Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.67 seconds)The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
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
Gujarat12, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v.
State of U.P.23 and recently in the order dated 29-11-
1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v.
Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority 4).
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 Modi45 has, therefore, to be understood
in the light of these subsequent 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.
Sri Ram Saha vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 October, 2004
8. The principle of law laid down in T. N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad (supra) was followed subsequently by the Supreme
Court in the matters of Sri Ram Saha v. State of W.B. and others 6,
In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary 7
and very recently in the matter of B.S. Sandhu v. Government of
India and others8.
B.S. Sandhu vs Government Of India & Ors on 21 May, 2014
8. The principle of law laid down in T. N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad (supra) was followed subsequently by the Supreme
Court in the matters of Sri Ram Saha v. State of W.B. and others 6,
In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary 7
and very recently in the matter of B.S. Sandhu v. Government of
India and others8.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 July, 2011
14. The principle of law laid down in the above-stated cases would
also apply to the subject land as it is Chhote Jhad Ka Jangal and it is
a forest land as held in T. N. Godavarman (supra). The land is forest
land and by operation of law, the provisions of the Act of 1980 would
be attracted and the Divisional Forest Officer is not empowered to
hold that it is not a forest land once it is a forest land attracting the
provisions of the Act of 1980, therefore, no objection could have been
allegedly given by the Divisional Forest Officer. Even otherwise
classification of forest land as Chhote Jhad Ka Jangal by State
Government will not take away the character of land as forest land
and it will remain forest land under the sweep of the Act of 1980, as
such, the State Government is absolutely justified in rejecting the
revision/representation preferred by the petitioner.
12 2009(1) CGLJ 30
Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs Union Of India And Others on 8 April, 1993
11. Again, the Supreme Court in the matter of Tarun Bharat Sangh,
Alwar v. Union of India and others 10 has held that once an area is
declared as protected forest, it becomes forest within the meaning of
Section 2 of the Act of 1980 and prior approval of the Central
Government is a condition precedent for grant of lease under the
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986.
Nature Lovers Movement vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 20 March, 2009
12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Natural Lovers Movement
v. State of Kerala & others11 held that after enforcement of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the State Government or any
authority cannot make an order or issue direction for de-reservation
of reserved forest or permit for the use of forest land or any portion
thereof by way of lease. Paragraph 27(2) of the reports states as
under:-
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Pakur Jagran Manch & Ors on 12 January, 2011
18. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand v. Pakur
Jagran Manch and others13 highlighting the importance of gochar
land of village held as under:-