Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 11 December, 1986
"4. 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 [(1987) 1 SCC 213], Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504]
and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme
Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun
Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on
29-11-1996] ).
Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs State Of U.P on 30 August, 1988
"4. 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 [(1987) 1 SCC 213], Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504]
and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme
Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun
Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on
29-11-1996] ).
+ (3) W.P. (C) 7177/2019, C.M. Appl. ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 November, 2020
9. We, thus, clarify that since the interim order dated 22nd
March 2018 directing maintenance of status quo was passed
to ensure timely submission of the Vision Plan by the State of
U.P. and the said direction already stands complied with,
there shall be no impediment for the authorities to consider
pending environmental clearances which are necessary to
secure essential amenities within TTZ. Simultaneously, the
State and other statutory authorities are free to consider
requests for relocating eco-friendly nonpolluting industrial
units, subject to them meticulously complying with
environmental laws and all norms/conditions laid down by
this Court (including those in the main judgment of 30th
December 1996). Concurrence with the Central Empowerment
2
Committee and opinion of NEERI shall also be necessary
before according such permission.
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996
8. The role of the State cannot be confined to that of a facilitator or generator
of economic activities for immediate upliftment of the fortunes of the State.
The State also has to act as a trustee for the benefit of the general public
in relation to the natural resources so that sustainable development can
be achieved in the long term. Such role of the State is more relevant today,
than, possibly, at any point of time in history with the threat of climate
catastrophe resulting from global warming looming large. This Court has
highlighted the Public Trust Doctrine in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal
Nath and Others [(1997) 1 SCC 388] and opined that the Public Trust
Doctrine is part of the law of land. In Paragraph 25 of the said judgment,
as reported, this doctrine has been explained with reference to writings of
Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan, the proponent of
Modern Public Trust Doctrine:-
State Of Bihar vs Banshi Ram Modi & Ors on 7 May, 1985
The earlier decision of this Court in State of
Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] has,
therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent
8
decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled
position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel
the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government
or authority. This has become necessary also because of the
stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at
this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in
such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this
Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State
Government which has failed to appreciate the correct
position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and
take the necessary remedial measures without any further
delay."
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 July, 2011
In the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India considered the safety measures
required to be taken for eco-sensitive zones around National Parks and
Wildlife Sanctuaries and observed as follows :-
1