Forest conservation: the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 and the judicial approach

1. Why the Act was made

In the decades after independence large areas of forest were diverted by State Governments for agriculture, river valley projects and industry. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 let a State de-reserve a forest at will. After the Forty-second Amendment put forests in the Concurrent List, Parliament enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (first as an Ordinance, with effect from 25 October 1980) to check deforestation by requiring Central control over diversion.

2. Section 2: the restriction

Section 2(1): notwithstanding any other law 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 or part of it shall cease to be reserved;
• (ii) that any forest land or part of it may be used for any non-forest purpose;
• (iii) that any forest land may be assigned by lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or other organisation, subject to such terms as the Central Government may by order specify (the 2023 amendment widened this from bodies “not owned, managed or controlled by Government”); or
• (iv) that any forest land may be cleared of naturally grown trees for the purpose of reafforestation.

“Non-forest purpose” (Explanation) means breaking up or clearing forest land for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants, or for any purpose other than reafforestation. Since 2023 it does not include work ancillary to conservation and management of forests and wildlife: silvicultural operations, check-posts and infrastructure for frontline staff, fire lines, wireless communication, fencing, check dams and waterholes, government zoos and safaris outside protected areas, eco-tourism included in working or management plans, and other purposes the Centre specifies. Under s.2(2) the Centre may specify terms on which surveys, prospecting and seismic exploration are not treated as non-forest purposes.

Approval is given by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the advice of the Advisory Committee (s.3), usually subject to compensatory afforestation and payment of the net present value of the forest lost, managed under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016. Any person aggrieved by an order under s.2 may appeal to the National Green Tribunal (s.2A).

3. Section 1A: what land the Act covers (2023)

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 inserted s.1A. The Act covers:

• (a) land declared or notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or any other law; and
• (b) land not so notified but recorded in Government record as forest on or after 25 October 1980, except land changed from forest use to non-forest use on or before 12 December 1996 under an order of an authorised authority. “Government record” means records of the Revenue or Forest Department, or of a recognised authority, local body, community or council.

Section 1A(2) excludes: forest land along a rail line or public road giving access to a habitation, up to 0.10 hectare in each case; trees and plantations raised on land not covered by (a) or (b); and forest land within 100 kilometres of an international border, the Line of Control or the Line of Actual Control for strategic linear projects of national importance, up to ten hectares for security infrastructure, and up to five hectares for defence or paramilitary or public utility projects in Left Wing Extremism areas. Exemptions are subject to conditions such as compensatory planting (s.1A(3)).

4. Penalties and directions

• s.3A: whoever contravenes or abets the contravention of s.2 is punishable with simple imprisonment up to fifteen days.
• s.3B: where the offence is by a Government department, the head of the department, and where by an authority, every person in charge, is deemed guilty, unless he proves lack of knowledge or due diligence; any other officer whose consent, connivance or neglect is proved is also liable.
• s.3C (2023): the Central Government may issue directions to any authority or organisation for implementing the Act.

The penalty is light; the real sanction has always been the Supreme Court's orders in Godavarman and the withholding of approvals.

5. Judicial approach

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 1996 INSC 1477, (1997) 2 SCC 267, 12 December 1996. The Act was enacted to check deforestation, so it applies to all forests irrespective of ownership or classification. “Forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning, covering all statutorily recognised forests, whether reserved, protected or otherwise, and “forest land” includes any area recorded as forest in government record irrespective of ownership. All non-forest activity in forests without Central approval, including running saw mills and mining, was to cease. The case continues as a continuing mandamus, with a Central Empowered Committee and orders on eco-sensitive zones, net present value and compensatory afforestation.
• Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2011 INSC 461, (2011) 7 SCC 338: a limestone mine in Meghalaya was allowed on conditions. The Court laid down guidelines for forest clearances, including an independent regulator, and said that decisions on the use of natural resources are reviewed on proportionality, consistently with sustainable development and intergenerational equity.
• The 2023 amendment is criticised for confining the Act to notified or recorded forests and so leaving out unrecorded forests that Godavarman protected under the dictionary meaning, and for the wide border and security exemptions. Its validity has been challenged in the Supreme Court by retired forest officers (Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1164 of 2023). By an interim order of February 2024 the Court directed that the understanding of forest laid down in the 1996 Godavarman order continue to be followed, and in 2025 it restrained the Union and States from steps reducing forest land without compensatory land. The challenge was still pending when this note was written; check its status before the examination. These are interim orders without neutral citations.

6. Problem

A State Government leases 20 hectares of land, shown as forest in revenue records since 1985 but never notified under the Indian Forest Act, to a private company for a resort, without Central approval. Is the lease valid?

Issue. Whether the land is covered by the Act, and whether the lease needed Central approval.

Law. Section 1A(1)(b) covers land recorded in Government record as forest on or after 25 October 1980; s.2(1)(ii) and (iii) require prior Central approval for non-forest use and for assignment by lease; Godavarman; s.3A and s.3B; appeal under s.2A.

Application. The land has been recorded as forest since 1985, so it is covered even though it was never notified, and the 1996 saving does not apply as no diversion order was made before 12 December 1996. A resort is a non-forest purpose and is not among the exempt activities, and the lease assigns forest land to a private person. Both need prior Central approval.

Conclusion. The lease is void for want of approval; the officers responsible are liable under s.3A read with s.3B; an aggrieved person may approach the NGT under s.2A. The public trust doctrine in Kamal Nath supports the same result.

How this is examined

February 2025 asked for the restrictions on de-reservation of forests and use of forest land for non-forest purposes; the syllabus adds “judicial approach”. Quote s.2 in full, explain “non-forest purpose”, add s.1A and the exemptions, and give Godavarman in detail. Mention the renaming and the 2023 amendment; an answer that ignores them is out of date.