Supreme Court of India
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 796
- Decided
- 29 November 2021
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- L NAGESWARA RAO
Holding
The Court held that the proposed Metro alignment traverses forest and deemed‑forest lands, and therefore any diversion for non‑forest purposes requires prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, together with compliance with the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation's (DMRC) request to proceed with Phase‑IV of the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) through areas of the Delhi Ridge, South‑Central and Morphological Ridges, which are either notified forest or deemed forest lands. The petitioners argued that the project would cause loss of vegetation, fauna and contribute to climate change, and that the required clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 had not been obtained. The Court noted the public interest in providing a pollution‑free mass‑transit system but emphasized the need to protect the ecology of the Ridge, applying the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development. It held that the areas in question are forest or deemed‑forest lands and therefore any diversion for non‑forest use must obtain prior approval from the Central Government under the FC Act, with compliance to the DPT Act for tree felling. The Court directed DMRC to file applications for forest clearance, to seek Ridge Management Board approval, and ordered a comprehensive afforestation plan involving citizens, while setting timelines for the concerned authorities.
Issues considered
- Whether the land parcels proposed for the Delhi Metro Phase‑IV alignment constitute forest or non‑forest areas under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
- Whether the DMRC can proceed with construction without prior approval from the Central Government and without complying with the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.
- Whether the public interest in a mass‑transit project outweighs the environmental protection obligations under the FC Act and related statutes.
- What procedural steps must be followed for obtaining forest clearance and Ridge Management Board permission for the project.
Legislation cited
Subjects
environmental lawforest clearancesustainable developmentDelhi Metro Phase‑IVForest (Conservation) ActDelhi Ridgeafforestationpublic interest litigation
Judgment
1146 [2021]
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 1146
REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A IN 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. 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
C 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 –
D 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’
E 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
F – 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
G
(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
H
1146
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1147
INDIA & ORS.
JURISDICTION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I. A. Nos. A
169030 of 2019 and 105674 of 2020.
In
Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
With B
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
C
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, D
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,
E
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, F
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
G
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, H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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,
C 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.
D
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,
E 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,
F
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.
G 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.
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1149
INDIA & ORS.
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. B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A (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
B 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 non-
forest areas and there is no requirement for the applicant
C 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.
D
(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:
E
(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);
F (ii) Copy of submissions of GNCTD dated 24.02.2021 in the
matter of DMRC and P.C. Prasad Vs. UOI (Annexure A-
2);
(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
G
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
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1151
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
line, stations and other operational requirement of Delhi A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 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,
B
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
C 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 :
D (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.
E
(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.
F
(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,
G
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
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1153
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
of the project sought to be constructed on forest land, a 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 B
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, C
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.
D
(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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 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.
B (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.
C (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
D 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.
E 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
F 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
G 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;
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1155
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
(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 obtain B
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 applicant-
DMRC to carry out the construction activities of Phase-IV of MRTS
Project 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 to
the tune of Rs. 24948.65 crores. E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A (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
B 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
C 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.
D (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.
E (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.
F (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
G
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
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1157
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
category of “Deemed Forest” and therefore, approval had A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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: F
(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
G
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 &
H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 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,
B 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
C 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.
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H declaration that -
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1159
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
(a) the 5.34 km stretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspuri A
to Peeragarhi;
(b) 1288.973 sqm land at Najafgarh drain;
(c) area admeasuring 16097.75 sqm land located at
Mangolpuri; and
B
(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 C
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 D
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
E
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
F
(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 G
level.”
Thus all plants of and above one meter in height are treated as
trees under this Act.
H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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/
F 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
G
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
H Master Plan (Land use Plan) as Regional Park.
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1161
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
ii) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi by A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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.
E
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 F
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 G
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 H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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.
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 non-
forest land falling in the Delhi Ridge area for the construction of
the Central Secretariat -Qutab Minar -Gurgaon corridor of the
G 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
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1163
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
Ashok Kumar Tanwar, held that lands situated outside the Notified A
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”
B
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 C
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 D
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.”
E
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 F
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
G
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; H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B -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
C 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;
D
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; ·
E
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
F 17.35 km. A total of 2195 trees out of 6961 trees are to be
transplanted 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 located
on land made available by DDA while transplantation of 2195
G trees will be undertaken on open lands of DDA, Ministry of
Defence and multiple land owing agencies in the vicinity of the
Project;
xi) the corridor proposed has been found to be the most feasible
route economically, environmentally and technically for the purpose
H of daily ridership and will be covering a sizeable population;
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1165
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
xii) the Ridge Management Board has recommended the proposal; A
xiii) no viable alternative is feasible and the use of the ridge area
has been restricted to the minimum; and
xiv) this Hon’ble Court by orders issued from time to time has for
site specific projects given permission to various Central
Government agencies and Delhi Government for carrying out B
construction 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 extended C
Ridge area/ Morphological Ridge area which have
morphological features.
It is recommended that this Hon’ble Court may consider permitting
use of 7.42 Ha. Ridge area including Morphological Ridge and
3.79 Ha of deemed forest land involving 6961 trees (break up D
being felling of 4766 trees and transplantation of about 2195 trees)
for construction of metro alignment tunnels and metro stations in
the Southern Ridge, South Central Ridge and Morphological Ridge
along the 23.62 km Aerocity -Tughlakabad Metro Corridor forming
part of Phase IV of the Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS)
Project subject to the following conditions : E
a) The Applicant Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited will
deposit 5% of the Project cost proportionate to the area falling
within the Southern Ridge, South Central Ridge and
Morphological Ridge, with the Ridge Management Board Fund
and which amount, under the close supervision of the Ridge F
Management Board, will be used by the Forest Department of
Delhi Government for conservation and protection of the Delhi
Ridge.
b) The Applicant will obtain the statutory forest clearance for
diversion of 7.42 Ha. forest land falling in Southern Ridge, G
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 and
shall comply with all the conditions that are laid down in the
order to be passed for diversion of forest land.
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A c) The 25 Ha of land allotted by DDA for compensatory
afforestation in Dhusiras Village, Dwarka shall be notified as
protected forests under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act
1927 and shall be managed by the Forest Department of Delhi
Government.
B d) The area falling within the Delhi Ridge area I Morphological
Ridge area will not be used for commercial purposes by the
Applicant or any other party.
e) The Applicant shall pay Net Present Value as assessed by
the Forest Department, Delhi Government.
C f) The applicant shall obtain necessary approvals under the
Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 from the competent
authority before felling of trees standing on non-forest land.
g) Compensatory plantation of 34,000 saplings of indigenous
species, being ten times in lieu of 3353 trees standing on non-
D forest land and proposed to be felled/transplanted, will be
undertaken by the Forest Department of Delhi Government
on the lands provided by ODA for the said purpose.
h) The cost of raising 34,000 saplings and raising compensatory
afforestation in lieu of the diversion for forest land for non-
E forest use. will be deposited in advance by the Applicant with
the Forest Department of Delhi Government who will undertake
the planting and maintenance of the above trees for seven
years.
i) Transplantation of 2195 trees will be undertaken by DMRC
F on open identified lands made available by DOA, Ministry of
Defence and other multi land owing agencies including private
trusts.
j) The transplantation of trees will be undertaken near the
impact area itself.
G k) The felling of tress proposed is limited to the bare minimum
required for execution of the project.
Note : By corrigendum dated 09.09.2021 to Report No.10 of
2021 in IA No.169030/2019, the figure 12.98 Ha forest land
to be read as 7.42 Ha of forest land.
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1167
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
23. The justification for Aerocity – Tughlakabad Corridor Project A
is stated in paragraph 17 of the aforesaid Report i.e. Report No.10 of
2021 as under:
“JUSTIFICATION FOR AEROCITY – TUGHLAKABAD
CORRIDOR PROJECT
17. i) According to DMRC the proposed metro Corridor is to B
serve the densely populated areas of Mahipalpur, Vasant Kunj,
Chhatarpur, IGNOU, Maidangarhi, Neb Sarai, Saket, Khanpur,
Sangam Vihar and Tughlakabad. The alignment is based on the
proximity to the populated areas to be served and which areas
are mostly along the Mahipalpur - Mehrauli Road and Mehrauli ~ C
Badarpur Road. There have been and there still are many
constraints while finalizing the alignment such as minimum distance
from the Protected Monuments avoiding built up areas and at the
same time also minimizing the Ridge area as there are large extent
of Ridge areas along the corridor. The present alignment is the
best fit alignment meeting the above constraints and also D
simultaneously meets the technical requirements of metro
alignments/stations and proximity to the target population to be
served. There is a vast extent of Ridge on either side of the
alignment because of which it has not been possible to shift the
alignment out of Ridge area but efforts have been made to E
minimize the Ridge area involved. The daily ridership has been
estimated at 1.66 lakhs trips per day by 2024.
ii) The proposed Aerocity - Tughlakabad corridor is to be integrated
with Airport Express Line which provides metro connectivity of
South Delhi to Indira Gandhi International Airport. It is also to be F
integrated with Samaypur Badli to HUDA City Centre Line (Yellow
Line) at existing Chhatarpur Metro Station which integrates the
metro connectivity of South Delhi to Gurgaon and Faridabad.
iii) This corridor provides connectivity to Chhatarpur Mandir,
IGNOU University, Karni Singh Shooting Range and ASI G
Monuments including Tughlakabad Fort, Adilabad Fort and
Ghyasuddin Tughlakabad Tomb.
iv) The vehicular traffic of IGI Airport from Delhi will get
drastically reduced with cbnsequent reduction in traffic on N~H-
8, Mahipalpur - Mehrauli Road, Mehrauli Badarpur Road apart
H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A from the Metro Project providing the connectivity to Line - 6 at
Tughlakabad for commuters of Faridabad.
v) The reduction in vehicular traffic will also bring down the
number of toad accidents and pollution levels.
vi) Public interest is involved in the completion of Aerocity to
B Tughlakabad corridor as this corridor is the most feasible route
economically, environmentally and technically for the purpose of
the daily ridership and also will be covering a sizeable population.
24. It is noted in the aforesaid Report that the RMB in its meeting
held on 14.07.2021 is said to have stated that the original alignment
C proposed by DMRC involving minimum use of forest area (12.97 Ha)
and minimum felling of trees (1072 trees) has recommended the proposal
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The User Agency shall obtain necessary permission for
diversion of forest area for non-forestry purposes as per provisions
D under FC Act, 1980.
(b) The User Agency shall deposit 5% of the project cost
proportionate to the area falling within Morphological Ridge area
to RMB fund on the lines of conditions imposed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) 202 of 1995 titled
E “T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India and Ors.” for
management of the Ridge.
25. As already noted, we have heard learned Senior Counsel and
counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the
earlier orders of this Court and the aforesaid reports submitted by the
F CEC, the relevant portions of which are extracted above.
26. We have given our anxious consideration to the prayers sought
by the applicant – DMRC in these applications.
27. At the outset, we may preface our discussion by observing
that learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted at
G the Bar that in principle, their parties are not opposed to Phase IV of
MRTS Project. The main consideration is making available transport
facility to the public at large in NCR of Delhi in the form of Metro rail
while at the same time, preserving the ecology and environment of the
areas surrounding the alignment of the metro railway.
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1169
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
28. To put it in a nutshell, the issue herein concerns sustainable A
development and preservation of the environment and ecology of NCT
of Delhi/NCR.
29. An introspection on the issue raised before this Court would
draw our attention to the grave and pressing problem the world over
including India, namely, degradation of environment and ecology resulting B
in what is simplistically called ‘Climate Change’ and the problem of
‘greenhouse gas emissions’.
30. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
at Stockholm in 1972, United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in C
1992; World Sumit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002
and Glasgow Climate Change Conference currently held in October-
November, 2021, have all voiced grave concerns about the global
environmental degradation resulting in extinction of certain flora and
fauna and its cascading effect on planet Earth owing to man’s growing
need for development particularly economic development. D
31. Projects such as the metro railway in question have already
been implemented in parts of NCT of Delhi/NCR. One cannot lose sight
of the fact that it has resulted in loss of vegetation as well as flora and
fauna in certain areas. The implementation of Phase IV of MRTS Project
may be a further threat to the ecology of NCT of Delhi/NCR. E
32. To meaningfully arrest the problem of declining tree cover,
the civil society must also be placed with the responsibility to carry out
reafforestation activities. While we cannot ignore the importance of
governmental responsibility in materializing the goals of sustainable
development through reafforestation, we strongly endorse the idea of F
collective responsibility towards ensuring a sustainable future. The
engagement, inclusion and participation of citizens and perhaps more
significantly, the ownership of the sustainable development agenda by
empowered citizens and community-level actors will contribute in a
significant manner to achieving the economic, social and environmental G
pillars of the sustainable development agenda.
33. Citizens, as the ultimate beneficiaries of development, have a
critical role to play, not just in terms of effort and action towards the
achievement of the environmental goals but also in terms of the associated
monitoring of the progress towards these goals.
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A 34. One of the important steps that Parliament has taken is to
have enacted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the FC Act,
1980. The FC Act, 1980 is a short but effective enactment comprising
only of five sections. Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 reads as under:
“2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest
B land for non-forest purpose.— Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State
Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior
approval 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 that
C State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for
any non-forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by
way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority,
D corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed
or controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of
trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the
purpose of using it for reafforestation.]
E [Explanation.—For the purposes of this section ‘‘non-forest
purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or
portion 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,
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, wireless
communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts,
G dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or
other like purposes.]”
35. While interpreting the word “Forest”, this Court in this very
matter, speaking through J.S. Verma and B.N. Kirpal, JJ as their Lordships
then were, on 12.12.1996, have observed, inter alia, as under:
H
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1171
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
“It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in A
certain 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 about
the need of prior approval of the Central government, as required
by section 2 of the Act, in respect of certain activities in the forest
B
area which are more often of a commercial nature. It is necessary
to clarify that position.
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to
check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological
imbalance: and therefore, the provisions made therein for the
conservation of forests and for matters connected herewith must C
apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or
classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood
according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all
statutorily ‘recognised forests, whether designated as reserved,
protected or otherwise for the purpose of section 2(1) of the Forest D
Conservation 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 record
irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood
for the purpose of section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests E
and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all
forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification
thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the
decisions of this court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat
(1987 (1) SCC 213). Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. F
State of U.P. (1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 504), and recently in the order
dated 29th November, 1996 in W.P. (c) No. 749/95 (Supreme Court
Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development
Authority and Ors. (1985 (3) SCC 643) has, therefore, to be
understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider
it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the G
decisions of this court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception
of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary
also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan,
even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining
in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which
has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will
forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial
measures without any further delay.
We further direct as under:-
B I) General – In view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the
Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is
required for any non-forest activity within the area of any ‘forest’.
In accordance with section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within
any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior
C approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is,
therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including
veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest
purposes and, are therefore, not permissible without prior approval
of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima
facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act,
D 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total
cessation of all such activities forthwith.
The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in
accordance with the Working Plans of the State Governments, as
approved by the Central Government. In the absence of any
E working plan in any particular state, such as Arunanchal Pradesh,
where the permit system exists, the felling under the permits can
be done only by the Forest Department of the State Government
or the State Forest Corporation.
Each State Government should constitute within one month an
F Expert Committee to:
(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 forest but stand degraded,
G
denuded or cleared; and
(iii) Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the
Government and those belonging to private persons.
36. We have considered the applications made by the applicants
H in the light of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the additional
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1173
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
documents filed by GNCTD, Report Nos.8 and 10 submitted by the A
CEC and the recommendations made therein and the objections filed by
the applicants vide I.A. No.142876/2021.
37. Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 12.12.1996, an
affidavit dated 15.09.1997 was filed by the Conservator of Forests,
GNCTD. In the said affidavit under the head “Forest Areas and Plantation B
Areas along the Roads managed by PWD”, the State Government has
included the trees planted along the road side including Road No.26 in
respect of which the application is filed as part of Annexure IX of the
said affidavit.
38. On the other hand, the DPT Act, 1994 regulates felling of C
trees falling outside the notified forests and deemed forests. Under this
Act, the user agency has to bear the cost of raising and maintenance of
ten times the number of trees to be felled.
39. Therefore, the crucial issue whether the areas through which
the metro railway lines are to be constructed and pass through as noted D
hereinabove are forest areas or non-forest areas has to be determined
by GNCTD. In this context, we note that the applications have already
been filed by DMRC under the FC Act, 1980 on 02.11.2020 before the
Chief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCA), GNCTD, seeking
sanction under the FC Act, 1980, for conversion of 50,421 Ha of forest
land for construction of underground stations at Krishna Park and elevated E
corridor to Keshopur to Mukarba Chowk from Janakpuri corridor in
Phase-4 of MRTS project with a request to forward documents to the
MoEF&CC, GoI for its consideration. Therefore, there has already been
an application made seeking permission for diversion of Forest land or
non-forest activity namely, the construction of the Metro railway line in F
respect of the aforesaid areas.
40. Further, the MoEF&CC (Forest Conservation Division), GoI,
has also communicated by its letter dated 14th November, 2019 to the
Principal Secretary, Forest of State and Union Territories as under:
“2. Based on the recommendation of the FAC with regards to the G
definition 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.
H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A (ii) As far as developing criteria for ‘deemed forests’ is concerned,
there cannot be any uniform criteria applicable to all forest types
or all states. There has to be different criteria for different forest
types or states.
(iii) It is only that Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed states to
B identify their own forests, in fact the states, having well established
forest departments, are in a better position, rather than MoEF&CC,
to understand their own forests and needs, and should frame criteria
for their forests.
(iv) While framing criteria, due diligence should be exercised taking
C into to account spirit of order of Supreme Court, National Forest
Policy, the rationale of having adequate forests, site quality of
naturally occurring forest species etc., for supporting a healthy
environment.
(iv) The criteria so finalised by a state, need not be subject to
D approval of MoEF&CC. This issues with the approval of
competent authority.”
41. On perusal of Report No.8 of 2021 in IA No.105674/2020
submitted by the CEC, it is observed that where any area is declared to
be forest area (within the meaning of the definition given by this Court in
E the aforesaid order dated 12.12.1995), for diversion of the said area for
a non-forest purpose would require approval under the provisions of the
FC Act, 1980. However, if there is need for felling of trees outside any
forest area then the provision of DPT Act, 1994 has to be complied
with.
F 42. As far as, 23.62 km long Metro Corridor between Aerocity
and Tughlakabad stations in Delhi passing through Southern ridge, South-
Central Ridge, Report No.10 of 2020 in IA No.169030/2019 states that
an extent of 7,777 Ha of land of Delhi Ridge Area falls in the Northern
Ridge, Central Ridge and South-Central Ridge as well as the Southern
Ridge. The Ridge area has been described in the Master Plan (Land use
G Plan) as Regional Park.
43. By notification dated 24th May, 1994 under Section 4 of the
Indian Forest Act, 1927, 7,777 Ha of Delhi Ridge area has been notified
as Reserved Forest. It serves as the green lung for Delhi and acts as a
buffer against rising pollution level and hence the Ridge area has to be
H conserved with utmost care and should be afforested with the indigenous
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1175
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
species with minimum of artificial landscape is the recommendation of A
the CEC.
44. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the RMB under
the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Delhi, has been constituted for the
conservation and protection of Ridge. This is to ensure that the Ridge is
not occupied or encroached upon by any person for any unauthorised B
purpose so as to preserve its status as ‘forest’.
45. Further, notifications have been issued to exclude areas
comprising in the Ridge from the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms
Act and not vesting the same in the Gram Sabha.
46. This Court by order dated 03.11.2011 passed in WP(C) C
No.3339/2011, held that land 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. Therefore,
any construction work to be carried out on such lands also referred to as
‘Extended Ridge Areas’, must have clearance from the RMB. D
Accordingly, recommendations have been made by the CEC in the
aforesaid Report No.10 while also noting the recommendations of the
RMB.
47. In view of the above discussion, having regard to the specific
recommendations of the CEC, the present interlocutory applications are E
disposed of in the following terms:
(i) DMRC to file applications under the FC Act, 1980 to the
Chief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCI),
GNCTD, seeking permission for diversion of the following
extents of land for the construction of Metro, Phase-IV of F
MRTS Project with a request to forward the said
documents to the MoEF&CC, GoI, for its consideration
under Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980:
(a) 5.34 km stretch on Road No.26 between Vikaspuri
to Peeragarhi;
G
(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.
H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.
A (ii) It is needless to observe that the Chief Conservator (Forest)
and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, shall consider the said
application/s and forward the same to MoEF&CC, GoI,
with his recommendations within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of the said application/s.
B (iii) MoEF&CC, GoI, on receipt of the application/s, shall
consider the same expeditiously and within a period of three
months from the date of its receipt, communicate its decision
to 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 of
Aerocity-Tughlakabad Metro Corridor is concerned, having
regard to the recommendations made by the RMB, the
DMRC is directed to file an application before the RMB so
as to seek necessary permission for diversion of the
D aforesaid Ridge areas for the purpose of Phase IV of the
MRTS project passing through the said areas.
(v) On such application being made, the RMB shall make its
recommendations on the same and forward a copy of the
said recommendations to the Chief Conservator (Forest)
E and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, as well as to the
MoEF&CC, GoI, for its consideration under section 2 of
the FC Act, 1980 within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of the said application.
(vi) MoEF&CC, GoI, shall on receipt of the said application
F along with the recommendations of RMB and the Chief
Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer (FCI), GNCTD, if
any, shall consider the said application within a period of
three months from the date of its receipt.
(vii) DMRC shall also comply with all other conditions imposed
G by the RMB and also the orders passed by this Court in this
very matter concerning the management of the Ridge.
(viii) It is needless to observe that while considering the said
applications, the directions and orders passed by this Court
referred to above as well as the statutory scheme and
H guidelines and parameters prescribed by MoEF&CC, GoI,
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1177
INDIA & ORS. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]
shall be borne in mind by the concerned authorities. The A
Reports referred to above may also be taken into
consideration.
(ix) Irrespective of and de hors the decision to be taken by the
concerned departments with regard to the recommendations
made by the CEC in the aforesaid Report Nos.8 and 10, B
since the citizens of NCT of Delhi have had and would
continue to have the facility of the metro rail, the GNCTD
as well as DMRC are directed to conceive a plan of action
for the purpose of planting trees in the NCT of Delhi. For
that purpose, GNCTD may involve school and college
students, educational institutions, Non-Governmental C
Organizations, Citizen Welfare Associations, public servants
and every citizen or person who is interested in the ecology
of NCT of Delhi to plant trees/saplings and ensure that
they are nurtured and protected so that the NCT of Delhi
would in passage of time have more greenery leading to D
afforestation. The aforesaid direction is issued 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. It is
needless to observe that such a plan of action would be
conceived by the Department of Forest and Environment E
of NCT of Delhi in consultation with the Public Works
Department, Education Department and such other
departments who will involve themselves in ensuring the
planting of saplings and trees in NCT of Delhi. Such a plan
of action be conceived and the same be placed on record F
before this Court within a period of twelve weeks for
consideration of this Court.
Nidhi Jain Directions issued.
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "environmental law"Sign in to search