The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that its earlier restraint on cutting, pruning or transporting trees without prior permission will not apply to land categories exempted under Section 1A of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, including security-related infrastructure projects.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that its earlier order restricting tree cutting without prior permission will not apply to land categories specifically exempted under Section 1A of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf issued the clarification in a petition filed by the Indian Army.
The Court clarified that its order dated 26.11.2025 would not apply to exempted land categories covered under Section 1A of the Act, as amended by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023.
Security Infrastructure Projects Exempted
The Bench noted that the Forest (Conservation) Act creates specific exceptions for security-related infrastructure projects.
Scope Of Section 1A
The amended Section 1A of the Forest (Conservation) Act identifies the categories of land covered under the Act. At the same time, it also specifies exempted categories.
The Act applies to notified forests, declared forests, and recorded forest land. However, it excludes certain categories such as:
- small roadside forest land,
- railway-side forest land,
- trees grown outside recorded forest areas, and
- land connected with strategic or security-related projects.
Indian Army Sought Clarification
The Indian Army approached the High Court seeking clarification regarding the earlier order passed on November 26, 2025.
That order restrained authorities from cutting trees without prior permission from the Committee constituted by the National Green Tribunal and the concerned Tree Officer.
The Army argued that the restriction could obstruct proposed security-related infrastructure projects despite the statutory exemption available under the Forest (Conservation) Act.
DSG Relied On Sections 1A And 4
Deputy Solicitor General S.M. Guru, appearing for the Indian Army, referred to Sections 1A and 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Act.
He also submitted certain details before the Court in a sealed cover.
After considering the application, the Division Bench clarified that the earlier restraint order would not apply to land categories specifically exempted under Section 1A of the Act.
Earlier Suo Motu Proceedings
The High Court had earlier initiated suo motu proceedings based on a news report alleging that the Public Works Department had felled 488 trees without obtaining the necessary permissions.
While passing the earlier restraint order, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations regarding the need to minimise tree felling in public projects.
The Bench had restrained the State Government from cutting, pruning, or transporting trees anywhere in Madhya Pradesh without prior approval from the NGT Committee and the concerned Tree Officer.
Case Details
The case was titled Neeraj Garg v Union of India.
The connected matters included WP No. 17144 of 2024, WP/26400/2025, WP/42565/2025, WP/46813/2025, and WP/3885/2026.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi appeared for the petitioner along with Advocates Amalpushp Shroti, H.S. Gupta, B.P. Pathak, Ambikesh K. Shukla, and Alka Singh.
Government Advocate Anubhav Jain represented the State, while Deputy Solicitor General S.M. Guru appeared for the Union Government.
