ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENT LEGAL DEFENCE FUND versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 05-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENT LEGAL DEFENCE FUND 
B 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 5, 1997 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., MRS: SUJATA V. MANOHAR 
AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972/lndian Forest Act, 1878: Sections 24, 
C 33, 35( 1) and (4)/Sections 5 and 26( l)(i)-Pench National Park-Notification 
No. 5115/82-10/77 dt. 1.3.1983 u/s 35( 1)-Final Notification not is-
sued-Protection of traditional fishing rights of Tribals formerly residing in 
Pench National Park area-Fishing permits issued by Col/ectol'-Challenged 
on the ground that bio-diversity and ecology will be affected-Held, State to 
issue expeditiously the final notification declaring the area as a National 
D Park-Fishing permits granted to Tribals in lieu of traditional rights jus-
tified-Directions given for proper implementation of licence conditions. 
E 
The petitioner-an association of lawyers and others concerned with 
the protection of environment, filed the present writ petition challenging 
the order dt. 30.5.1996 of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh whereby 305 fishing 
permits were issued to tribals in Pench National Park area. The Pench 
National Park area falling in the State of Madhya Pradesh and 
Maharashtra was originally declared as a Reserved Forest under the 
Indian Forest Act, 1878. By Notification No. 5/15/82-10/77 dt. 1.3.1983 the 
Government of Madhya Pradesh under sec. 35(1) of the Wild Life (Protec-
F tion) Act, 1972 declared the area as a National Park. The Collectors of 
Seoni and Chhindwara districts issued proclamations under sections 19 
and 21 inviting claims within 60 days in respect of the areas notified. As 
no claim was received, a final order under section 24 of the Act was issued 
by both the Collectors. However, no final notification under sec. 35(4) was 
issued by the Govt. of M.P. declaring the said area as a National Park. The 
G Collector on consideration of the traditional rights of the tribals, issued 
fishing permits in the Totladoh reservoir with certain conditions. 
The contention of the petitioner was that if fishing was permitted in 
the heart of the National Park, the bio diversity and ecology of the area 
H will be seriously affected. 
728 
ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENT LEGAL DEFENCE FUND. v. U.O.I. 729 
The contention of the respondents was that the tribals had a tradi-
A 
tional right of fishing for their livelihood and permits were granted in lieu 
of this traditional rights. It was further contended that if permits were not 
given a serious problem of feeding and supporting their families will arise. 
Partly allowing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The permits granted· are in lieu of traditional fishing 
rights of the ttibals. And these permits are issued in settlement of these 
rights prior to the final notification under section 35(4) notifying the area 
as a National Park. Hence this do not fall under section 33. [734-H] 
1.2. While every attempt must be made to preserve the fragile ecology 
of the forest area, and protect the Tiger Reserve, the right of the tribals 
formerly living in the area to keep body and soul together must also receive 
proper consideration. Undoubtedly every effort should be made to ensure 
that the tribals, when resettled, are in a position to earn their livelihood. 
B 
c 
It would have been far more desirable, had the tribals been provided with D 
other suitable fishing areas outside the National Park or had been given 
land for cultivation. [735-8] 
2. The petitioner is undoubtedly justified in expressing its apprehen-
sions and in pointing out the dangers of permitting 305 licensees to fish in E 
the Totladoh reservoir. The fishing permits, however, have been granted to 
the tribals in lieu of their traditional fishing rights. The Collector of 
Chhindwara in his report has pointed out that fishing was the main source 
of livelihood of tribals residing in the National Park area. No agricultural 
land has been made available to them, no work has been made available to 
them and they do not have any means of livelihood except catching fish which F 
is their traditional occupation. If they are not given fishing permission a 
serious problem of feeding and supporting their families will arise. The Col-
lector, therefore, recommended recognition of traditional rights of332 families 
of 4 villages. In view of these reports the State Government has stated on 
affidavit that it was satisfied that the traditional rights of fishermen had not G 
been settled and instructions wer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.