National Green Tribunal
Cauvery Sene (Reg.), Medikeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 05 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 167/2016
(Earlier No. 30/2013 (THC) (SZ)
W.P. No. 3388/2009
(M.A. No. 1379/2017)
Cauvery Sene (Regd.), Medikeri Applicant
Versus
The State of Karnataka Respondent
Date of hearing: 13.12.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Respondent: Ms. Nandini Pandey, Advocate for Intervenors (Mahendra & Ors.)
ORDER
1. This matter has been registered before this Tribunal in pursuance of order of the Karnataka High Court dated 03.10.2012 in W.P. No. 3388/2009 on the file of the Karnataka High Court. In the said petition, the issue raised was for remedial action against illegal felling of forest in Kodagu and other Districts of Western Ghats areas of Karnataka.
2. The applicant claims to be public spirited NGO for protection of environment. It is alleged that Conservator of Forest, Kodagu, Respondent no. 3, illegally permitted felling of trees on 03.11.2006.
Representation was made against the said action which led to inspection by a team of officers of the Forest Department and submission of report, finding the violations in illegal felling of trees on account of connivance of 1 the officers involved. Report dated 03.12.2008 was submitted by APCCF (HQ&C). Based on the said report, the State of Karnataka directed collection of NPV and CEC issued certain letters. Charges were also framed for the illegality against delinquent.
3. None appears for the parties except learned counsel for one of the private parties, a farmer. She submits that her client had cut trees after permission from his own land. We are not concerned with that aspect but with the subject matter of the writ petition which has been dealt with in enquiry report dated 30.12.2008 as follows:-
"(24) From the above, it is clear that the Expert Committee-I constituted for the purpose of identifying forest areas has recommended that any private land that has retained forest characteristics would be identified as forests. The Expert Committee report has been submitted by the State Government to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Although the Expert Committee Report has not given specific details of private lands having the characteristics of forest, it will be wrong to presume that if an area has not been included in the Expert Committee Report, it will not qualify to be forest even though it has all the characteristics of a forest. In other words, even if an area is not included in the Expert Committee Report, it has to be treated as a forest if it comes within the broader definition of forest as enunciated in the Supreme Court order dated 12.12.1996.
(25) Viewed from the ecological perspective, the action of DCFs, Madikeri and Virajpet to give large-scale tree felling permission in the redeem sagu lands in the enclosures supporting natural virgin evergreen and semi-evergreen forest is highly objectionable. If not controlled at this stage itself, it will lead to large-scale degradation of the surrounding Reserve forest areas with disastrous consequences. It is a matter of great concern that instructions from the PCCF regarding tree felling in private lands contained in the official memoranda dated 4.2.2006 and 22.1.2007 have been disobeyed flagrantly. PCCF's instructions have been based on the Supreme Court order dated 12.12.1996 and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
(26) The field officers are taking advantage of the Government letter of 1997 and Government circular of 1999 2 and giving felling permission of trees in ecologically sensitive and bio-diversity rich forest areas without realizing the serious ecological consequences. Considering the serious implications of the above letter and circular on the forest, and also considering that these are not in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Government may be requested to review these and issue suitable guidelines so that further destruction of forest can be halted.
(27) Although a sizeable quantity of timber from the felled trees has already been removed, fairly large numbers of logs are still lying in the enclosures. As the tenure of the land is redeem sagu, the ownership of the timber vests with the land owners.
As the trees have been felled with the explicit permission from the Tree Officers and the cut and un-transported logs are likely to decay with the passage of time, denying permission to transport the balance material will not be justified. However, disciplinary action will have to be initiated against the concerned officers for giving transport permission without obtaining prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The officers have been violating the instructions/clarifications issued by the Government of India in their letters dated 14.9.2004 and 30.4.2005.
(28) As far as felling of further trees is concerned, it is likely that the Tree Officers/ Tree Authority of Kodagu district may continue to give further felling permission taking umbrage under the Government letter of 1997 and the Government circular of 1999. This needs to be stopped immediately to halt the ongoing process of forest destruction in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Government may therefore be requested to immediately keep the abovementioned letter and circular in abeyance pending their review. Government may also be requested to issue direction to the Tree Officers and Tree Authorities to comply with the instructions of PCCF dated 4.2.2006 and 22.1.2008 until further orders. This has been suggested in view of the fact that the CF, Kodagu circle has been taking a stand that PCCF has no powers under the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 to issue directions to the Tree officers and Tree Authorities. Under Section 27 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, Government is empowered to issue general and specific directions to the Tree officers and Tree Authorities.
(29) In the official memorandum dated 3.12.2008, PCCF has directed that the Tree Officers and Tree Authority of Kodagu district shall not give any felling permission, till the matter is reviewed by the Team. In pursuance to this, the DCFs have 3 stopped giving felling permission even in cases of shade regulation in Coffee plantations. It is pointed out that the Committee during its visit to Kodagu district did not receive any complaint or did not come across any case regarding irregularities in felling of trees in Coffee plantations for shade regulation. It is therefore suggested that in respect of felling of trees within Coffee plantations for shade regulation, Tree Officers may be directed to continue to carry out their duties as per existing directions and circulars."
4. On due consideration, we are of the view that remedial action for upholding the law are necessary. Dealing with identical situation, we have passed order today in M.A. No. 1183/2015 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India & Ors. The issue in the present application can be dealt with in the same matter.
5. Accordingly, we direct that the issue may now be finalized by joint Committee of Chief Secretary, Karnataka, CCF/Regional officer, MoEF&CC, and PCCF (HoFF), Karnataka. PCCF (HoFF), Karnataka will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Meeting of the joint Committee be held within one month and further action finalized within three months. The compliance for identified action will be the responsibility of the Chief Secretary, Karnataka.
The Application will stand disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Karnataka, CCF/Regional officer, MoEF&CC, and PCCF (HoFF), Karnataka by email for compliance.
M.A. No. 1379/2017 will also stand disposed of accordingly.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP 4 Sudhir Agarwal, JM Prof. A. SenthilVel, EM December 13, 2022 Original Application No. 167/2016 (Earlier No. 30/2013 (THC) (SZ) W.P. No. 3388/2009 (M.A. No. 1379/2017) SN 5