Patta Land or Forest Land? Forest Land Classification in Large-Scale Land Aggregation across Telangana

A utility-scale solar park does not sit on a single parcel. It is usually assembled from fragmented holdings, often 50 to 100 survey numbers across two or three revenue villages. In Telangana, affordable land of this kind often lies along the fringes of notified forest blocks. This location carries a title risk, as an aggregation of this scale will often surface survey numbers bearing Nizam-era or colonial entries that read as forest nomenclature. The due diligence question is whether such an entry in the Pahani or the Bhu Bharati Record of Rights, standing alone, makes a survey number “forest land” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FCA”), even where the land is held on patta.

The Statutory Framework

Section 2 of the FCA bars any State Government or other authority, without prior approval of the Central Government, from directing “that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose”.^[1] The same approval is required to lease forest land to a private person.^[2]

“Forest land” was undefined until the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 inserted Section 1A, which covers land declared or notified as forest, and land recorded in “Government record” as forest on or after 25 October 1980, save land converted to non-forest use on or before 12 December 1996 under an authorised order.^[3] “Government record” includes records held by the Revenue or Forest Department.^[4] A revenue record classifying a survey number as forest may therefore bring the land within the Act.

Section 1A builds on T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that forest land includes “‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense” and “any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.”^[5] Section 1A codifies only the second part of that holding. However, an interim order of 19 February 2024 in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India keeps the Godavarman understanding in force pending the Rule 16 identification exercise.^[6] On 16 September 2026, the Supreme Court confined the proceedings to the validity of the 2023 amendment and observed that jurisdictional High Courts could oversee any identification of forest areas.^[7] Until the Rule 16 exercise is complete and the challenge is decided, land with the physical character of forest cannot safely be treated as outside the Act.

Patta Lands and the Notification Requirement

The Ramanaiah litigation ran for nearly 15 years. Pattadars of about 38 acres adjoining the Gudem Reserve Forest applied for felling permits.^[8] The Forest Department refused, first on the ground that felling in the Pranahita catchment would cause ecological degradation, and then on the ground that the land fell inside the reserve forest,^[9] though a joint Revenue-Forest survey had placed it outside.^[10] The High Court set aside the orders, holding that, under both the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (“APFA”) and the FCA, “a notification, as such, must exist, declaring the land as forest of one category, or the other.”^[11]

The Division Bench did not affirm that finding. The 1958 notification, issued under the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 Fasli, described the boundaries by natural features, village names and survey numbers, some of which no longer existed, and the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records reported that the boundary could not be refixed with certainty.^[12] Invoking Godavarman, the Bench ordered a fresh identification correlated with the Survey of India map of 1927.^[13] When that survey again placed the land outside the reserve, the Court, in the third round, held the Department’s appeal to a revenue authority not maintainable and awarded costs.^[14]

The first-round view that notification is indispensable even under the FCA conflicted with Godavarman when it was made, and cannot survive Section 1A(1)(b). The Pahani entry showing the land as forest was never tested.^[15] Boundary verification can take years, and acquisition timelines should provide for this.

Revenue Entries as Neither Proof nor Disproof of Forest Status

In A. Narendraraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, concerning quarry leases over Adavi Poramboke land,^[16] the Court held that “either the land must be a notified forest land or at least recorded as ‘forest’ in the relevant records”, and that the suffix Poramboke, meaning waste land, “suggests that no forest growth exists on the land”.^[17] In K. Venkataratnamma v. Divisional Forest Officer, the Court held that “unless and until the land is notified . . . it cannot be said that it forms part of a Reserved Forest.”^[18]

In P. Suri Babu v. District Forest Officer, however, the Department asserted that land recorded as Gattu Poramboke lay within a protected forest notified in 1978, conceding that revenue records were often not updated after notifications. The Court still protected the lease. The Department had not proved its assertion by admissible evidence, its survey had not been conducted in the lessee’s presence, and the Department should have corrected the revenue entries rather than obstruct a valid lease, though it remained free to act in accordance with law.^[19]

These decisions indicate that a reference to land as poramboke in the revenue records neither establishes nor negates reserved or protected forest status; a benign entry may conceal a notification, and a forest-sounding one may be no more than a place name. After Section 1A, the diligence question is threefold: whether the land is notified, whether any qualifying Government record, on its actual wording, describes it as forest, and, pending the Rule 16 exercise, whether it is forest in the ordinary sense.

Forest Settlement Proceedings and Limitation

Claims over land proposed for reservation must be pursued in forest settlement proceedings.^[20] In Konda Girija v. District Collector, a patta holder seeking deletion of her land from a reserve forest settled under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Forest Act, 1355 Fasli, failed because she made only representations and did not file the statutory appeal.^[21] A prior representation to the authorities is also required before writ relief is sought. In Mudundi Konda Raju v. Forest Settlement Officer, a settlement pattadar who claimed that his land lay outside a reserve proposed in 1970 had his petition dismissed for want of such a representation, with liberty to make one and an order of status quo in the meantime.^[22]

An appeal against a Forest Settlement Officer (“FSO”) order lies to the District Court under Section 13 of the APFA within 90 days of an order under Section 10(1), or 60 days of an order under Section 11(1).^[23] The Supreme Court has held that this period cannot be breached and that, once a Section 15 notification is issued, no dispute can be raised on the character of the land.^[24] However, in Divisional Forest Officer, Bellampalli v. Forest Settlement Officer / Joint Collector, Adilabad, the High Court condoned a 283-day delay in the Department’s appeal against an FSO finding that some 738 acres were Government land and not forest, and directed that the appeal be heard.^[25]

Counsel should therefore check whether a Section 15 notification has been issued and whether any appeal or application for condonation of delay is pending, and should not treat an FSO finding as final only because the appeal period has expired.

Practical Implications for Renewable Energy Title Opinions

A patta settles ownership but not forest status. Patta land can still be forest land if it is notified as forest or recorded as forest in a qualifying Government record and, while the Supreme Court’s interim order stands, if it is forest in the ordinary sense. For an aggregated solar land bank in Telangana, counsel should:

(a) trace the Section 4(1) proposal and the final notification for every reserve forest abutting the cluster, and match their boundaries against each survey number;

(b) review Pahani and other Government records from 25 October 1980 for any forest entry, and any authorised conversion on or before 12 December 1996;

(c) obtain a joint Revenue-Forest survey in the landholder’s presence and, where the notified boundary is only descriptive, correlated with Survey of India toposheets;

(d) record the physical character of the land and check whether it falls within any forest-like area identified by the State expert committee constituted under the Godavarman directions and recorded under Rule 16(1);^[26] and

(e) in any settlement proceedings, confirm whether objections and appeals were filed in time, whether any application for condonation of delay is pending or has been allowed, and whether any FSO finding has become final.

The notification search and joint survey address whether the land is notified forest; the record review addresses whether a Government record describes it as forest; and the physical assessment addresses whether it is forest in the ordinary sense, which remains relevant pending the Rule 16 exercise. Together, the steps cover each ground on which land may be forest land, so they are cumulative. Only after completing this sequence, and not on the strength of the revenue entry alone, should a title report state any conclusion on forest status.

^[1] Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (formerly the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980), Section 2(1)(ii).

^[2] Ibid., Section 2(1)(iii).

^[3] Ibid., Section 1A (inserted by Act 15 of 2023, w.e.f. 01 December 2023).

^[4] Ibid., Section 1A, Explanation.

^[5] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.

^[6] Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1164 of 2023 (S.C., interim order dated 19 February 2024), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/40155/40155_2023_1_22_50541_Order_19-Feb-2024.pdf; Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, Rule 16(1).

^[7] Ashok Kumar Sharma, supra note 6, order dated 16 September 2026.

^[8] Ch. Ramanaiah v. Divisional Forest Officer, W.P. No. 11432 of 2014 (High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, 04 February 2016), paras 3–4.

^[9] Ch. Ramanaiah v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, W.P. Nos. 16868 and 16881 of 2006 (A.P. H.C., 11 April 2007).

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid. The APFA now applies in Telangana as the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 (as adapted).

^[12] Divisional Forest Officer, Kaghaznagar v. Ch. Ramanaiah, W.A. Nos. 601 and 634 of 2007 (A.P. H.C., 29 April 2011).

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ch. Ramanaiah, supra note 8, paras 20–22, 33–42, 44–45.

^[15] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, supra note 5; Divisional Forest Officer, Kaghaznagar v. Ch. Ramanaiah, supra note 12.

^[16] A. Narendraraja v. Government of A.P., 2008 (4) ALT 805 (A.P. H.C., W.P. Nos. 10345 and 10002 of 2005, 11 July 2008).

^[17] Ibid.

^[18] K. Venkataratnamma v. Divisional Forest Officer, W.P. No. 10958 of 2003 (A.P. H.C., 10 November 2010).

^[19] P. Suri Babu v. District Forest Officer, W.P. No. 3678 of 2007 (A.P. H.C., 31 December 2010).

^[20] State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) per LRs., 2024 INSC 310 (S.C., 18 April 2024), paras 10–11.

^[21] Konda Girija v. District Collector, Khammam, W.A. No. 1065 of 2005 (A.P. H.C., 22 June 2005).

^[22] Mudundi Konda Raju v. Forest Settlement Officer, W.P. No. 1322 of 2008 (A.P. H.C., 29 January 2008).

^[23] APFA, Section 13(1); Mohd. Abdul Qasim, supra note 20, para 11.

^[24] Mohd. Abdul Qasim, supra note 20, paras 12–13.

^[25] Divisional Forest Officer, Bellampalli v. Forest Settlement Officer / Joint Collector, Adilabad, C.R.P. No. 1491 of 2009 (A.P. H.C., 21 October 2011).

^[26] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, supra note 5, direction 3; Ashok Kumar Sharma, supra note 6, interim order dated 19 February 2024, paras 21–22, and order dated 04 March 2025, as recorded and clarified in the order dated 16 September 2026, paras 3 and 7; Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, Rule 16(1).