Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The expression "forest land" had not been defined under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, however, gives some clue to its meaning. Section 3 empowers the State Government to declare any forest-land or waste-land belonging to the State as a reserved forest. This means that the "reserved forest" can comprise of forest -land as well as waste-land. In turn it means that on dereservation of "reserved forest" the land would be forest land or waste-land depending upon its nature at the time when it was declared as reserved forest. Moreover, the word 'forest' came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Janu Chandra Waghmare v. The State of Maharashtra, 79 Bom.L.R. 499. One of the question involved in that case was whether the word forest would include 'forest produce'. For that purpose it became necessary to ascertain the meaning of the expression 'forest'. The Court held at page 521 :

"Explanation:---For the purposes of this section "non-forest purpose means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reforestation."

While section 2 undoubtedly requires prior approval of the Central Government for the purposes mentioned in sub-sections (i) and (ii) the expression 'non-forest purpose" finds place in sub-section (ii) and this expression has been defined by the Explanation thereto. Explanation, in our opinion, defines "non forest purpose" as meaning (i) breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof and (ii) for any purpose other than reforestation. The Explanation has two limbs. The first limb is "breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof '. The other limb is that the above act should be for any purpose other than re-afforestation'. In other words, both the limbs must be satisfied if it is to be held non-forest purpose. We shall first try to understand the meaning and scope of second limb as in our view the meaning of second limb will also throw some light as to the meaning of first limb. In its wisdom the legislature has used the word 'reforestation' in the second limb and not afforestation. our mind, this is not without significance. Both the words have their origin in the word 'afforest' which according to the Straud's Judicial dictionary means to turn ground into forest. The meaning of this word, according to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is to convert into forest. The word 'Reforest' would naturally mean to afforest again. Consequently, 'reforestation' would mean afforesting a land again which was cleared of afforestation once existed. Considered in the light of meaning of second limb of the Explanation as understood by us, the expression 'forest land' used in the first limb would mean afforested land. In the instant case the suit land was never afforested. In fact, it was leased out to respondent No. 3, in the year 1975 for afforestation as distinct from reforestation. Section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has therefore no application in the facts of the case. The name of the Act, its preamble and the statement of objects and reasons support our above view inasmuch as all these merely contemplate conservation, preservation and/or protection of forest. The name of the Act is "(The) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980". The preamble reads thus :