T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 12-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 279 
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD 
A 
v. 
UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 
(1.A."Nos. 2143 with 2283, 3088, 3461, 3_479, 3693 in 2143, 
827, 1122, 1337, 1473 and 1620 and 1693 in 1473 and 
B · 
3618) 
h 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995) 
MARCH 12, 2014 
[A. K.PATNAIK, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] · 
Environmental Laws: 
c 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Gudalur and Nilgiri D 
forests - Public Interest Litigation - Destruction of tropical 
rain forest resulting in ecological imbalances affecting lives 
and livelihood of the people living in the State of Tamil Nadu 
-
Compulsory Afforestation Fund - Release of -/As by 
different States seeking release of some funds for completing E 
the task of compulsory afforestation - Held: Order dated 1 O'" • 
July 2009 modified - National CAMPA Advisory Council 
(NCAC) directed to finalize and issue guidelines before 1st 
May, 2014 regarding the activities for which the use of the 
CAMPA funds would not be permissible and the activities for F 
which a ceiling on the use of the CAMPA funds would apply 
- These guidelines to be strictly followed by the State CAMPA 
-Ad-hoc CAMPA permitted to release annual amount equal 
to 10% of the principal amount lying to the credit of each 
State/Union Territory, out of the interest receivable by it with G 
effect from financial year 2014-2015 onwards - No money 
out of the amounts available with Ad-hoc CAMPA to be 
transferred or utilized without the leave of the Supreme Court 
- National CAMPA Advisory Council to file a Status Report 
279 
H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
within a period of three months regarding the monitoring and 
evaluation of the works being undertaken, by utilizing the 
funds released by CAMPA - Forest Act, 1927 - Forest 
(Conservation) Act, 1980 -
Tamil Nadu Hill Stations 
Preservation of Trees Act. 
B 
The instant writ petition was filed as a PIL under 
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for and on behalf 
of the people living in and around the Nilgiri Forest on 
the Western Ghats. The petitioner sought to challenge 
the legality of the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, the 
C Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer, 
Gudalur and the Timber Committee in destroying the 
tropical rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in. 
violation of the Forest Act, 1927, Forest (Conservation) 
Act, 1980 and Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of 
D Trees Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as 
it has resulted in serious ecological imbalances affecting 
lives and livelihood of the people living in the State of 
Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has alleged that the 
respondents have in collusion with certain vested 
E interests allowed trespassers to encroach and enter 
upon the forest land forthe purpose of felling trees and 
conversion of forest land into plantations and well 
organized rackets existed between the forest authorities, 
timber contractors and the local authorities which are 
F facilitating the cutting and removal Of trees and timber 
in gross violation of Forest Coriservation Act. 
The instant Interlocutory Applications were filed 
seeking either general or specific directions in relation 
G to various issues concerning the· protection and 
improvement of environment. The Supreme Court has 
been continuously monitoring the enforcement of the 
protected measures directed to be taken by the various 
Central/State authorities on the basis of the 
recommendations made by the relevant expert bodies. 
H 
.. 
T. N. GODAVARMANTHIRUMULPAOv. UNION OF INDIA 
281 
The Court noticed on 29'" October, 2002, that the amount A 
collected by various States from the user agencies to 
whom permissions were granted for using forest land 
for non forest purposes was not being utilised for such 
compensatory afforestation. The Court directed that the 
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) should B 
formulate a Scheme whereby, whenever any permission 
is granted for change of user of forest land for non-forest 
purposes, and one of the conditions of the permission 
is that, there should be compensatory afforestation, then 
the responsibility for the same is that of the user-agency c 
and should be required to set apart a sum of money for 
doing the needful. The CEC examined the issue and 
recommended that it would be desirable to create a 
separate fund for Compensatory Afforestation, wherein 
all the money received from the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.