Summary
The Court upheld Goa’s existing criteria for identifying private forests: 75% forest-species composition, contiguity with government forest or a five-hectare minimum for isolated land, and at least 0.40 canopy density. FSI’s lower thresholds measure forest cover for mapping and do not replace state criteria for legal identification of private forests.
Issues
- Whether Goa’s criteria for identifying private forests should be replaced by FSI forest-cover thresholds of one hectare and 0.10 canopy density.
- Whether the National Green Tribunal’s disposal of the applications and the existing identification process required further directions.
Provisions considered
- Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980The Court considered the Act’s application to areas identified as forests and the earlier interpretation that “forest” includes forests in the dictionary sense. It upheld Goa’s expert-based criteria for identifying private forests and declined to substitute FSI mapping thresholds. (¶¶ 5, 56, 62, 65, 66)
Held
- Goa’s existing private-forest criteria were adequate and valid on this record: 75% forest-species composition; contiguity with government forest or, for an isolated area, at least five hectares; and canopy density of at least 0.40. The proposed one-hectare and 0.10-density thresholds were not adopted. (¶¶ 56, 57, 59, 62, 63)
- FSI’s “forest cover” metric is a remote-sensing measure that can include orchards, bamboo and palm, and is distinct from the legal identification of forest land. Forest-cover and net-present-value figures therefore did not require Goa to replace its private-forest criteria. (¶¶ 61, 62, 65, 66)
- Forest-identification criteria need not be uniform across India; the 1996 directions assigned identification to State expert committees, and criteria may account for each State’s geographic conditions. (¶¶ 56, 68)
- The appellant knew of the publicly notified Goa criteria and had not challenged them when earlier opportunities arose; the Court also examined and rejected the challenge on its merits. (¶¶ 57, 60, 62)
Result
The appeals were dismissed and the NGT order was upheld. The interim restraint on conversion no-objection certificates was vacated, and the specified applications for modification and vacation were allowed.