Supreme Court Upholds NGT Order: Master Plan Prevails Over Subsequent Tree Growth in Bijwasan Railway Land

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal against the National Green Tribunal’s order that had dismissed an Original Application challenging a Request for Proposal issued by the Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA). The petitioners before this Court assailed the NGT’s conclusion that portions of the Bijwasan railway land in Delhi did not attract the prohibitions under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as “forest” or “deemed forest”, and therefore prior Central Government sanction for diversion was not required.

The Court upheld the NGT’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal, holding that a duly approved and notified Master Plan possessed statutory force and could not be unsettled merely by subsequent growth of vegetation on land that, at the time of the Plan, was not recorded as forest. The Court noted that the question whether land constituted “forest” or “deemed forest” required assessment in light of historical land use, revenue and planning records and the date on which the Master Plan came into force. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Taking into consideration the above and the nature of Master Plan as discussed earlier, it can be concluded that a duly approved and notified Master Plan possesses statutory force and provides the governing framework for use of land and urban development, and its operation cannot be unsettled merely on account of subsequent changes in vegetation or tree growth, particularly where such growth includes invasive species that do not form part of a natural forest ecosystem. In the absence of any contemporaneous material demonstrating that the land possessed the character of forest at the time of formation of the Master Plan, the subsequent proliferation of vegetation cannot alter its legal status or impede the implementation of the development contemplated under the Master Plan. Consequently, the Master Plan must prevail, and the subject land cannot be treated as “deemed forest” and thus, no permission or sanction of the Central Government under Section 2 of 1980 Act would be required. This Appeal is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.” The Court further emphasised that “the sanctity and statutory binding force of the Master Plan will have primacy and shall prevail.”

Background

The dispute arose over a combined Multi-Use plot (MU4+MU5+MU6) of approximately 12.40 hectares at New Bijwasan, Delhi, which formed part of a larger tract acquired in 1986 and allotted to the Railways in 2008 for the Integrated Metropolitan Passenger Terminal (IMPT). RLDA issued an RFP dated 19.12.2022 for mixed-use development; Bagmane Developers (BDPL) secured the lease in May 2023. An Original Applicant before the NGT contended that the subject land comprised forest or “deemed forest” and contained over a thousand trees, so cutting or diversion required prior Central approval under the 1980 Act. The NGT dismissed that OA for lack of cogent material establishing forest status and on the basis that the criteria for deemed forest were not met.

The petitioners in this Court — who were not parties before the NGT — challenged the NGT’s acceptance of RLDA’s position and relied upon the principles in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad and subsequent authorities. The respondents placed before the Court revenue, acquisition and planning records showing the land’s agricultural/barren character at the time of allotment and inclusion in the DDA Master Plan (2015) and Master Plan of Delhi (2021). During the appeal proceedings, the Deputy Conservator of Forest filed a report (09.01.2025) identifying certain patches within the subject land as falling under the category of deemed forest (with tree counts and an observation that roughly 70% comprised invasive species such as Vilayati Kikar). The Court observed precedent including T.N. Godavarman, the NOIDA park judgment and Chandra Prakash Budakoti and held that revenue and planning records contemporaneous to formation of a Master Plan remained material.

The Court answered the key issues by holding that land which was not recorded as forest or fulfilling deemed forest criteria at the time the Master Plan came into force could not thereafter be declared forest so as to override the statutory force of an approved Master Plan; the relevant date for determining “deemed forest” was the date of the Master Plan’s coming into force. The Court recorded undertakings by RLDA and the Ministry that work in the patches identified as deemed forest would proceed only after obtaining all statutory permissions; the respondents also undertook measures for transplantation, compensatory afforestation and maintenance of the project’s 20% green area. The Court directed that native/indigenous species be preferred in transplantation and that compensatory afforestation comply strictly with statutory provisions. The Appeal and the contempt petition were disposed of; there was no order as to costs. Earlier interim orders of this Court had restrained felling and construction on the subject land pending adjudication.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.10656 OF 2024
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 270
Case Title: NAVEEN SOLANKI AND ANOTHER v. RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 226