Explainer: Haryana Government defines ‘forests’, land to be identified next

In pursuance of the Supreme Court judgement in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the Haryana Government has notified the definition of ‘forests’.As per a notification issued on August 18 by the Environment, Forest, and Wildlife Department of Haryana, a patch of land shall be deemed to be “forest as per dictionary meaning” if it fulfils the following conditions: a minimum area of 5 hectares, if in isolation; or a minimum area of 2 hectares, if in contiguity with government-notified forests.Further, it should have a canopy density of 0.4 or more.“Provided that, all linear/compact/agro-forestry plantations and orchards situated outside government-notified forests shall not be treated as forest under the above definition,” added the notification.The move has been met with opposition by environmentalists as the definition will exclude large tracts of land in the Aravallis — owing to the canopy density of vegetation being less than 0.4.What directive was issued by SC in the TN Godavarman case?On December 12, 1996, a Supreme Court Bench — comprising Justice JS Verma and Justice BN Kirpal — had said the term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, would not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the government record, irrespective of ownership.It had directed all states to “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.”What directions were issued in Ashok Kumar Sharma v/s Union of India?Ashok Kumar Sharma, a retired IFS officer, had filed a petition that challenged the constitutional validity of the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023. It was submitted that while the dictionary meaning of the expression ‘forests’ — which was adopted in the TN Godavarman case — provided a broad and all-encompassing meaning to the expression, the amendment would exclude 1.97 lakh square km forests in the country.Under Rule 16 of the amended Act, state governments and the Union Territory administrations are required to prepare a consolidated record of such lands, including ‘forest-like areas’, identified by an Expert Committee constituted for this purpose; ‘unclassed forest lands’; and ‘community forest lands’ to which the provisions of the amending Act would apply.The bench comprising then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra ruled on February 19, 2024: “…we clarify that pending the completion of the exercise by the administrations of the state governments and the Union Territories under Rule 16 and pending these proceedings, the principles which are elucidated in the judgment of this Court in TN Godavarman must continue to be observed.”The order added: “As a matter of fact, it is evident that Rule 16 includes within its ambit forest-like areas to be identified by the Expert Committee, unclassed forest lands, and community forest lands. While being guided by the provisions of the statute and those contained in Rule 16, the state governments as well as Union Territory administrations shall peremptorily ensure compliance with the ambit of the expression ‘forest’ as explained in the decision in TN Godavarman.” After that, Haryana took 18 months to notify the definition of forests.What next?The next course of action is to identify land falling under the definition. This can include private land, community land, or panchayat land. Two levels of committees have been formed for the purpose, the first comprising district-level committees under the Deputy Commissioner concerned. These would send proposals in this regard. The second would be a single state-level committee — under the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS), Environment, Forest, and Wildlife Department. It would look into the proposals and give its recommendations.After identification, the Chief Secretary will submit an affidavit with the Supreme Court.What guidelines issued by the SC in the Lafarge case need to be followed by states?In its order dated March 4, 2025, in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that, while identifying the land under Rule 16, state governments/Union Territory administrations would also be bound to follow guidelines as issued by the apex court in the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited, dated July 6, 2011.The guidelines mandate for the creation and regular update of a GIS-based decision support database, tentatively containing inter-alia the district-wise details of the location and boundary of “(i) each plot of land that may be defined as forest for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (ii) the core, buffer and eco-sensitive zone of the protected areas constituted as per the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; (iii) the important migratory corridors for wildlife; and (iv) the forest land diverted for non-forest purpose in the past in the district.”It added: “The Survey of India toposheets in digital format, the forest cover maps prepared by the Forest Survey of India in preparation of the successive State of Forest Reports, and the conditions stipulated in the approvals accorded under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for each case of diversion of forest land in the district will also be part of the proposed decision support database.”

Explainer: Haryana Government defines ‘forests’, land to be identified next

Bhartesh Singh Thakur

Tribune News Service

Explainer: Haryana Government defines ‘forests’, land to be identified next

Bhartesh Singh Thakur

Tribune News Service

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article