Introduction:

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court addressed appeals seeking modifications to the criteria for identifying private forests in the State of Goa. A three-Judge Bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, ruled that the existing criteria, involving forest tree composition, contiguous forest land, a minimum area of 5 hectares, and a canopy density of 0.4, are adequate and valid. The judgment stemmed from an appeal challenging the Forest Department’s criteria formulated in 1991, raising questions about the definition of ‘forest’ under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant, Goa Foundation, contested the 1991 criteria, particularly focusing on canopy density between 0.1 to 0.4. They argued that degraded forest areas with canopy density less than 0.4, originally dense or medium dense, should be considered as ‘forest’ under the Forest Conservation Act. The appellant highlighted the Forest Survey of India parameters supporting their stance. On the contrary, the respondents, including the State of Goa, argued that the criteria from 1991 had gained finality and resisted any alteration. They emphasized the impracticality of conserving small patches of land and the negative impact on conservation measures if the criteria were changed.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the existing criteria, stating that reducing the canopy density and minimum area, as proposed by the appellant, would categorize plantations like coconut, orchards, bamboo, palm, supari, and cashew as private forests. The court recognized the historical formulation of criteria by various committees and underscored that the appellant had not challenged the 1997 notice criteria earlier. It held that the appellant was estopped from raising issues based on those criteria at this stage. The court also referred to the Tata Housing case, affirming the adequacy of the three criteria mentioned in the Sawant Committee’s 2nd Report.

The court dismissed the appellant’s reliance on the Net Present Value concept and asserted that the identification process had been thoroughly examined by experts. It emphasized the delegated role of Expert Committees in identifying forest areas, acknowledging the need for state-specific criteria. The court found merit in the respondents’ contention that changing existing criteria would adversely impact conservation measures