Utttarakhand government defines 'forest' twice, high court rejects it both times

NAINITAL: Two months after it stayed the definition of "deemed forests" introduced by the state government in November last year, the Uttarakhand high court (HC) on Friday once again put a stay on the changes made by the administration in February.
As reported by TOI earlier, the HC had on December 10 last year put a stay on the state government’s office order which defined deemed forest as “a patch of land of at least 10 hectares and having at least 60 % canopy cover along with at least 75% native species.”
This, environmentalists said, was "an arbitrary definition".They alleged that it was unclear how the government arrived at the figure of 10 hectare and 75% native species in categorising an area as forest land. They pointed out that in 2017, the Forest Survey of India had defined forest as one hectare or more land with 10% canopy cover. However, this definition was also questioned in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that sought to know how this conclusion was reached.
“The dictionary meaning of the word forest ( any large area with trees and undergrowth) is being tampered with simply to make profit out of forest land," environmentalist Reenu Paul had told TOI when the definition was first announced.
Even as the HC was hearing three petitions challenging the original government order — the move had been opposed by several environmentalists who alleged that the decision was meant to primarily benefit the land and mining mafia in taking over forest land — the state government this month further tweaked the definition. As per the revised definition, deemed forest was now “a patch of land of at least five hectares and having 40 % canopy cover.”
Ajay Singh Rawat, a Nainital-based former professor of Kumaun University, who has petitioned against the state government in the matter, told TOI on Friday, “We welcome the HC directive. The new definition was primarily intended to duck the high court stay order, and to make the pending petitions in the case infructuous.”
Rajeev Bisht, the lawyer representing Rawat, added that the bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Narayan Singh Dhanik heard the case for three consecutive days before deciding to stay the new government order. “We argued before the court that the new definition was in complete violation of a Supreme Court order and is also against the Forest Conservation Act. However, the government through their counsels and forest officials said that the new definition was justified and that it benefits the forests. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the court decided to stay the revised definition as well,” Bisht said.
Rawat said, “If one went by the revised definition of the state government, around 9,000 square kilometer of forest land will not be considered so in the state. It is therefore clear that the aim of passing such orders is to …benefit the builder mafia.”
Madan Kaushik, urban development minister and spokesperson for the government, told TOI, “We will study the HC order in detail and further course of action will be decided accordingly.”