Forest land and environmental clearance thresholds did not bar the project, but strict sanctuary safeguards were imposed.

Tree cover alone did not make the project site forest land or deemed forest, because the land was agricultural, absent from revenue records as forest, and not identified as forest in the relevant State exercise; section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 therefore did not apply. The project also fell outside the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, since it was treated as an area development project and remained below the applicable area and built-up thresholds, so no prior environmental clearance was required. Although proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary raised ecological concerns, demolition was refused and the project was allowed to proceed subject to expert-recommended safeguards and protective directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the project site could be treated as forest land or deemed forest so as to attract the prohibition in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (ii) whether the project required prior environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006; (iii) whether the project, because of its proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, had to be demolished or could be permitted to proceed with safeguards.

Issue (i): Whether the project site could be treated as forest land or deemed forest so as to attract the prohibition in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Analysis: The statutory restriction under section 2(ii) applies only to forest land. The material on record showed that the land had been agricultural in character, was never recorded as jungle or forest in the revenue records, and had been acquired and used for an urban park. The tree cover found on the site consisted of planted trees, and the site had not been identified as forest or deemed forest in the State exercise undertaken pursuant to the Court's earlier directions. The wide meaning of forest adopted in earlier cases was held to depend on context and could not be mechanically extended to every tree-covered tract.

Conclusion: The project site was not forest land, and the construction did not contravene section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Issue (ii): Whether the project required prior environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.

Analysis: The notification required prior environmental clearance for listed projects and classified building and area development projects according to area and built-up area. On the facts, the project was not a mere building and construction project but an area development project falling within item 8(b). Its total area was below 50 hectares and its built-up area, even on the broader computation, remained below the applicable threshold of 1,50,000 square metres. The Court also held that the ancillary arguments based on activity area, general condition and the office memorandum did not arise once the project was outside the notification's ambit.

Conclusion: The project did not fall within the ambit of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and no prior environmental clearance was required under that notification.

Issue (iii): Whether the project, because of its proximity to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, had to be demolished or could be permitted to proceed with safeguards.

Analysis: Although the project site's proximity to the sanctuary raised serious ecological concerns, the expert materials did not show that the project was so destructive as to warrant demolition. The Court accepted that the sanctuary needed protection and that the project should be reshaped to reduce hard landscaping, increase green cover, and strengthen the protective buffer on the sanctuary side. It therefore adopted the expert recommendations and imposed additional environmental safeguards, including supervision by an expert committee.

Conclusion: Demolition was refused, and the project was permitted to be completed subject to the expert recommendations and the Court's protective directions.

Final Conclusion: The objections based on forest law and prior environmental clearance failed, but the project was allowed to proceed only under strict environmental safeguards aimed at protecting the adjacent bird sanctuary.

Ratio Decidendi: A tree-covered area does not become forest land merely because trees were planted or because a broad definition of forest was invoked; the statutory and regulatory scheme must be applied in its factual and contextual setting, and a project falling outside the applicable environmental clearance thresholds cannot be restrained on that basis alone.

---