Gurgaon: Supreme Court has clarified that disputes over identification of individual forest parcels will have to be dealt with by jurisdictional high courts. The court, hearing a challenge on Sept 16 to the constitutional validity of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, said its proceedings would remain confined to validity of the amended definition of “forest” and it would not supervise the identification of forest areas across different states. The order was released on Wednesday.A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana clarified that its March 4, 2025 directions would stand modified to that extent and jurisdictional high courts are better placed to examine whether specific parcels qualify as forest.The order is crucial for Haryana, which, in Aug 2025, codified its definition of “forest as per dictionary meaning” for the first time. Under the state’s criteria, an isolated patch must measure at least five hectares, or two hectares if contiguous with govt-notified forests, and must have a canopy density of at least 40%.The state is carrying out the identification exercise on the basis of these criteria. “Several districts have already submitted their findings, while some are still pending as they are still in the process of identification,” said KC Meena, principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Haryana.SC said high courts could consider both the pre-amendment definition laid down in its 1996 TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India judgment and the expression introduced through the 2023 amendment while deciding disputes linked to individual parcels.The court said the nature of the land, its geographical location and other relevant factors concerning areas sought to be included in or excluded from the forest category could also be examined.The apex court raised questions about the manner in which states were carrying out the identification exercise. “We are not aware” whether affected persons, or those likely to be affected, had been given an opportunity to be heard, it said. The court also questioned whether independent teams of experts had been assigned the task.In its March 4, 2025, order, SC had directed states and Union territories to identify forest areas based on the definition laid down in the Godavarman judgment and prepare consolidated records of such land, including forest-like areas identified by expert committees.The latest clarification came while the court was hearing applications filed by landowners in Tamil Nadu’s Kanyakumari, who claimed their agricultural and plantation land had been declared private forest. The court declined to entertain their plea, noting that the issue was already pending before Madras high court, and granted them liberty to raise their contentions there.The SC clarified it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of their claim.The proceedings arise from a challenge to the 2023 amendment, which revised the statutory definition of forest. The petitioners have argued that the amended definition is contrary to the broader understanding of forest laid down by the apex court in the 1996 Godavarman judgment.The main matter has been listed for final disposal on Dec 3.Haryana’s 40% canopy criterion was notified after SC’s March 2025 directions. The state has said the criterion applies to areas outside govt-notified forests. The ongoing identification exercise will determine which additional areas qualify for protection under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.The apex court’s latest order does not approve or reject Haryana’s 40% criterion. It makes clear that questions concerning the identification of specific parcels can be examined by the jurisdictional high court.
