Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia

SEMINAR COURSE – I

NATURAL RESOURCE LAW

Report on:

FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980:

A STUDY OF JUDICIAL TRENDS
Submitted to:

Dr. Parag Chahal,

Faculty, Seminar Course - I

Submitted by:

Humanyu Kabeer

17BLWS121

Semester – IX

DATE: 25.11.2021
 Acknowledgement
This project would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many
individuals. I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Dr. Parag Chahal for his guidance and constant supervision as
well as for providing necessary information regarding the project & also for the support in
completing the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents, seniors and my classmates for
their kind co-operation and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.

Humanyu Kabeer
9th Semester, B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Constitutional Mandate And Forest Conservation .................................................................................................. 5
Forest Conservation and Legislative Action ........................................................................................................... 7
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ................................................................................................................. 7
Forest Conservation: Role of Central Government .............................................................................................. 10
Prior Approval by the Central Government ..................................................................................................... 10
Forest Conservation And Judicial Process ............................................................................................................ 12
National Needs, Forest Conservation and Judicial Attitude: ............................................................................ 13
Grant or Renewal of Lease in Forest Area and Judicial Attitude ..................................................................... 16
Felling of Trees, Forest Conservation and Judicial Attitude ............................................................................ 17
The Godavarman Cases: The High-Water Mark in Forest Protection ........................................................ 17
Central Empowered Committee ........................................................................................................................... 19
Compensatory Afforestation Management & Planning Agency (CAMPA) ......................................................... 20
The Influence of Godavarman Case ................................................................................................................. 20
The National Green Tribunal ................................................................................................................................ 21
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................ 23
Plagiarism Report ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

3
INTRODUCTION
Forests help in maintaining the ecological balance. They render the climate equable, add to
the fertility of the soil, prevent soil erosion, and promote perennial stream flow in rain-fed
rivers. They also shelter wild animals, preserve gene pools, and protect the tribal population.1
Besides the benefits from environmental and ecological perspectives, forests bring revenue
to the state, supply raw material to industries, and act as a source of fuel and fodder.
Forest management always gives rise to conflicting view-points, for instance, development
activities like construction of dam or starting an industry in a forest area often raise questions
regarding the violation of the forest laws. In a society based on the rule of law, conflict of
values is to be reconciled and priorities set. This process should precede and also form the
basis of formulation of legal policies and devices for the management of forests.
Therefore, there arises a requirement for a comprehensive analysis of the protection of the
environment. In recent years, there has been a constant focus on the role played by the Indian
higher judiciary in devising and monitoring the execution of process for pollution control,
preservation of forests, flora and fauna. Numerous judicial interferences have been activated
by the persistent incoherence in policy making as well as the lack of capacity building
amongst the executive mechanism. Devices such as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been
prominently relied upon to tackle environmental problems, and this approach has its
supporters as well as critics.

1
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh.
AIR 1988 SC 2187.

4
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AND FOREST
CONSERVATION
The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 has introduced a new directive
principle of state policy- Article 48-A and a fundamental duty under article 51(A) (g) for the
protection and improvement of environment including forests. These provisions provide as
under:

Article 48-A. - Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and
wild life. - The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

Article 51-A(g) provides-It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion
for living creatures.

A perusal of the above provisions clearly shows that both State and the citizens are under an
obligation to protect and safeguard forests, which will have an impact on the environment.
"Forest" was initially a "State" subject covered by Entry 19 in List II of the VII Schedule.
The Indian Parliament realizing the national significance of the forest has also made changes
in the VII Schedule. Entry 19 in List II of the VII Schedule has been deleted and a new entry
17-A relating to forests has been introduced in the Concurrent List of the VII Schedule by the
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. Thus, State as well as Centre can make
the law relating to forests. The State Government can make laws relating to forest
administration provided it is in consonance with the forests policy of centre for preservation
and development of the nation's forest resources.
India has enough Constitutional provisions which tackle the enviro-crimes in the country and
judiciary has extended the sphere of environmental jurisdiction through its land mark
judgments. However, judicial intervention for the enforcement of environmental provisions
has its own constraints and limitations. 2 First, the judiciary has to function within the
framework of the existing legal system, which is not conductive to effect quick and
expeditious relief to the victims of environmental degradation. Second, judicial intervention

2
The Constitution of India, art. 50.

5
can only be preventive and not protective. Protection, prevention, and promotion of
environment are primarily the job of the legislature and executive organs of the State.3
While the legislature has done its job by enacting the necessary environmental provisions in
the Constitution of India not only for the prevention of enviro-crimes but also for its
protection and promotion, it is the executive, which has to play the major role in the
prevention, protection and promotion of environment by effective implementation of these
Constitutional provisions. It is unfortunate that the executive has failed to take its
responsibility seriously and has not proved equal to its task. Its failure has been mainly
responsible for judicial activism4 in the area of environment in the country. The phenomenon
of PIL in India has been built and shaped manly by activist judges such as Krishna Iyer and
P.N. Bhagwati5 who have been the main architect of PIL movement in the country.
The Constitution of India under Article 21 protects the right to life as a fundamental right.
Enjoyment of life and its attainment including the right to live with human dignity8
encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological
balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed.
Any contracts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environ mental, ecological,
air, water pollution, etc. should be regarded as amounting to violations of Article 21. Thus,
the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been entertaining environmental petitions under
Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution as constituting violation of Article 21.6 While
entertaining environmental litigations by environmental NGOs and enlightened public figures
like M.C. Mehta, these courts have passed landmark judgments, thereby forcing public bodies
to take action on burning environmental issues.
In many cases judiciary has not waited for legislature or executive to take action but the
judiciary itself has performed the role of legislature and executive. The Court has passed
various notifications, appointed various committees to supervise implementation of measures
taken for environmental protection. Wherever it is found required the court has taken help of
committees of technical experts before deciding the matter. The Indian higher judiciary has

3
Union and the States are governed by the provisions contained in Part XI of the Constitution. While Article
245 to 255 deals with the distribution of legislative powers, the distribution of administrative powers is dealt
within Article 256 to 261.
4
Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations
rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.
5
See P.N. Bhagwati, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
561 Vol. 23 (1985). While dealing with the role of judiciary, the writer asserts that in a developing country like
India, the modern judiciary cannot afford to hide behind notions of legal justice and plead incapacity when
social justice issues are addressed to it (see at 566).
6
Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668.

6
contributed to the development of environmental law in India by widening the scope of locus
standi and entertaining Public Interest litigation in India, enunciating a web of doctrines and
interpreting constitutional law from environmental perspectives.

FOREST CONSERVATION AND LEGISLATIVE ACTION

The first codification, which came on the statute book in relation to administration of forest in
India, was the Indian Forest Act, 1865. Thus, the history of forest law in India is more than a
century old. The Act of 1865 was amended from time to time and ultimately it was repealed
and replaced by the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which not only consolidated but also re-shaped
the law relating to forests. The said Act of 1927 was also amended from time to time.

THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980

This Act has been passed with a view to check deforestation which has been taking place in
the country on a large scale and which had caused ecological imbalance and thus led to
environmental deterioration. The President of India promulgated the Forest (Conservation)
Ordinance on 25th October, 1980. Section 5 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has
repealed this Ordinance.

This Act has not taken into consideration those aspects, which were covered by the Indian
Forest Act, 1927. It simply aims at putting restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use
of forest-land for non-forest purposes.

The Act is intended to serve a laudable purpose" as is evident from the Statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Act, which reads:

1) Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental deterioration.

Deforestation had been taking place on a large scale in the country and it had caused
widespread concern.
2) With a view to checking further deforestation, the President promulgated on 25th
October, 1980, the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made the
prior approval of the Central Government necessary for de-reservation of reserved
forests and for use of forest-land for non-forest purposes. The Ordinance also
provided for the constitution of an Advisory Committee to advise the Central
Government with regard to such approval.

7
Scope and Application: - This Act extends to whole of India except the States of Jammu &
Kashmir, which has its own State Act. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force
on 25th October, 1980, i.e., the date on which the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 was
promulgated.

Restriction on the De-reservation of Forests or Use of Forest-land for Non-Forest Purposes:

Section 2 of the Act deals with restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest-
land for non-forest purposes. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make,
except with prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing,

i. That any reserved forest declared under any law for the time being in force in that
State or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
ii. that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
iii. that any forest land any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise
to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other
organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
iv. that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown
naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation.

For the purposes of this section "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing or
any forest-land or portion thereof for:-
a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture
crops or medicinal plants; or
b) any purpose other than re-afforestation, but does not include any work relating or
ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life,
namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and
construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks,
boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.

8
In State of Kerala v Sunil Kumar,7 the Supreme Court has clarified that where the State
Government did not want to lease any part of forest land, the question of seeking prior
approval of the Central Government did not arise. The question of approval arises only when
the State Government makes a request for such an approval in respect of cases falling under
categories mentioned in section 2 of the Act.

Penalty for Contravention of the Provisions of the Act:

Section 3-A of the Act provides that whoever contravenes or abets the contravention of any
of the provisions of section 2, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a period,
which may extend to fifteen days. A perusal of this section shows that the Act contemplates
only the punishment of simple imprisonment and it does not contemplate any punishment in
terms of fine.

Offences by Authorities and Government Departments:

Section 3-B of the Act provides that where any offence under this Act has been committed-
a) by any department of Government, the head of the department; or
b) by any authority, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was
directly in charge of, and was responsible to, the authority for the conduct of the
business of the authority as well as the authority,
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly. However, the Head of the Department or any other person referred to
above shall not be liable to any punishment if he proves that
i. the offence was committed without his knowledge; or
ii. he exercised all diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a Department of Government or any
authority referred to above and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any officer other than
the Head of the Department, or in case of an authority any person other than the persons
referred to above, then such officer or person shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence
and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

7
(2006) 9 SCC 753.

9
Power to Make Rules:
Section 4 of the Act vests, the Central Government with the power to make rules for carrying
out the provisions of this Act. Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be
after it is made, before each house of the Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period
of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions.

FOREST CONSERVATION: ROLE OF CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT
The provision of prior approval provided under Forest (Conservation) Act (hereinafter
referred to as FCA), as a condition precedent for non-forestry activities in the forest area, has
transformed the Central Government into the guardian of forest protection. The obvious
assumption is that the guardian will act only in the interests of safeguarding the forest
environment, and will be ever vigilant pre-empting any assault on forest. The provisions of
FCA have been subject to judicial scrutiny on many occasions. The question is whether the
courts have lived up to the expectations of the law and helped in evolving viable strategies of
forest management.

PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

During the period before the commencement of FCA, mining activities in a forest area were
regulated only with the conditions listed under the license granted by the government. Prior
approval of the Central Government was not necessary. This seems to have been the position
taken in State of Bihar v Banshi Ram Modi.8
The facts of the case show that while the licensee was mining for mica under a license
granted before the commencement of FCA, the licensee came across two other minerals-
feldspar, and quartz. The state government permitted him to mine these two minerals. The
forest department objected, as there was no prior approval from the Central Government.
According to the court, the action of the state government did not violate FCA as the new
minerals were found in an area already broken up and cleared for mining, although, this may

8
AIR 1985 SC 814.

10
not be the case for mining in a virgin area. The court instructed that the mining should not
lead to felling of trees.
However, the assumption, without any scientific evidence, that mining more minerals than
the one for which license is given in an area already broken up would not bring
environmental damage, does not seem to be entirely correct.
In Ambica Quarry Works v State of Gujarat,9 the Supreme Court made it categorically clear
that renewal of a license after FCA came into force can be made only on getting prior
permission from the Central Government. The FCA was passed in order to arrest ecological
imbalance, which is a consequence of deforestation. While holding that the power of the
authorities is not coupled with the duty to renew all licenses once given and stressing the
need to for prior approval, the court observed:
The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our
opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the
obligation to the individuals.

The Supreme Court and High Courts kept up this trend.

In Divisional Forest Officer v S Nageswaramma,10 it was held that renewal of lease is not a
vested right of the lessees.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v Krishandas Tikaram,11 renewal was objected by the forest
department. The order of the state government cancelled the license. The Supreme Court held
that the cancellation was proper in the absence of prior approval. There appears to be a clear
divide between forest officials and mining authorities. The former acts as champions of forest
protection, whereas the latter plays the role of a messiah of development.

The Allahabad High Court, in Pyari Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh,12 endorsed prohibition of
mining in an area declared to be reserve forest after the mining lease had been granted, and
before its expiry. The lessee could file a suit against the government for violation of the
conditions of the lease, but the prohibition was valid.

Courts were consistent in holding that for mining in reserved forests or protected forests,
prior approval of the Central Government was necessary.

9
AIR 1987 SC 1073.
10
(1996) 6 SCC 442.
11
(1995) Supp 1 SCC 587.
12
AIR 2004 All 70.

11
In Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority,13
the Supreme Court, instead of stopping non-forest activity, directed the respondent to enlist
proposals for ex post facto approval by the Central Government. It is pertinent to note that
FCA does not envisage ex post facto approval, and only provides for 'prior' approval.
However, the court directed the Central Government to ascertain, whether the grant was
made on extraneous considerations and if so, identify the persons or officers responsible, and
whether criminal action could be taken against those responsible.

In KM Chinnappa v Union of India 14 the question was whether the state government is
entitled to exclude an area from obtaining prior approval, the apex court was categorical in
disapproving this exclusion allowed by the state government.

The question was whether the permission to continue mining in an area subsequently
declared as a national park was valid. FCA makes prior approval mandatory inspite of the
right to get renewal under the mining Rules. Admittedly, the Central Government had not
accorded prior approval. Hence, the exclusion of mining company's land from the need to get
prior approval was impermissible.

It is, therefore, settled that being a non-forest activity, mining in the forest area can be
allowed only with the prior approval of the Central Government.

A license is entitled to get renewal if the area was already broken up before FCA came into
force. However, the renewal is not automatic; it can be rendered only with prior approval.

FOREST CONSERVATION AND JUDICIAL PROCESS

In India, the judiciary has shown deep concern for the forest conservation. The judiciary has
not only played a pivotal role in a manner to interpret the forest laws to protect the forest and
environment but also it has shown judicial activism by entertaining public interest litigations
under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court and High Courts while
protecting environment and promoting sustainable development have delivered many
important judgments.

13
(1997) 11 SCC 605.
14
(2002) INSC 453

12
NATIONAL NEEDS, FOREST CONSERVATION AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE:
In R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P.,15 (popularly known as Doon Valley Case)
was the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and
ecological balance, which brought into sharp focus the conflict between development and
conservation and the Court emphasized the need for reconciling the two in the larger interest
of the country.
This case arose from haphazard and dangerous limestone quarrying practices in the
Mussoorie Hill Range of Himalayas. The mines in the Doon Valley area denuded the
Mussoorie Hills of trees and forest cover and accelerated soil erosion.
The Supreme Court was cautious in its approach when it pointed that it is for the Government
and the Nation and not for the court, to decide whether the deposits should be exploited at the
cost of ecology and environment or the industrial requirements should be otherwise satisfied.
But the concern of the Court for protecting the forest and maintaining the ecological balance
in the Doon Valley was evident when it observed-
We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources have got to be tapped for the purposes
of the social development but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of resources
have to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be
affected in any serious way, there may not be depletion of water resources and long term
planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth. It has always to be remembered
that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one
generation.

In R.L. & E. Kendra v. State of U.P.,16 the Court took note of the fact that mining activity has
to be permitted to the extent it is necessary in the economic and defence interests of the
country as also for safeguarding of the foreign exchange position. In the subsequent Doon
Valley case, the Supreme Court allowed a mine to operate until the expiry of lease as an
exceptional case on undertaking by the lessee that he would subject land taken on lease to
afforestation. When it was brought to the notice that the lessee had made a breach of
undertaking and was continuing mining in an uncontrolled manner causing damage to the
forest cover of the area, the Court directed the lessee to pay rupees three lacs to the fund of

15
AIR 1985 SC 652.
16
AIR 1987 SC 2426.

13
the monitoring committee which had been constituted earlier by the Court to supervise the
afforestation programme to be undertaken by the lessee.

The H.P. High Court in Kinkri Devi v. State,17 relied on Doon Valley case and pointed out
that if a just balance is not struck between the development and environment by proper
tapping of natural resources then there will be violation of the constitutional mandate of
articles 48-A and 51-A(g). The Court rightly pointed out that the natural resources have got to
be tapped for the purpose of social development but the tapping has to be done with care so
that the ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way.

In A.R.C. Cement Ltd. v. State of U.P., 18 the Supreme Court did not permit the cement
factory to run in the Doon Valley area where the mining operation had been stopped and in
order to restore the Doon Valley to its original character it was directed to be declared as non-
industrial. However, the government was asked to provide an alternate site for shifting the
cement factory of the petitioner.

In Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India,19 the State Government of Rajasthan, though
professing to protect the environment by means of the notifications and declarations, was
itself permitting the degradation of the environment by authorizing mining operations in the
area declared as "reserve forest". In order to protect the environment and wildlife within the
protected area, the Supreme Court issued directions that no mining operation of whatever
nature shall be carried on within the protected area.

The Full Bench of Kerala High Court, in Nature Lovers Movement v State of
Kerala, 20 considered the question of regularization of diversion of forest-land subject to
certain conditions issued by the Central Government. The Court in this case reconciled
between the preservation of environment and development of economy. The Court took
notice of conditions laid down by the Central Government and which were substantially
complied with by the State Government. The State Government had also framed a
compensatory forest scheme. The Court also took note of socio-economic problem of
eviction of about 66,000 families and 35 lacs of people from the forests, which in its opinion

17
AIR 1988 H. P. 4.
18
1993 Supp (1) SCC 57.
19
1992 Supp (2) SCC 448.
20
AIR 2000 Ker. 131.

14
was impracticable and thus, the Court upheld the approval granted for the diversion.
However, the occupants were made liable to pay compensation for injury caused by them to
general public in view of "Polluter Pays Principle".

In this case the Court also held that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has no retrospective
operation and it operates only prospectively and thus the prior approval contemplated in
section 2 of the Act is inapplicable insofar as the occupations and encroachments of forest-
land made prior to the commencement of the Act namely, 25.10.1980.

In Protection of Forest Environment v. Union of India,21 the Uttarakhand High Court took
judicial notice of the frequent occurrence of forest fires and devastation caused to the forest
wealth, ecology, economy and environment on the basis of news items and directed the
respondents to file affidavits on various incidents of forest fires. In the affidavit, filed on
behalf of Union of India, it was stated that as per the information received from the
Government of Uttarakhand, 922 fires have been reported during the current fire season up to
29.04.2016, effecting 1890.79 hectares of land, causing an estimated damage of Rs.
18,01,695. It was also found from the affidavits that till 05.05.2016, total 1798 incidents of
forest fires have taken place. Total 3238 tress of different species have been affected in the
fire. Most of the trees were the pine trees. The court noted with concern that, “the steps taken
by the respondents/State to control and prevent the forest fires are far from being
satisfactory.”
Explaining the ill effects of forest fire the court observed that, “Forest fires emanate carbon-
dioxide posing serious threat to environment and ecology. It is the human beings who have
encroached upon the forest land of wild animals. The habitat of wild animal is shrinking
resulting in wild animals coming in contact with the human beings.” The High Court,
allowing the petition, issued several mandatory directions which amongst other include : (i)
formulation of National Forest Policy aiming on forest management, conservation and
sustainable development and also to maintain and increase forest covers; (ii) to declare 10
Kms. of Eco Sensitive Zone around Jim Corbett National Park, other National Parks and
Sanctuaries throughout the State of Uttarakhand within a period of six months; (iii) no wild
animals including tigers, leopards and panthers shall be declared man-eater/rouge and killed
in entire State; (iv) the State government to make suitable amendments in existing forest laws

21
2016 SCC OnLine Utt 2073.

15
and laws pertaining to wild animals for imposing exemplary punishment including life
imprisonment for poacher's; and (v) to constitute a high level committee to save endangered
species of plants in the state; etc.

In A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. v. Goa Foundation,22 the Supreme Court has rightly explained
that solution to replace the original trees by alien and non-indigenous but fast growing
varieties does not serve the purpose. Suitability of the trees and other flora to be planted in
the deforested land should be of prime consideration.

GRANT OR RENEWAL OF LEASE IN FOREST AREA AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE

In State of A.P. v. Anupama Minerals,23 the authorities had the power to grant the renewal of
the mining lease as per the terms of the lease. However, after the coming into operation of
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the mining lease fell within the reserved forest area and
hence the authorities refused to grant the renewal of the lease. It was held that the refusal by
the authorities was proper because exercise of power by public authority is coupled with duty
to fulfil the conditions for such exercise.

In State of M.P. v. Krishandas Tikaram,24 the respondents were granted mining lease in the
forest area in the year 1966. After the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980, the State Government decided to renew the lease for twenty years in terms of the,
original grant in favor of the respondent, without obtaining the prior approval of the Centre
Government. The Court, before it came into effect by registering, held cancellation of the
order of renewal, valid.

In T. Veerabhadrappa v Ministry of Mines & Steel,25 the petitioner was granted 230 acres of
land on a long lease of thirty years for mining iron ore. On expiry of the lease period the
petitioner applied for the renewal of lease, which was processed by the State Government-
The Central Government made reference to the Advisory Committee constituted under
section 3 of the Act and on the receipt of its recommendation declined to grant the approval
22
Supra Note 15.
23
1995 Supp. (2) SCC 117.
24
1995 Supp. (1) SCC 587.
25
AIR 1998 Kant. 412.

16
prayed for. The refusal was justified on a three-fold plea namely, (i) that the proposed
renewal was bound to result in an accelerated soil erosion keeping in view the fact that the
area in question was undulating with steep slopes; (ii) the proposal of the State Government
did not establish the inevitability of diversion of forest land for a non-forest purpose and (iii)
that the lessee had during a period of 30 years or so made no attempt to rehabilitate the area
mined by him. Thus, the decision to refuse the renewal of lease was taken after considering
all relevant materials. Merely because communication issued by the Government conveying
its decision did not refer to the reasons underlying the decision was not considered as a
ground for interfering with a decision of refusal to accord renewal of the lease.

FELLING OF TREES, FOREST CONSERVATION AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE

For the protection and conservation of forests it is necessary that there should be no illegal
felling of trees. The judiciary has shown its concern to stop the illegal felling of trees in
forests.

THE GODAVARMAN CASES: THE HIGH-WATER MARK IN FOREST PROTECTION

The idea of sustainable development, i.e., the balance between environment and
development, had its influence on the judiciary in interpreting the provisions of laws relating
to the forest. Various dimensions of forest protection were examined by courts.

It all started in September 1995, when Godavarman Thirumulpad was distressed on seeing
the destruction of pristine wooded areas in Gudalur in the Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. These
wooded areas, Janmam Lands (absolute proprietary lands), of the Nilambur Kovilakam, had
been taken over by the State of Kerala following the enactment of the Gudalur Janmam
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1969.

However, the State was unable to protect the areas. Trees were being felled and logs rolled
down the mountain slopes and stacked along the highway for miles on end. Godavarman
Thirumulpad filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court.

17
Path-breaking order
On December 12, 1996, a bench led by Chief Justice J.S. Verma passed an interim order
directing that tree-felling and non-forestry activity in forests across the country be stopped.
The path-breaking order re-defined the meaning of forests and extended protection to all
areas with natural forests irrespective of their ownership. It laid down that ‘forests’ will be
understood by its dictionary meaning, and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act
1980, shall apply to all thickly wooded areas. States were directed to form expert committees
to identify forests as defined and file reports. Senior Counsel Harish Salve was appointed
Amicus Curie to assist the Supreme Court.

The fallout
What followed was unprecedented. Several northeastern States, where forests were being
plundered by gangs and unregulated sawmills operated openly, were rattled. A ban on
movement of illicit timber was imposed. Ninety-four railway wagons of illicitly transported
timber were seized.

At that stage, even the Supreme Court probably did not foresee that the matter would be kept
open for close to 20 years. But thankfully it was, under what is known in constitutional
jurisprudence as the Writ of continuing mandamus. More than a thousand Interlocutory
Applications (IA’s) have since been filed, covering a spectrum of issues concerning forest
protection, such as mining, tree-felling, management of Protected Areas and forest
encroachment.

In response to the rising number of IAs and the technical nature of the issues involved, the
court ordered the constitution of an expert body, the Central Empowered Committee
(CEC), in May 2002. In September 2002 it was notified as a statutory committee with wide-
ranging powers to deal with pending IAs, hear fresh applications, and pass orders in
consonance with those of the Supreme Court. A new paradigm in the administration of
forests had been created.

18
CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE
In response to the rising number of IAs and the technical nature of the issues involved, the
court ordered the constitution of an expert body, the Central Empowered Committee
(CEC), in May 2002. In September 2002 it was notified as a statutory committee with wide-
ranging powers to deal with pending IAs, hear fresh applications, and pass orders in
consonance with those of the Supreme Court. A new paradigm in the administration of
forests had been created.

Also the CEC have been given the following powers to achieve the above mandate.
The Committee have the power to:
a) Call for any documents from any person or the government of the Union or the
State or any other official.
b) Summon any person and receive evidence from such person on oath either on
affidavit or otherwise.
c) Seek assistance / presence of any persons(s) / official(s) required by it in
relation to its work.
The CEC is not a statutory body constituted under any statute of parliament. But, the CEC
has practically become the investigative wing of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in matters of
forest & wildlife conservation and almost on all the matters the report from CEC is being
sought by the Hon‟ble court before passing an order. The CEC has practically become the
eyes and ears of the court and also it has given very bold and true picture of ground situations
on basis of which many landmark orders have been passed.

For example Report by CEC on Mining activities in Kudremukh National Park situated in
fragile Western Ghats, Illegal mining in Bellary, Karnataka, etc.

Criticisms
Godavarman Thirumulpad has had its fair share of critics. On the one hand, human rights
groups have largely perceived the court’s interventions, particularly with respect to
encroachments, as negative. On the other hand, corporates argued that the case, and
“excessive judicial activism” based on the growing interventions of conservationists, were
becoming an impediment to development. However, such arguments hold no water. What the

19
judicial interventions stopped were ill-planned development projects that the nation could
well do without. .

Notable interventions include the stoppage of mining in Kudremukh, a complete ban on tree-
felling in Protected Areas (PA), curbs on rapacious timber companies, prohibition on marble
mining in the Aravallis, and regulation of saw mills. Other path-breaking decisions on forest
governance include the imposition of a levy called the Net Present Value for the use of forest
land for non-forestry purposes.

COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION MANAGEMENT &

PLANNING AGENCY (CAMPA)
The CAMPA is a body for Management of Compensatory Afforestation Fund and collection
of Net Present Value and other charges in lieu of diverted forest lands. And to act as National
Advisory Council (under the chairmanship of the Union Minister of Environment & Forests)
for monitoring, technical assistance and evaluation of compensatory afforestation activities.
The setting up of CAMPA has led to reduction in demand of forest land for various projects.
The condition to handover equal extent of land in lieu of diverted forest land and imposition
of NPV, Compensatory Afforestation Charges and Penal charges has led to reduction in
demand for forest land. Also the lengthy and detailed procedure has dissuaded people to look
for other alternatives. The CAMPA fund has also helped in improvement of degraded forest
lands by providing fund for compensatory afforestation.

THE INFLUENCE OF GODAVARMAN CASE

The above-mentioned Godavarman dicta had a lasting impact on the development of
environmental norms in forest protection. In Niyamavedi v State of Kerala,26 the Kerala High
Court held that the object of a biological park not being a non-forest purpose, prior approval
of the Central Government was not necessary.

26
AIR 1993 Ker 262.

20
In Goa Foundation v Conservator of Forests, Panaji,27 the Bombay High Court held that
prior approval was necessary not only for use of forest, but also for use of dry crop lands
contiguous to the forest.

In Bansuiara Marble Mines v Union of India,28 the Rajasthan High Court pointed out that
prevention of orders of different courts and tribunals at variance with one another was the
unequivocal message of the apex court in the Godavarman case by banning all ongoing
activities. Notably, the Orissa High Court disallowed establishment of saw mills within 10
kms from the boundary of a forest area in view of an earlier Godavarman case that no fresh
licence could be granted within the distance and without prior approval of the CEC.

The Godavarman definition of forest as the 'land recorded as forest in the government
records irrespective of its ownership' had its sway in Kamal Kishore v State of Madhya
Pradesh,29 in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the acts taken under an old law
in the princely state are acts done or proclaimed by the erstwhile ruler declaring reserved
forest, protected forest or village forest and are deemed to have continued as such under the
Indian Forest Act.

THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has observed that full-fledged
environmental courts are required to be established. Taking clue from this, the Law
commission in its 186th report recommended for constitution of the National Green Tribunal.
The Green tribunals in country have been established by an Act of Parliament, the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to deal with matter relating to environment and forests &
wildlife. The Tribunal's dedicated jurisdiction in environmental matters will provide speedy
environmental justice and help reduce the burden of litigation in the higher courts.
The Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedure laid down under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, but is be guided by principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal is mandated for quick disposal of the cases preferably within 6 months of filing
of the same. The Tribunal has Original Jurisdiction on matters of “substantial question

27
AIR 1999 Born 177.
28
AIR 1999 Raj 154.
29
AIR 2006 MP 167.

21
relating to environment” (i.e. a community at large is affected, damage to public health at
broader level) & “damage to environment due to specific activity” (such as pollution).
The powers of tribunal related to an award are equivalent to Civil court and tribunal may
transmit any order/award to civil court have local jurisdiction. Also, Tribunal is competent to
hear cases for several acts such as Forest (Conservation) Act, Biological Diversity Act,
Environment (Protection) Act, Water & Air (Prevention & control of Pollution) Acts etc.
The orders and directions of NGT find place in newspapers routinely for its proactive rather
activist role, let us find out some of its orders in the light of judicial adventurism. It was
reported that38 the National Green Tribunal slammed state governments for not taking a clear
stand on pollution and vehicle density in major cities under their jurisdiction and directed
them to produce the information by Tuesday, failing which bailable warrants would be issued
against the state chief secretaries.
In yet another order, The National Green Tribunal has directed the Delhi government to clean
and restore all the natural water bodies in Delhi within three weeks. The directive came after
a plea expressed concern over the depletion of the water table in the city.
The green panel also directed the city government and agencies concerned to ensure that
these water bodies receive rainwater in good quantity before onset of monsoon30
There is catena of such orders and directions in which NGT has done what ought to be done
by the executive. These trend amounts to judicial adventurism and, though this is not
permissible under our constitutional scheme relating to separation of powers but is shown
green flag under the banner of judicial activism.

30
PTI, June 5, 2016, New Delhi.

22
CONCLUSION
The environmental jurisprudence in India is developing one. The principles of environmental
accountability and responsibility were propounded in 46th Amendment to the constitution.
Subsequently, Forest Conservation Act 1980 and Environmental Protection Act 1986 were
passed, but in last twenty years hardly any new law has been passed in respect of protection
of environment. The higher judiciary has played an activist role to evolve this jurisprudence.
The application of fundamental rights enshrined in Constitution of India to an environmental
case by judiciary is most innovative step taken in this regard.

In field of environmental laws, many doctrines have been evolved by the Courts to achieve
the objectives of Welfare State as enshrined in Directive Principles of State Policies. The
court has ruled that use of natural resources should be for common good and to maintain
intergenerational parity. The courts have come done heavily on the unscientific and wasteful
mining and loot of the natural resources. And also has not hesitated to levy heavy penalties
on polluters, through polluter pays principle. In case of Forests and Wildlife the Supreme
Court of India has effectively taken over control of administration and management of forests
and wildlife by way of Writ of Continuing Mandamus in TN Godavarman case. Also the
court has devised many innovative tools and mechanism to protect the forests and wildlife,
for example –CEC, CAMPA etc. The court have also been mindful of grievances emerging of
it orders in various Writ petition in relation of forests and wildlife therefore it has directed to
constitute the central empowered committee to look into such grievances and bring it to the
notice of court. The void left in policy formulation and implementation has been to an extent
was filled by the proactive approach of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. But
preference to adopt the writ petitions under Article 32 & 226 and PIL route to address
environmental issues, over the regular route has its own disadvantages. Therefore, the
Parliament has passed The National Green Tribunal Act 2010 and has established the
National Green Tribunal. The Tribunal is composed of Judicial member and subject experts
to adjudicate and award compensation in environmental and forest conservation.
With establishment of National Green Tribunal, a new initiative by Government has been
taken, which is sure to bring fruitful results and lessen the burden of higher judiciary.
Thus, to sum up it may be said that the conservation of environment and natural resources is a
continuing process, an endeavour to strive for making our mother earth inhabitable not only
for the homo-sapiens but also for every single species. The landmark judicial

23
pronouncements of the decade studied and included in this paper reflect an untiring effort on
part of the judiciary in conservation of environment and natural resources as a commitment of
the judiciary. The transition from core anthropocentric approach to eco-centric approach, as
has gradually been shaped by the international community and internalized by some of the
nations of the world, has been explained, recognized and internalized as part of Indian
environmental jurisprudence. The judiciary, as an organ of the state, definitely stands tall
amongst other organs of the State. However, it has been noted that at times, the judiciary has
tried to strike a balance and allowed the projects appointing the Expert Committees to
oversee implementation of the directions but there is a need to exhibit abundant caution by
these Committees to ensure that the directions are implemented in letters and spirit to support
the cause of saving the nature. The speceisism and eco-centric approach must become the
environmental rule of law in the contemporary scenario. In this endeavour we all, not the
judiciary alone, must recognise our obligation towards nature and discharge our constitutional
obligation under Article 51-A (g) & (h). Ultimately, while we save nature, we save ourselves
which will make our life meaningful, live-able and we will leave strong heritage for our
posterity.

24
PLAGIARISM REPORT

Document Information

Analyzed document Humanyu Kabeer-Seminar @ 28.11.2021.docx (D120161338)

Submitted 2021-11-28T12:41:00.0000000

Submitted by Faizanur Rahman

Submitter email frahman@jmi.ac.in

Similarity 18%

Analysis address frahman.jmi@analysis.urkund.com

Sources included in the report

URL: https://pdfcoffee.com/water-and-natural-resources-law-pdf-free.html
11
Fetched: 2021 11-28T12:43:00.0000000

URL: https://vbook.pub/documents/forest-conservation-ko7d6ry887o3
1
Fetched: 2021 11-28T12:43:00.0000000

URL: https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol13-issue4/J01345561.pdf?id=3407
1
Fetched: 2021 11-28T12:43:00.0000000

25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Sairam Bhat, Natural Resources Conservation Law, 1st Edition, 2010, SAGE
Publications.
• Sharachchandra,L, A Defining Moment for Forests, June 23, 2007, Economic and
Political Weekly
• Leelakrishnan, P., Environmental Law in India, 2nd Edition, 2010, Nagpur: Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa.
• Tiwari, H. N., Environmental Law, 4th Edition, 2010 Faridabad: Allahabad Law
Agency.
• Nayantara N, A short history of India’s two decade struggle to define what-a forest
actually is.
• Manohar, P.K, The architect of an omnibus forest-protection case.

• Web Sources:
1. www.books.google.co.in
2. www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
3. www.financialexpress.com
4. www.maupatra.com
5. scconline.com

26