The Supreme Court of India has held that land earmarked for a project under an approved Master Plan, which was not recorded as forest or deemed forest at the time the plan came into force, cannot be subsequently declared as such due to the natural growth of trees or invasive species.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment in Naveen Solanki and Another v. Rail Land Development Authority and Others (Civil Appeal No. 10656 of 2024), dismissing an appeal against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order. The Court clarified that the “sanctity and statutory binding force of the Master Plan will have primacy” over changes occurring through natural or human intervention after the plan’s notification.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned a 12.40-hectare land parcel (MU4+MU5+MU6) situated along the New Bijwasan Railway Station in Delhi. The Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in December 2022 for a mixed-use development project (55% residential and 45% commercial) on this land.
The project was challenged before the NGT by a resident, Shri R.M. Asif, alleging that the subject land was “deemed forest” under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as it contained approximately 1,100 trees. The NGT dismissed the application on February 13, 2024, noting that the applicant failed to prove the land was forest and that the 2023 Amendment to the 1980 Act excluded deemed forests.
While the original applicant did not appeal, two advocates, Naveen Solanki and another, moved the Supreme Court as “public-spirited persons.”
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants contended that the land is a dense forest home to various species and meets the “deemed forest” criteria established in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (1997). They presented a private survey claiming 530 trees stood on just 2.5 acres, exceeding the 100-trees-per-acre threshold used in Delhi.
The Rail Land Development Authority (Respondent No. 1) and Bagmane Developers (Respondent No. 4) argued that the land was agricultural/barren when acquired in 1986 and when handed over to the Railways by the DDA in 2009. They asserted that the project is a critical public infrastructure work under the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 to decongest central Delhi. They further argued that 70% of the existing trees are invasive species like Vilayati Kikar (Prosopis juliflora), which harm local biodiversity.
The Forest Department (Respondent No. 3) initially stated the land was not notified forest but could not rule out “deemed forest” status. A later survey in 2025 identified certain patches as meeting deemed forest criteria but noted the predominance of invasive species.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court identified two core issues: whether land earmarked in a Master Plan can be declared “deemed forest” due to the efflux of time, and what the relevant date for determining the nature of such land is.
1. Primacy of the Master Plan
The Court observed that a Master Plan is a statutory instrument with binding force.
“Once a Master Plan is duly prepared, approved by the competent authority, and brought into force in accordance with law, it attains statutory force and becomes binding on all stakeholders.”
The Bench held that if land is not recorded as forest when the Master Plan is formulated, subsequent natural growth cannot unsettle the plan.
“The subsequent emergence or proliferation of vegetation over a period of time cannot, by itself, bring the land within the ambit of deemed forest so as to unsettle the planning framework already put in place.”
2. Relevant Date for Determination
The Court ruled that the nature of the land must be assessed as of the date the Master Plan comes into force. It cited Re: Construction of Park at NOIDA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary (2011), noting it is inconceivable that agricultural land could become forest land within a few years simply due to plantation or natural growth.
3. Invasive Species vs. Forest Ecosystem
The judgment made a sharp distinction between indigenous ecosystems and invasive alien species like Vilayati Kikar.
“The mere proliferation of vegetation, particularly where it consists of invasive alien species… does not necessarily signify the presence of a natural forest ecosystem.”
The Court noted that these species often displace native plants and disrupt the ecological balance, and their presence should not automatically trigger forest protection laws to the detriment of planned development.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the contempt petition. It held that:
- Land earmarked for a project under an approved Master Plan cannot be subsequently declared a forest if it did not fulfill those requirements when the Plan came into force.
- The relevant date for determining “deemed forest” status is the date of the Master Plan’s notification.
However, the Court directed the authorities to:
- Ensure maximum transplantation of native trees.
- Replace invasive species with indigenous ones to sustain ecological balance.
- Strictly follow compensatory afforestation as per statutory rules before commencing work.
Case Details
- Case Title: Naveen Solanki and Another v. Rail Land Development Authority and Others
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10656 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
- Date: March 20, 2026
