.K. Ashram corridor.
(xi)
The objections have also averred about the economic value
of the trees.
10. By order dated 02.02.2021, this Court had directed copies of
the instant applications including the amended application to be served
upon 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.105674
of 2020 and Report No.10 with Corrigendum dated 09.09.2021 in IA
No.169030 of 2019 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995. The said reports have
been taken on record.
12. According to DMRC, which is a government company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and which is engaged in
Delhi MRTS Project to provide a pollution free transport system to the
people of the NCT of Delhi/National Capital Region (for short, the
'NCR'), it has sought the aforesaid prayers with regard to a declaration
that
(i)
5.34 km stretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspuri to
Peeragarhi;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1155
(ii)
1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain;
(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 obtain
permission for diversion of these lands as forest land under
the FC Act, 1980 would not arise.
13. As a sequel, permission has been sought by the applicantDMRC to carry out the construction activities of Phase-IV of MRTS
Project on the aforesaid locations without any restrictions as such.
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,
(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 to
the tune of Rs. 24948.65 crores.
16. This Court vide its order dated 06.09.2019 in WP(C) No.13029
of 1985, observed that the parties have to ensure that there would be no
delay caused in Phase IV of the Project and that the requisite amount
has to be released in a timely manner to the acquiring authority. The
commencement of Phase IV of MRTS Project by construction of civil
works was made in November, 2019 and the said project is to be
completed and commissioned by June, 2024.
17. The application being IA No.105674/2020 contains the following
steps that have been taken so far which are encapsulated as under:
(i)
The Detailed Project Report (DPR) of 103.93 km long
Phase -IV MRTS Project was submitted to the Union
Government and the GNCTD. The project report was
reviewed in terms of the New Metro Policy, 2017 and the
alignment was thereafter finalized in April, 2018.
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
(ii)
It appears that in the period from 2018 to 2020, the DMRC
carried out tree survey and applied for permission for cutting
trees before the concerned department of Forest and
Wildlife, GNCTD.
(iii)
The concerned Public Works Department (PWD) has
granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for carrying out
the construction activity on the Right of Way (ROW) in the
year 2019.
(iv)
Similarly, permission has been obtained from the Police
Department for diversion of traffic between Janakpuri and
Mukarba Chowk and NOC from Irrigation and Flood
Control Department have also been taken.
(v)
A contract has also been awarded for construction of
elevated viaduct at the pertinent places and for 10 elevated
stations on Janakpuri West-R.K. Ashram corridor.
(vi)
From December, 2019 to August, 2020, the officials of the
Forest Department and DMRC have conducted various joint
site visits regarding permission for felling of trees falling
within the area of Metro alignment. But no exact
demarcation of forest areas has been made.
(vii)
The Deputy Chief Conservator, Forest & Wildlife
Department, GNCTD vide his letter dated 28.02.2020,
restrained the DMRC from carrying out any construction
activity at Najafgarh drain till necessary approval was issued
by the concerned authorities.
(viii) By another letter dated 02.07.2020 issued by the Forest
Department, the site near the railway line adjacent to
Mangolpuri Industrial Area was stated to fall under the
category of "Deemed Forest" as per the Affidavit dated
15.09.1997 filed in this case before this Court by GNCTD.
Therefore, the DMRC was requested to approach the
Central Government for grant of permission for diversion
of forest land under the FC Act, 1980.
(ix)
The Forest & Wildlife Department, GNTCD in its letter
dated 07.07.2020, stated that one patch of Line 8 from
Janakpuri (West) to Mukarba Chowk falls within the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
category of "Deemed Forest" and therefore, approval had
to be taken from the Central Government for diversion of
forest land.
(x)
On 05.08.2020, the Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD,
directed the DMRC and PWD officials to attend a joint
site visit on 10.08.2020 for ascertaining the exact location
of 5.34 km area on Road No.26 between Keshorpur to
Mukarba Chowk, as Road No.26 was mentioned as Forest/
Planation Area in the affidavit dated 15.09.1997 filed before
this Court in the main writ petition.
(xi)
As the exact location of the forest area could not be
ascertained in the joint site visit, the Forest & Wildlife
Department, GNCTD, requested the applicant - DMRC to
approach the PWD to mark the area as forest area in terms
of the affidavit dated 15.09.1997 filed before this Court.
(xii)
The Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD, also stated
that the Najafgarh drain is marked as a plantation area as
per Geospatial Delhi Ltd. (GSDL) Map and hence, no
construction activity has been carried out on the said area.
(xiii) Thereafter, on 14.09.2020, the Forest & Wildlife
Department, GNCTD, permitted construction activity in the
non-forest area subject to seeking approval of the competent
authority vis-à-vis the trees in the said non-forest area.
18. In the above circumstances, the present application has been
filed by the DMRC before this Court seeking permission to carry out
construction activities of Metro Rail on the following stretches/locations:
(a)
A stretch of 2.99 km, falling on Road No.26 between
Keshopur to Mukarba Chowk being part of 28.920 km
extension of Line-8 of MRTS Project; from Janakpuri West
to R.K. Ashram of Phase IV Metro Project being
constructed by the Applicant, which area forms part of Road
No.26 (5.34km) classified as Forest Area/Plantation area
by the Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD, in the above
noted Affidavit dated 15.09.1997.
(b)
An area admeasuring 1288.973 sqm at Najafgarh drain,
classified as Forest Area/Plantation Area, by the Forest &
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
Wildlife Department, GNCTD, under Irrigation & Flood
Control Department.
(c)
An area admeasuring 16097.75 sqm at Mangolpuri for
construction of Mangolpuri Metro Station, classified as
Forest Area by the Forest & Wildlife Department, GNCTD,
on the basis of availability of 100 trees per acre in an area
above 2.5 acres.
(d)
An area admeasuring 55.78 sqm; 36.475 mt of which forms
part of Road No. 26 (5.34km) at Krishna Park for
construction of Entry/Exit of underground station at Krishna
Park of the Metro corridor/project.
19. Several averments have been made in the aforesaid application
to contend that the aforesaid areas in respect of which the permission is
sought, for carrying out the construction activity of Phase IV Metro
Rail, are not forest areas and permissions/approvals are not required.
They are summarized as under:
(i)
The project involves a huge capital expenditure and
stoppage of construction activities and consequent delay in
completion of the project would involve heavy financial
implications owing to cost escalation, which would have a
cascading effect on public exchequer.
(ii)
The DMRC has undertaken the proposed project with a
view to providing the citizen of NCT of Delhi/NCR a viable
public transport option so as to reduce vehicular congestion
on the road and consequently, reduce pollution in the NCT
of Delhi/NCR.
(iii)
The operation of Metro project has resulted in several
advantages to the public at large.
(iv)
There would be a greater advantage to the public at large
and essentially in the form of saving travel time and reducing
the degree of pollution in the NCT of Delhi/NCR.
(v)
Any delay in the commissioning of the project, on the other
hand, would jeopardise the object and purpose of DMRC
to provide efficient transport facility to the citizens.
(vi)
Hence, in IA No.105674 of 2020, the DMRC has sought a
declaration that -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
(a)
the 5.34 km stretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspuri
to Peeragarhi;
(b)
1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain;
(c)
area admeasuring 16097.75 sqm land located at
Mangolpuri; and
(d)
area admeasuring 55.78 sqm at Krishna Park
are non-forest areas and there is no requirement for the
applicant to obtain permission for diversion of these lands
as Forest land under the FC Act, 1980.
20. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.02.2021, the CEC
has submitted its Report No.8 of 2021 dated 13.05.2021 in IA No.105674
of 2020. The relevant portions of the said report read as under:
"17. Since this IA No. 105674 of 2020 filed by DMRC Limited
mainly relates to the question of applicability of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 to road side planted trees specific to the
Metro corridor between Janakpuri West to R. K. Ashram and the
issue raised in the W.P.(C) No.1774 of 2021 before the High Court
of Delhi and before the CEC by the same petitioners mainly relates
to proposed felling of 11,545 trees for implementation of the entire
Phase IV of the Metro project, the CEC will submit a detailed
report in the matter separately and along with the Report in IA
No.91869 of 2020 filed by the DMRC Ltd relating to the Metro
Corridor between Aerocity and Tughlakabad.
18. The felling of planted trees outside the forest are regulated
under the provision of the Delhi Prevention of Trees Act, 1994
(DPT Act, 1994). The definition of a 'tree' under DPT Act, 1994
is as follows:
"tree means any woody plant whose branches spring from and
are supported upon a trunk or body is not less than five
centimetre at a height of thirty centimetres from the ground
level and is not less than one meter in height from the ground
level."
Thus all plants of and above one meter in height are treated as
trees under this Act.
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
The DPT Act, 1994 also prescribes planting of a minimum of 10
times the number of trees for every tree felled. The Applicant is
therefore required to obtain the requisite permission under the
DPT Act, 1994.
19. Keeping in view the above discussions CEC is of the considered
view that the PWD land along Road No.26 on which the planted
trees are seen are neither notified as 'forest' nor recorded in any
government records as 'forest'. These trees not being of natural
origin cannot be branded as 'forest' for the purpose of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. It is therefore recommended for
consideration of this Hon'ble Court that the prayer of the Applicant
to declare that the 5.34 km stretch of Road No.26 between
Vikaspuri to Peeragarhi, 1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain,
16097.75 sqm land located at Mangolpuri and 55.78 sqm of Krishna
Park are non-forest areas is allowed, subject to the condition that
the Delhi Metro Corporation Limited will fell the trees only after
obtaining permission under Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994
from the concerned authorities and after complying with the
conditions associated with such approvals including compensatory
planting of 10 times the number of trees close to the site from
where the trees are being felled."
21. Report No.10 of 2021 in IA No.169030 of 2019 wherein the
aforesaid prayers have been extracted, pertains to the construction of
Metro alignment, tunnels and Metro stations located on Southern Ridge,
South-Central Ridge and Morphological Ridge falling along the 23.62
km long metro corridor between Aerocity and Tughlakabad Station in
Delhi. With regard to the extent and importance of Delhi Ridge Area/
Morphological Ridge Area and order of this Court in this regard, the
following has been observed in the said report:
"19. i) The Master Plan for Delhi Perspective, 2001, notified by
the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 1st August, 1990,
states that the Ridge in Delhi is defined as rocky out-crop of
Aravalli Ranges stretching from the University in the North of
Union Territory boundary to the South and beyond. The Delhi
Ridge area extends over 7,777 ha out of which 87 ha falls in
Northern Ridge, 864 ha falls in Central Ridge, and 6200 ha
falls in South Central Ridge and 6200 ha falls in Southern
Ridge. The ridge area has been classified and included in the
Master Plan (Land use Plan) as Regional Park.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
ii) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi by
notification dated 24th May, 1994 under Section 4 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 notified the 7,777 ha of Delhi Ridge area as
Reserved Forests commonly referred to as Notified Ridge Area.
The Delhi Ridge serves as the green lungs for Delhi and acts as a
buffer against rising pollution levels. The pressures of rapid
urbanization in Delhi have, over the years, threatened and adversely
affected the forests in Delhi Ridge area. The Ridge area thus
identified needs to be conserved with utmost care and should be
afforested with the indigenous species with minimum of artificial
landscape.
iii) This Hon'ble Court has passed a series of directions in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 for conservation and protection
of Delhi Ridge. Pursuant to this Hon'ble Court order dated 29th
September, 1995 the Government of NCT of Delhi by order dated
5th October, 1995 constituted the Ridge Management Board
(RMB) under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Delhi. The
Board has been assigned various functions, relating to conservation
and protection of Ridge. These include execution of the
management scheme for the Ridge Forests, protection of
boundaries, of the Ridge and preparation and execution of detailed
plans for up gradation of the Ridge.
iv) This Hon'ble Court by order dated 101h October, 1995
directed that the Ridge Management Board shall ensure that
the Ridge is not occupied or encroached by any person for
any unauthorised purpose. This Hon'ble Court further directed
the Chairman RMB to file an affidavit by a responsible officer
after every eight weeks, indicating the progress made in preserving
the status of the Ridge as a forest and also keeping it free from
encroachers.
v) This Hon'ble Court, by order dated 25;01.1996 and 13.03;1996
in IA No.18 and IA No.22 in Writ Petition (C) 4677 of 1985 directed
that the uncultivated surplus land of Gaon Sabha falling. in the
Ridge area may be excluded from vesting in Gaon Sabha u/s 154
of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and made available for the
purpose of Reserved Forest.
vi) The Government of NCT of Delhi in compliance of the above
said orders of this Hon'ble Court issued Notification dated 2nd
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
April, 1996 u/s 154 of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 declaring
10,517 acres (about 4,206.68 ha) of uncultivated land of Gaon
Sabha situated in Southern Ridge as surplus land and excluded
the same for vesting in Gaon Sabha. Further by Notification dated
2nd April, 1996 placed the said 4206:68 ha land at the disposal of
the Forest Department of Delhi Government and this 4206.68 ha
of land stands included in the 7777 ha of Notified Ridge Area.
vii) This Hon'ble Court by order dated 9th May, 1996 directed
that the Ridge is to be kept free from encroachers and its
pristine glory must be maintained for all times.
viii) The Geological Survey of India (GSI) in the year 2001-02
carried out geological and geomorphological mapping 0f about
1482 sq km area of NCT of Delhi on 1: 10,000 scale with a view
to provide the base map for seismic microzonation of Delhi and
which map was published in the year 2006. In the geological
and geomorphological map prepared by the GSI the land forms
found to be under rocky surface have been included and
shown under the geomorphic unit "residual hills I Ridges". It
is relevant to mention that all the areas identified as Residual Hills
I Ridges in the geological and geomorphological mapping done by
the GSI are not included and shown as Ridge areas in the MPD
2001 and MPD 2021. For example, the areas between
Tughlakabad to Okhla via Greater Kailash and Nehru Place have
been identified as Ridge areas in the said Report of GSI but are
not included as Ridge areas in the MPD 2001 and MPD 2021.
ix) Initially, the clearance from the Ridge Management Board
and the permission of this Hon'ble Court was being insisted upon
only in respect of the Notified Ridge Areas. This Hon'ble Court
by order dated 23.03.2007 has granted permission to the Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation Limited for use of forest land and nonforest land falling in the Delhi Ridge area for the construction of
the Central Secretariat -Qutab Minar -Gurgaon corridor of the
metro line and by order dated 07.12.2007 has granted permission
for use of forest land and non-forest land for construction of
Express Metro Link to the Airport through the Central Ridge.
x) Subsequently by order dated 03.11.2011 the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3339 of 2011, filed by Shri
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
Ashok Kumar Tanwar, held that lands situated outside the Notified
Ridge Areas but which have morphological features conforming
to the ridge should be given the same protection as is given to the
notified areas. Consequently, all the concerned agencies were
restrained 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 and
through the CEC the permission of this Hon'ble Court is first
obtained.
20. This Hon'ble Court by orders issued from time to time,
since 02.11.2012 and till 06.09.2019, has given permission
to various agencies of Central Government and Delhi
Government for carrying out construction activities in notified
Ridge area on forest land and non-forest land situated outside
the notified Ridge Area in extended Ridge Area Morphological
Ridge Area. These include the Border Roads Organization,
the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of
Defence, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Textiles,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Development
Authority, Central Public Works Department, National
Highways Authority of India (NHAI} and the Delhi Police."
22. The observations and recommendations are given in paragraph
21 of Report No.10 of 2021 in IA No.169030 of 2019 which read as
under:
"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 to
Tughlakabad corridor Mass Rapid Transport System forming part
of Phase IV Project in Delhi at an estimated cost of Rs. 8230
crores and scheduled to be commissioned by year 2024;
iii) the metro corridor will serve the densely populated areas and
is integrated with
a) Airport Express Line which provides metro connectivity of
South Delhi to Indira Gandhi International Airport;
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
b) Samaypur Badli to HUDA City Centre (Yellow Line) at
existing Chhatarpur Metro Station which integrates the metro
connectivity of South Delhi to Gurgaon and Faridabad;
iv) the vehicular traffic of IG Airport from Delhi will be drastically
reduced with consequent reduction in traffic on NH-8, Mahipalpur
-Mehrauli Road, Mehrauli - Badarpur Road apart from the Metro
Project providing the connectivity to Line-6 at Tughlakabad for
commuters of Faridabad;
v) the total Ridge Area involved including Morphological Ridge is
12.97 ha extending over a length of 5.29 kms. Out of this 12.97 ha
an area of 4.5 ha will be for tunnels 20 m below the ground while
the remaining 8.4 ha is required for constructing Metro Stations;
vi) since tunnel boring machines will be used surface breaking is
limited to 8.4 ha. required for constructing rnetro stations and
therefore there will be minimal impact to the ecology or structure
on Ridge I Morphological Ridge;
vii) the land required oh permanent and temporary basis has been
restricted to 14865 sqm and 69793 sqm respectively with minimal
impact. The 69793 sqm land, held on temporary basis, shall be
restored back after the completion of the Project;
viii) it is not possible to align the corridor outside the ridge area; ·
ix) the total number of trees involved is 6961 trees break up being
1072 trees located in 12.97 ha over a length of 5:29 km in Ridge
Area including Morphological Ridge, 2536 trees located in 3.79
has identified as deemed forest over a length of 0.97 kms and
3353 trees located on 27.06 Ha non-forest land over a length of
17.35 km.