Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 - Sec.10 - Vested forest cannot be assigned without the prior approval of Central Government as a result of the Overriding provision contained in Sec.2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. [Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala and others, O.P.No.19885 of 1995, dated 25th June, 2002. B.N.Srikrishna (CJ) & G. Sivarajan (J)]
Ecological Balance - Removal of Pastures and meadows on mountains in Garhwal area - Setting up of camp tourist resort by State agency thereon - Money has been spent by State on its construction, irrespective.
Merely because money has been spent is no ground to degrade ecology and environment. while confirming uses in urban planning were not permitted to be compromised by the Supreme Court, when it was held that such violations were illegalities which were not curable. The violation of environment cannot continue and upsetting an ecological balance will be judged with even more strict standards. That money has been spent by Nigam on putting prefabricated structures and tents on the bugiyal was a misplaced expenditure. The Bugiyal belongs to the people. It is an eco-system in itself. Nature has tailored it. It is not for man to erode the sanctity of this area. It must be returned to nature to provide for whom it was meant; the sheep, the shepherd, the wild flowers, the micro-organisms and the plant and insect life below the turf and in the shrubs at that altitude. Clearly, putting a tourist-lodging house on bugiyal was a mistake. There is danger looming on the horizon. If a State financed tourist camp has been planted on bugiyal, there are other five star hotel groups waiting to encroach on this beautiful and tranquil area nestling in the mountains.[Om Prakash Bhatt and others vs. state of U.P. AIR 1997 All 259 = 1997 All LJ 1263. Ravi.S.Dhavan & A.B.Srivastava {JJ}]
Forest Conservation - Provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. It includes all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise.
In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or ply-wood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith. [T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India and others.n AIR 1997 SC 1228 (1997)3 JT 338. J.S.Verma & B.N.Kirpal. (JJ)]
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Sec. 2 – Construction of forest lodge – Previous permission of Central government is mandatory.
Challenging the action of the State Government to construct a forest lodge in the buffer zone of Parambikkulam Wild Life Sanctury – Sanction from the Central Government is mandatory [ Jair Raj.A.P. vs The Chief Conservator of Forests and other . ILR 1996(2) Ker 270. K.T.Thomas (Ag.CJ) & S.Sankarasubban (J)]
Forest - Saw Mills - Imposing total ban on saw mills business or saving operations - Stopping operations within the prohibited area of reserved forest and protected forests. Not violative of Arts.19 (1)(g).
It is legislation in public interest intended to preserve forest wealth and environment and to stop illicit felling of forest growth. Right to carry on trade and business under Art.19 (1)(g) and 301. It is a legislation to public interest restriction imposed for statute, which includes such total prohibition in rare cases. It is also not violative of Art.14 being neither arbitrary nor unreasonable nor discriminatory. It is a class legislation as entire within the prohibited zone treated as class against other cases. Therefore operation of the ban on mill situated in a district which falls within the prohibited area cannot be said to be discriminatory on ground of geographical contiguity of the district. [Sushila Saw Mills vs. State of Orissa. (1995) SCC 615. AIR 1995 SC 2484 = 1995(4) SCALE 776. K.Ramaswamy & K.S.Paripoornan {JJ}]
Forest - Reserved forest - Mining activities inn Rajasthan- Interlocutory orders prohibiting mining operations detrimental to protection of wild life could be issued-Notification prohibiting mining operations - Necessary direction issued.
It cannot be said that since the notification dated 1-1-1975 under Sec.29 (3) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, declaring Sasriska as protected forest itself contemplates an inquiry as to "the nature and extent of the rights of the State Government and of private persons in or over the forest land or waste land comprised therein" interlocutory order prohibiting mining operations cannot be granted. The inquiry under Sec.29 (3) has nothing to do with the mining privileges claimed by the miners. [Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs. Union of India. AIR 1992 SC 514 = 1993 Supp (3) SCC 115. [M.N.Venkitachaliah and K.Jayachandra Reddy. {JJ]
Forests - adivasis - Backward people - Forest - Means of livelihood - Arts. 32 and 21.
Part of the land declared as reserved forest and in respect of the other part proceedings initiated under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Supreme Court's earlier directions and monitoring in the Public Interest Litigation proceedings concerned with the land notified under Sec.4 - More directions issued [Banwasi Seva Asram vs. State of U.P. (1987)3 SCC 304 (1987) 2 JT 597 = (1987)1 SCALE 1149 . R.S.Pathak (CJ) , Ranganaha Misra & M.M.Dutt (J&J) see also (1993) 2 SCC 612]
Forest - Necessity for preventing forest - conssequences of deforestation- Necessity of preservation - Forestland.
Necessity of preserving forests and the consequences of deforestation discussed and stressed. Duty of state in defending cases involving forests and land stated. The fate and future of the forest wealth of the Nation should not be left to a feeble force with a groggily equipage. [ Vilangankunnu Samrakshana Samithi vs. State. 1989(2)K.L.T. 547 Sankaran Nair {J}] [Chief Secretary vs. Math Kuriakose. 1988(2) KLT 221. Sukumaran {J}]
Forest - Felling of trees - Deceased trees - Cuutting restrained - Task Force report. -Forest (Conservation) Act, (69 OF 1980)). Sec.2, 3-B- Illegal felling of trees. Under the grab of removing infected Saal trees, the trees which do not have any disease have also been cut and thereby the orders of the Supreme Court is frustrated and violated. With a view to see that no illegal felling of trees takes place, restrained the M.P. Government and its functionaries to cut any of the trees, even if the opinion of the State Government is that it is deceased. [T.N.Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India. AIR 1999 SC 43 = 1998(9) JT 145 = 1998(3) SCALE 437 = 1998(9) SCC 660 Dr.S.Anand, B.N.Kirpal and V.N.Khare (JJ) ]
Forest – No distinction can be made between Government Forests and private forest in the matter of forest wealth of the nation and in the matter of environment and ecology.
The present general has no right to deplete all the existing forests and leave nothing for the next and future generations. The obligation of sustainable development requires that a proper assessment should be made of the forest wealth and the establishment of industries based on forest produce should not only be restricted accordingly but their working should also be monitored closely to ensure that the required balance is not disturbed. [ [State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ganesh Wood Products. JT 1995(6) SC 485= (1995)6 SCC 363 .B.P.Jeevan Reddy & M.K.Mukherjee (J&J)]
Forest - Mining activities - Interlocutory orders prohibiting mining operations detrimental to protection of wild life could be issued. - Necessary direction issued.
It cannot be said that since the notification dated 1-1-1975 under Sec.29 (3) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, declaring Sasriska as protected forest itself contemplates an inquiry as to "the nature and extent of the rights of the State Government and of private persons in or over the forest land or waste land comprised therein" interlocutory order prohibiting mining operations cannot be granted. The inquiry under Sec.29 (3) has nothing to do with the mining privileges claimed by the miners. [Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs. Union of India. AIR 1992 SC 514. [M.N.Venkitachaliah and K.Jayachandra Reddy. {JJ]
Forest Conservation – Mining operations in Doon valley stopped – Public Interest litigations – Procedural laws not strictly applicable.
Mining operations in Doon Valley area must be completely stopped, though not immediately and suddenly. The manufacture of drug and sugur as also steel would be hardly hit if mining activities in this area is stopped all of a sudden. Though it cannot be said that for Public Interest Litigation , procedural laws do not apply, but every technical in the procedural law is not available as a defense when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. [Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. 1989 (1) S.C.C. 504. Ranganathan Misra & M.M.Dutt (J&J)]
Forests -Protection of forests -No power for the court to legislate - JJudicial review
Judicial review must be strictly understood to protect the rights of the citizens when their legal or constitutional rights are affected by any order or enactment, not otherwise. Those who move the court in the name of the pubic interest litigation must be equally aware of the limitations the courts have imposed on themselves in order to work within the frame work of the Constitution and in harmony with other wings of the Government. [ K.K.Vsant vs State of Karnataka. AIR 1992 Kant 256]
Forest – Non-forestry activity should be prohibited – Usage of vehicles.
Movement of trucks will be permitted only on certificates being issued by the respective Collectors themselves to the effect that the said trucks are only transiting through the State of Madhya Pradesh with legal timber and that no part of the timber contained in the trucks is of Madhya Pradesh origin. [ Som. Dutt vs Govind Ram. AIR 2000 SC 1636. B.N.Kirpal & S.Rajendra Babu (J&J)]