Chandigarh, Aug. 20 -- Haryana has taken the extraordinary step of defining what constitutes a "dictionary meaning" of forest, 18 months after the Supreme Court reiterated its December 1996 order asking the states to identify forests using that very phrase's broad interpretation. In a notification issued on August 18, the state government defined the expression "forest as per dictionary meaning" with restrictive technical criteria that environmental activists say could exclude most of the state's remaining Aravalli forests from legal protection. The definition requires forest areas to have a minimum canopy density of 40% and cover at least five hectares if isolated, or two hectares in contiguity to government-notified forests. It however excluded all linear, compact, agro-forestry plantations and orchards situatedoutside the government notified forests. The definition coined by the state government would pave the way for identification of forest as per the dictionary meaning. This will facilitate preparation of a consolidated record, including the forest like areas identified by an expert committee constituted for this purpose, unclassed forest lands or community forest lands on which the provisions of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, will be made applicable. "Since a definition is in place now, the state government would constitute an expert committee to identify the forest areas in the state as per the newly defined dictionary meaning criteria,'' said a forest official. The report will be submitted to the central government which will place it before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court (SC) in its December 12,1996, judgement in TN Godavarman case had reinterpreted the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, to include within its scope not only forests as mentioned in government record but all areas that are forests in the dictionary meaning of the term irrespective of the ownership and classification. The Haryana government however did not come up with a dictionary meaning of the forest all these years. The apex court while hearing another petition (Ashok Kumar Sharma v/s Union of India) escalated pressure on states to comply with the broad forest definition. The challenge in this case arose because the Forest Conservation (amendment) Act 2023 would have legalised all forest diversions between 1980 and 1996, while stripping protection from unrecorded forests. The main grievance raised by the petitioners in the Ashok Sharma case was that the Forest Conservation (amendment) Act, 2023, has an effect of diluting the definition of forest as defined by SC in its December 12, 1996, order. They contended that as per the order in Godavarman case the definition of forest has to be understood in the dictionary sense and Section 1A of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, is likely to restrict the definition of forest and exclude the aforesaid category of forest, as understood in accordance with the dictionary sense, from the ambit of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The SC said that rule 16 (1) of Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023 required all state governments to prepare a consolidated record of such lands, including the forest like areas identified by the expert committee constituted for this purpose, unclassed forest lands or community forest lands on which the provisions of the 1980 Act shall be made applicable. "We find that once an exercise, as required to be done under Rule 16 (1) is completed, it will lead to resolution of many issues. It is thus necessary that all state governments make an earnest effort to complete the said exercise within a stipulated period. While doing so, they would also be bound to follow the SC guidelines of July 6, 2011 order in Lafarge case which mandated creation of a GIS based decision support database, tentatively containing inter alia the district-wise details of the location and boundary of each plot of land that may be defined as forest for the purpose of the Forest Conservation Act, the core, buffer and eco-sensitive zone of the protected areas constituted as per the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the important migratory corridors for wildlife and forest land diverted for non-forest purpose in the past in the district. The digital toposheets of Survey of India, the forest cover maps prepared by the Forest Survey of India in preparation of the successive state of forest reports and the conditions stipulated in the approvals accorded under the Forest Conservation Act for each case of diversion of forest land in the district will also be part of the proposed decision support database." The redefinition, activists say, will deal a blow to the Aravalli forests, especially the 40% canopy density requirement for a region that has naturally adapted to dry conditions with scrub and open forest cover. "Even Asola Bhatti wildlife sanctuary in Delhi Aravallis and contiguous to Gurgaon and Faridabad Aravallis would not meet this high threshold. The minimum area threshold of two and five hectares is also unreasonably high for such a dry state and should have been kept at 1 and 2 hectares respectively," independent forest analyst Chetan Agarwal said. Agarwal explained that while the northern Shivaliks receive 1000-1200mm of annual rainfall, the Aravallis in the southand west get just 300-600mm annually. "This low rainfall and the rocky terrain creates tough conditions for growth of the Aravallis forests and therefore the Aravalli vegetation has adapted over millions of years into a stunted growth of thorny and dry deciduous species and scrub forest conditions." "At least in the Aravalli hills the open forest (10-40%) and scrub (0-10%) categories should have been treated as forest as per dictionary meaning and 10% should have been the threshold in the rest of the state," Agarwal said. "The decision to keep such a high threshold of forest cover of 40% will further exclude much of the potential deemed forest of the Aravallis from the protective embrace of the Forest Conservation Act and may facilitate opening them up to the ravages of the licences of Town and Country Planning and Mining departments and their clients,'' Agarwal said....