Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sir, Sub: Forests-Assignment of Forest Lands which have already come under Agricultural occupations-clearance under Forest Conservation Act requested.
Several forest areas in Kerala came to be exposed to human occupation particularly since 1956, primarily due to the very heavy pressure of population and secondarily due to Governmental programmes like colonization schemes, grow more food schemes, arable land scheme, hydro power projects, plantations etc. In the sixties and seventies, the perspective was one of providing land based employment to landless people. It was on account of this that some of the above schemes came under implementation. Forest lands were transferred for non forest purposes. Pressure built up for further expansion into forest areas adjoining converted lands. Government did carry out evictions of unauthorised encroachments from time to time from forest as well as project areas. Nonetheless, this kind of pressure continued and by the time the Central Forest Conservation law came into force in 1980, there still were a large number of unauthorised occupations in forest areas. In the meantime, Government took the decision to regularize all the occupations that had come into being prior to 1.1.1977.

2.1 All the cases of subsisting encroachments where the State Governments stand committed to regularize on account of past commitments may be submitted to this Ministry for seeking prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Such proposals should invariably conform to the criteria given below:

1. PRE-1980 ENCROACHMENTS WHERE THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAD TAKEN A DECISION BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980, TO REGULARIZE `ELIGIBLE' CATEGORY OF ENCROACHMENTS.

21. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India and others [1993 Supp (3) SCC 115], this Court held that once an area is declared as protected forest, it becomes forest within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Act and prior approval of the Central Government is a condition precedent for grant of lease under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The ratio of the judgment is contained in para 18, which is extracted below:-

"Once an area is declared as a protected forest, it comes within the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It becomes a forest land within the meaning of Section 2. The effect of this position is that no non-forest activity can be carried on in the said area except with the prior approval of the Central Government. Even the State Government cannot carry on any such non-forest activity in the said area without such prior approval. That the mining activity amounts to non-forest purpose is beyond dispute. Thus, the grant of mining leases/licences and their renewal by the State Government, without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government, in respect of the mines situated within the protected forest, after January 1, 1975 is contrary to law. All the mines listed in Appendix `A' to the committee's report do fall within the areas declared as protected forest while the mines listed in Appendix `B' fall partly within and partly outside such areas. According to Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 too, no mining lease could have been granted or renewed within the forest "without clearance from the Central Government in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the rules made thereunder". Admittedly, no such prior approval or clearance of Central Government was obtained. The Chairman of the committee, Shri Justice M.L. Jain has recommended that 215 mines mentioned in Appendix `A' to his report, which are situated wholly within the protected forest should be closed forthwith. There can hardly be any valid objection in law to the said recommendation. Similarly, with respect to 47 mines mentioned in Appendix `B' to the report, the learned Chairman has recommended that they should be closed forthwith insofar as they fall within the protected forest. To this recommendation also, there can be no valid objection in law."

23. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others [(1997) 2 SCC 267], this Court adverted to the misconception entertained in certain quarters about the true scope of the 1980 Act and the meaning of the word "forest" used therein and held:

"The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v.