ORDER

1. By our order dated 10-7-1996 we had passed an interim order to the effect that construction which has begun at the site but had not proceeded beyond the plinth shall not bepermitted to be started till we know the stand of the State of U. P and the Union of India as regards the applicability of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules made thereunder. We had also noticed the submissions of the counsel for MDDA that the provisions of the said statute has limited application, in that, it prohibits breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants for any purposes other than afforestation excluding any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development, management of forest and the establishment of check-posts etc. The question which this Court is required to consider is whether the area in question is a forest and stands covered under the 1980 Act, to prevent building activity on open areas within the forest. MDDA had then contended that according to its understanding the activity which is not covered under the explanation to Section 2 of the 1980 Act is permissible. After this order was made notices were issued to as many as 27 parties and their responses were called for. The allegations against these 27 parties was that they had raised construction within the forest area in violation of the provisions of the a 1980 Act without obtaining clearance from the Central Government. So far as State of U.P. and MDDA are concerned they were at that relevant point of time of the opinion that the permission of the Central Government was not required if the building activity did not, in any manner, require felling of trees or causing any harm to the existing trees. This is what is found to have been stated in the letter of the Conservator of Forests, Yamuna Circle, U.P. dated 13-9-1988. That is, however, a matter of the past. What is important is that the stand now taken by the State of U.P. as well as MDDA is that in view of Section 2(u) the clearance from the Central Government was necessary. That provision states that notwithstanding anything contained for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose and the explanation states that non-forest purposes shall mean the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants for any purpose other than afforestation but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forest. It is, therefore, clear from this provision which has overriding effect on all laws for the time being in force in a State that no State Government or other authority which would include MDDA can make any order without the approval of the Central Government for the user of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose as explained by the explanation thereto. The term "forest land" has not been defined under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or the 1980 Act and, therefore, has to be understood as including an extensive track of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture, i.e., it will have to be understood in the broad dictionary sense. So understood any area which the State Act considers to be a forest and is governed under that law will also be subject to Section 2(u) of the 1980 Act. Viewed in this light, any land which the State of U.P. by notification declares to be a forest would be governed under Section 2(u) of the 1980 Act.

2. Mr Ahmad, the learned ASG appearing for MDDA, very fairly stated that on a true construction of Section 2(u) of