Chandra Prakash Budakoti v. Union of India
Background
A journalist from Uttarakhand filed a public interest application before the National Green Tribunal alleging large-scale illegal tree felling and blasting in private forest land near Narendranagar, Tehri Garhwal, where a resort was being constructed. The Tribunal held that two of the disputed parcels (Khasra No. 512 and 513) were "private forest" land attracting the Forest (Conservation) Act and ordered action against the violators, but found a third parcel (Khasra No. 605) to be barren/non-forest revenue land not covered by the Act, relying on a site inspection rather than a Forest Survey of India report that had suggested degradation of forest cover. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's finding on Khasra No. 605 before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Forest Survey of India's report was unreliable because it measured the parcel's area inconsistently with the official revenue records and proceeded on a generalized "tree canopy density" test without consulting those records. The Court gave weight to the older revenue records, which recorded Khasra No. 605 as "banjar" (barren) land since 1938, predating the dispute, and found no evidence of blasting or recent tree felling there, so the Forest Conservation Act did not apply to that plot. The Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the appeal, while also directing that the already-ordered inquiry into the unchallenged violations on the other two parcels (512 and 513) be completed within three months.
Lesson Learnt
In disputes over whether land counts as "forest" for environmental protection purposes, long-standing official revenue records predating any dispute carry significant evidentiary weight, and a survey report inconsistent with those records on basic facts like plot area can be rejected by courts.