The Supreme Court of India held that permission to cut or remove trees must comply with the definition of “forest” laid down in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad judgment, even if the land is not formally notified as forest. The case arose from a land exchange in Uttar Pradesh where agricultural land was swapped for forest land due to wildlife damage, after which the Forest Department developed plantations and the land merged with surrounding forest areas. Parts of this land were later illegally sold, and the purchasers sought permission to cut trees, which the High Court allowed without examining relevant forest notifications. Setting aside that approach, the Supreme Court clarified that the term “forest” must be understood broadly as per Godavarman, covering any land recorded as forest in government records irrespective of ownership or notification. The Court emphasized that all statutory procedures under forest and wildlife laws must be strictly followed before granting any permission for tree felling or removal. It also reiterated that illegal transactions involving forest land do not confer enforceable rights. The appeal was disposed of with directions that any future application for cutting trees must be decided strictly in accordance with forest laws and environmental safeguards.