UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 09-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
KAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD. 
JANUARY 9, 1996 
B 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
c 
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 : 
Section 2-Reserved.forest area in Daman-Site leased out for putting 
up a snack bar and restaurant for tourists-Order ~f Collector objected to by 
Conservator of Forests 011 grounds o.f restriction envisaged by s.2 and the need 
for prior appr()val of Central Government-High Court approving the action 
of Collector since he was an o_fficer o_f the Central Government and need not 
seek prior approval-On appeal Collector directed to send the proposal to-
gether with the objection of the Conservator of Forests to the Centrdl Govem-
D 
ment which would pass orders thereon within three months~ol/ector to abide 
E 
by the orders of the Central Govenunent. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3548 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.89 of the Bombay High Court 
in W.P. No. 24 of 1989. 
W.S.A. Qadri and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. 
Yogeshwar Prasad and Ms. Rachna Gupta for the Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Counsel have been heard at length in this appeal. 
The established position is that the Collector of the Union Territory, 
Daman, as a step towards promoting tourism leased out a site in the reserved 
G 
forest area to the respondent for putting up a snack Bar and a restaurant to 
cater to the needs of tourists visiting the forest. It was the Conservator of 
Forests who raked up the matter and objected to the grant of such lease 
affecting the reserve forest. The lease was for a period of five years, renewable 
in terms. The objection of the Conservator of Forests was legal in as much as 
H 
there was restriction on the de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for 
302 
). 
.. 
• 
U.0.1. v. KAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD. 
303 
non-forest purposes, as envisaged under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) 
A 
Act, 1980. Whenever any forest land was required to be put to non-forest use, 
the State Government or other authority was required to put the matter for 
prior approval of the Central Government and then make an order directing 
forest land to be used for non-forest purposes. Section 2 as is relevant is set 
out below : 
"Section 2 : Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of 
forest land for non-forest purpose - 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 the 
B 
prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing : 
C 
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the express 
'reserved forest' in 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 
D 
non-forest purposes; 
(iii) that any forest land or 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 organisation 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 reafforestation." 
Since the area leased out to the respondent was within a Union Territory, 
the Collector apparently entertained the view that observance of the procedure 
under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was not necessary, 
the administration being of the Central Government. But the Conservator of 
Forests strongly held the opposite view and put· to stop further activities of the 
respondent. 
The respondent was thus led to move the High Court of Bombay in writ 
proceedings, contending mainly that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was 
in fact meant to involve State Governments, or other authorities nominated by 
E 
F 
G 
them and that the Act was not meant to apply to Union Territories as they 
H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] l S.C.R. 
·A 
themselves were governed by the Central Government. In other words, it was 
maintained that an Officer of the Central Government moving in the matter 
need not seek prior approval of the' Central Government under Section 2 of 
the Act. 
B 
c 
D 
This assertion and interpretation as accepted by the High Court, in our 
view, was in the teeth of the clear applicability of the Act extending
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.