Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (8.13 seconds)
Documents citing Nature Lovers Movement vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 20 March, 2009

The State Of Kerala Rep.By Secretary vs New World Investment (P) Limited on 11 August, 2010

41. In the present case as noted above, the State issued show cause notice for cancellation of the lease on the ground that petitioners are using the leased land for running a tourist resort which is a non-forest activity requiring prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the 1980 Act. The Division Bench judgment as relied on by the petitioners in Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala (supra) does not help the petitioner in the present case.
Kerala High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - P R Menon - Full Document

Phinto Pa vs Union Of India on 9 February, 2022

63. By consideration the question whether it is a forest land and whether mining activity will be permissible in that area without obtaining clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 etc was considered by the Hon'ble High Court while considering issue no. 1 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulppad vs. Union of India and Ors.16, State Of Uttaranchal vs M/S. Kumaon Stone Crusher 17 and also relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Omana Vs. Anil Kumar18, One Earth One Life Vs MoEF & ors19 and Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerala 20 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court challenging the decision n Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerala 21 and State of Kerala Vs. New World Investments 22 , came to the conclusion that the quarrying for minerals is certainly a non-forest activity and therefore without securing prior permission from the Central Government, such non-forest activity cannot be 16 (1997) 2 SCC 267 17 (2018) 14 SCC 635 18 2017 (2) KLT 481 19 2018 (4) KHC 827 20 AIR 2000 Ker.131 (FB) 21 (2009) 5 SCC 373 22 ILR 2016 (1) Ker. 817 45 permitted in the lands declared as Reserved Forest which continue to be categorised so, in the revenue records.
National Green Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babu George vs The Agricultural Production on 29 September, 2009

17. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have been evicted illegally from the lands, which have been in their possession since 1973. According to the learned counsel, in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala and Others (ILR 2000 (Vol.1) Kerala 677), in paragraph 103(L), this Court has directed that the land in excess of four acres in the possession of occupants alone shall be resumed. Relying on this paragraph, it is argued that eviction was illegal and the petitioners are entitled to be put in possession of the land and buildings. However, a reading of paragraphs 73 & 74 of the aforesaid judgment shows that the direction to permit continued occupation up to four acres of land, can be claimed only by those who have been included in the list prepared following the joint verification that has been conducted by the Forest and Revenue Officials in various districts including Idukki District. In this case, nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the petitioners' names have been included in the list prepared following the joint verification. Therefore, on the materials available, I am not prepared to hold that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid direction contained in the Full Bench WP(C) No.16458/2009 -11- Judgment.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document

Dr. Pentapati Pullarao vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2021

In Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2009)5SCC373 (order dated 20.03.2009) in (Civil Appeal No. 2116 of 2000), Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as „FC Act, 1980‟) vis-a-vis Kerala Forest Act, 1961 were under consideration. Court held that FC Act, 1980 enacted by virtue of list III Seventh Schedule and contains non obstante clause. Section 2 hence has over-riding effect. The purpose of Act is conservation of forest and to prevent depletion thereof. The Act is applicable to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. After 25.10.1980 i.e., 277 date of enforcement of FC Act, 1980, no State Government or other authority can pass an order or give a direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect of forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or organization which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government. Further user of forest land for non-forest purpose prior to enforcement of FC Act, 1980 will not be a ground to explain tenure of such activity by way of renewal etc.
National Green Tribunal Cites 201 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Akhil Bhartiya Mangela Samaj Parishad vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board ... on 24 January, 2022

In Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2009)5SCC373 (order dated 20.03.2009) in (Civil Appeal No. 2116 of 2000), Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'FC Act, 1980') vis-a-vis Kerala Forest Act, 1961 were under consideration. Court held that FC Act, 1980 enacted by virtue of list III Seventh Schedule and contains non obstante clause. Section 2, hence, has over-riding effect. The purpose of Act is conservation of forest and to prevent depletion thereof. The Act is applicable to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. After 25.10.1980 i.e., date of enforcement of FC Act, 1980, no State Government or other authority can pass an order or give a direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect of forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or organization which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government. Further user of forest land for non-forest purpose prior to enforcement of FC Act, 1980 will not be a ground to explain tenure of such activity by way of renewal etc.
National Green Tribunal Cites 309 - Cited by 5 - A K Goel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next