LexNATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 687 ~.-.. NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT A v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS Civil Appeal No.2116 of 2000 MARCH 20, 2009 B (B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Section 2 - Whether prospective in operation - Whether Government of Kera/a could without prior approval of Central c Government grant pattasllease hold rights to unauthorized occupantslencroachers of forest land - Held: The 1980 Act is prospective in operation - Policy decision taken by Kera/a Government after seeking approval from the Central Government does not suffer from any legal infirmity - After D the. 1980 Act, prior approval of the Central Government is necessary - Travancore Forest Regulations of 1068. In this appeal the questions that arose for consideration were whether Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is prospective in operation and E whether the Government of Kerala could without prior .... approval of the Central Government grant pattas/lease hold rights to unauthorized occupants/encroachers of forest land. Disposing of the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is applicable to all forests irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof and after 25.10.1980, i.e., date of - - ~ enforcement of the 1980 Act, no State Government or other authority can pass an order or give a direction for de- G reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect 687 H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A of forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or organization which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government. Even if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for non- forest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a B particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25.10.1980 without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. [Para 24] [ 721-E-H] c State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and others (1985) 3 SCC 643; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others (1987) 1 SCC 213; Tarun Bharat Sangh, A/war v. Union of India and others 1993 Supp (3) sec 115; State of A.P and others v. Anupama Minerals and others 1995 Supp (2) SCC 117 and D TN. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others (1997) 2 sec 267 - relied on. 2. It is not in dispute that before the enactment of the 1980 Act, the Government of Kerala had taken a policy E decision to regularize the illegal/unauthorised occupation and encroachments of forest land made prior to 1.1.1977 and also to remove all unauthorized occupation/ encroachments made on and after 1.1.1977. For implemen- tation of that decision, the State Government approached F and succeeded in persuading the Central Government to grant approval for diversion of 28,588.159 hectares of land by way of assignment to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers. The approval granted by the Central Government was in consonance with the guidelines G framed by it for regularization of encroachments on forest land. Therefore, there is no valid reason to interfere with the High Court's refusal to nullify the action taken by the State Government to regularize the unauthorised occupation/encroachment of .28588.159 hectares of forest H land in five districts. [Para 25] [ 722-A-D] .. • • NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V. 689 STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS -~ 3.1 The policy decision taken by the Government of A Kerala to assign 28,588.159 hectares of forest land to unauthorized occupants/encroachers after seeking approval from the Central Government does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the said decision. [Para 27] [ 723-E-F] B 3.2 After the enforcement of the 1980 Act, neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an ~ order or issue direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or c assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Governmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.