The Supreme Court held that any direction permitting cutting or removal of trees must comply with forest laws and the binding definition of “forest” laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, clarifying that legal procedures continue to apply irrespective of disputed ownership claims.
Case Information
- Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh through its Secretary & Others vs. Jyoti Bhushan Mishra & Another
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- Date of Judgment: December 10, 2025
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 2012
- Citation: Not specified in the order
Background of the Dispute
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dated February 23, 2006, which had allowed a writ petition filed by the private respondents and issued certain directions in relation to land situated within the Sahelwa Wildlife Sanctuary in Balrampur district of Uttar Pradesh.
The Sahelwa Wildlife Sanctuary was notified on November 14, 1988. One of its forest ranges, the Barehawa range, includes the Ganeshpur Beat comprising compartments 1, 2, and 3. The village of Narainpur Jhingha was geographically surrounded by compartments 1 and 2 of this forest area.
The roots of the dispute date back to December 28, 1965, when farmers of Narainpur Jhingha approached the Divisional Forest Officer seeking an exchange of their agricultural land with land located on the outskirts of the forest.
The request was made on the ground that wild animals from the forest were regularly destroying their crops.
With the approval of the State Government, 82.57 acres of agricultural land at Garhwa village belonging to the farmers were exchanged with 53 acres of land situated within forest areas.
Following the exchange, the Forest Department initiated plantation activities on the land received from the farmers. Over time, the area developed into a forested tract and became homogeneous with the surrounding forest.
The Forest Department remained in continuous and uninterrupted possession of this land for over two decades, during which the newly grown forest merged with the existing wildlife habitat.
However, the land was never formally declared a Reserve Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, even though the surrounding forests had been notified as Reserve Forests earlier.
Sale of Exchanged Land and Emergence of Dispute
According to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in 1990, three out of the original 27 farmers who had participated in the land exchange illegally sold the land at Narainpur Jhingha to the present respondents.
The State asserted that the purchasers were fully aware that the land had been subject to an exchange with the Forest Department.
Despite this knowledge, the land was purchased and registered at a valuation described by the State as substantially lower than the actual value. The State contended that both the sale transaction and the sale deed were void ab initio.
In 1995, the respondents approached the Divisional Forest Officer seeking permission to cut and remove fallen and dry standing trees from the disputed land.
The respondents claimed that although the exchange had taken place as early as 1970, the same was not reflected in the revenue records.
It was undisputed, however, that the original tenure holders had taken possession of the Garhwa village land and were cultivating it.
When the respondents applied for permission on August 15, 1995, they were informed that their request could not be considered because the land had been declared Reserve Forest under notifications issued on July 4, 1970, and January 11, 1971, under the Indian Forest Act.
The Divisional Forest Officer formally rejected the request on September 22, 1995. This rejection order became the subject matter of challenge before the Allahabad High Court.
High Court’s Reasoning and Directions
Before the High Court, the respondents sought a declaration that the land in question was not forest land. However, the High Court declined to examine this issue in detail.
It recorded that the State authorities themselves had admitted that no proceedings were pending for declaring the disputed plots as Reserve Forest and that the land had never been formally notified as such.
On this basis, the High Court observed that there was no occasion to issue a writ of certiorari to quash any proceedings under Chapter II of the Indian Forest Act.
The High Court further held that it would be impermissible in law to restrain statutory authorities from taking recourse to due process of law.
At the same time, it noted that until the plots were declared and notified as Reserve Forest, the authorities could not interfere with the possession of the respondents as owners, except in accordance with law.
Based on this reasoning, the High Court passed a final direction stating that if the respondents lifted trees that had already fallen, such activity should not be obstructed on the ground that the land was a Reserve Forest.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court, contending that the legal status of the land had not been properly examined and that the High Court had issued directions without considering relevant statutory notifications and documents.
After examining the matter, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not considered the legal status of the land in its correct perspective, primarily because the necessary notifications and related documents were not placed before it.
The Supreme Court noted that the only operative direction of the High Court was that, if permission was required for cutting trees, an application should be made and disposed of in accordance with law.
The Court emphasized that any order or direction permitting the cutting of trees or removal of cut trees must be examined in light of the definition of “forest” as laid down by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267.
It reiterated that the obligation to follow procedures under applicable forest laws, rules, and regulations continues to apply.
Final Decision
With these clarifications, the Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeal. The Court did not grant any blanket permission for tree cutting or removal but made it clear that statutory procedures governing forest land and forest produce must be strictly followed. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
The State of Uttar Pradesh through its Secretary & Others vs. Jyoti Bhushan Mishra & Another
