Fca m&m article_final_11.03.2019

All rights are reserved in favour of Ravindra Nath Saxena, Former Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Madhya Pradesh. Unauthorised copying, reproduction by print / electronic format is strictly
prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
1
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 –
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions, Legal Analysis,
& Reforms
Ravindra Nath Saxena,
Former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Madhya Pradesh
I. Introduction –
India is one of the 12 mega biodiversity rich country, harbouring a wide variety of flora and
fauna. The country is home to 5198 species of vascular plants and about 6802 species of
wildlife; but the country has witnessed extinction of 21 species and have large list of fauna
and flora in “red data book”, which signify species vulnerable to extinction. The forest
area of the country is 7,57,740 sq.kms., which is 23.41% of the geographical area. The
country is having 3,99,919 sq.kms of “reserve forests” (not burdened with privileges,
intentionally confused with rights) and 2,38,434 sq.kms. of “protected forest” (communities
are having traditional privileges for Nistar). There are 602 national parks, wildlife
sanctuaries, conservation reserves and community reserves covering area of 1,55,678
sq.kms [notified under Sections-18, 35 and 36A; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972]. Among
these protected areas an intricate web of wildlife corridors are situated along with
Important Bird Areas (IBAs), wildlife activity areas, CITES sites, sites covered under
international conventions etc. The forest land is having heterogeneous origin and
sometimes covered under blanket notifications. These blanket notifications were the need
of hour in 1940s, 1950s and 1960s; but with the passage of time reforms have not taken
place due to lack of vision. In nutshell the situation is extremely complicated. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has passed about 1300 judgements in the Civil Writ Petition No.
202/1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad versus Union of India. Some of these orders
have been reported in law journals, but some have not been reported. The order dated
12th December, 1996 passed in this PIL define “forests” and “forest land”, thus very
important.
II. Evolution of Constitutional Provisions –
After the promulgation of the Constitution of India on 26th January, 1950. The
“Forests” were placed in the “State List” (Seventh Schedule, List-II), but in the 27th
year of the Republic of India under the recommendations of the National Agriculture
Commission a need was felt to upgrade the status of “forests” from the “State List”
to “Concurrent List”. Accordingly the Constitution 42nd (Amendment) Act, 1976
was passed and as per Section-57 “Entry-17A. Forests” was inserted in the
“Concurrent List” (Seventh Schedule, List-III). The Part-XI of the Constitution of
India, Chapter-I, Legislative Relations, Distribution of Legislative Powers defines the
relations between the Parliament and State Legislative Assembles. The Articles-245,
246, 249, 250 and 251 provide very insight about the Centre-State Legislatures
relations. The Article-251 and 254 throws light on the inconsistency of the
legislation made by the Parliament under Article-249 and 250 and laws made by the
Legislatures of States. These articles are produced below for ready reference.

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
2
“Article-251. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament under Articles-249
and 250 and laws made by the Legislatures of States - Nothing in Article-249 and
250 shall restrict the power of the Legislature of a State to make any law which under
this Constitution it has power to make, but if any provision of law made by the
legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which
Parliament has under either of the said articles power to make, the law made by the
Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the legislature of the State,
shall prevail, and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall to the extent of the
repugnancy, but so long only as the law made by Parliament continues to have effect,
be inoperative”.
Article-254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by
the Legislatures of States - (1) If any provision of law made by the Legislature of a
State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is
competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause
(2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the
Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and
the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be
void.
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State [***]1
with respect to one of
the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the
provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that
matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been
reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in
that State.
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at
any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending,
varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976 has empowered the Parliament to effectively
legislate on forest related issues. The “Forests” remained with the Ministry of Agriculture for a
long time. In 1978, the Govt. of India issued directive to all State Governments to check
indiscriminate diversion of forest areas for non-forest purposes. The Indian Forest Act, 1927
is silent about diversion, assignment and treatment of forest crop under the statutory
authority of the Union of India. It was the need of hour, before enactment of Forest
(Consrervation) Act, 1980 the rate of diversion was about 1,75,000 to 1,80,000ha. /
annum; which has been reduced to about 15,000ha./annum after the enactment of FCA.
But the response of most of the State Governments were lukewarm in this matter and
this situation forced the Central Government to proclaim Presidential Ordinance for
“Forest Conservation Act” on 25th October, 1980 to regulate diversion of forest land
for non-forest purposes.
A growing need was felt that due to absence of a nodal ministry for forests and environment,
the Govt. of India was unable to serve the purpose at national level. In 1985, the Deptt. of
Forests of Ministry of Agriculture and the National Council of Environmental Planning & Co-
ordination of Deptt. of Science & Technology was merged and a nodal agency of the “Ministry
of Environment, Forests & Climate Change” was formed.

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
3
The entire gamut of forest activities are being given a new orientation in the light of the National
Forest Policy of 1988. In order to operationalise the National Forest Policy 1988, State
Forestry Action Programmes were also formulated for each state.
Under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, prior approval of the Central
Government is mandatory for diversion of forest lands for non-forest purposes. Since the
enactment of the Act, the rate of diversion of forest land has come down to around 15,000
hectares per annum from 1.75 to 1,80 lakh hectares per annum, before 1980. During 2017,
more than 2000 proposals from various State and UT Governments were processed under
the FCA.
The Section-2(i) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 abridges powers of State
Governments to denotify forest areas. When we read providions of FCA and IFA
together, Forest Settlement Officers (FSO) cannot excise / delete forests areas
burdened with rights from forest blocks without obtaining prior approval of the Central
Government. Even lands of proposed forest blocks, notified under Section-4 of Indian
Forest Act, 1927 cannot be denotified by the State Government, without prior approval
of the Government of India.
III. Forest Conservation Act, 19801
(Act-LXIX of 1980) –
An Act to provide for the conservation of forests and for matters connected
therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.
Be it enacted by the Parliament in the Thirty-first year of the Republic of India as
follows:
Statement of objects and purpose of legislation - Large scale deforestation causes
ecological imbalance and leads to environmental degradation. In post independence era
deforestation had been taking place on a large scale in the country and it had caused
widespread concern in the Government and public. With a view to check further deforestation,
the President of India promulgated the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance on the 25th October,
1980. The ordinance made the prior approval of the Central Government mandatory for
denotification of RF/PF/unclassed forests and for use of forest land for non-forestry purposes.
The ordinance also provided for the constitution of a "Forest Appraisal Committee" to advise
the Central Government with regard to grant of such approval. The bill seeks to replace the
aforesaid ordinance.2
1. Short title and commencement -
(1) This Act may be called the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 25th day of October,
1980.
Comments
The main purpose of the legislation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is to prevent
further deforestation and environmental degradation. The spirit and intention of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 is to usher an era of balanced development and progress without
causing deforestation and having adverse effect on the environment. With a view to check
further deforestation3, the Forest Conservation Ordinance, 1980 had been promulgated on
25th October, 1980. The present Act replaced the said ordinance and contains the similar

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
4
provisions. The Forest Conservation Act extends to the whole of India except the State of
Jammu & Kashmir and came into force on 25th October, 19802.
The Act has been amended in 1988 to incorporate penal provisions for the violation of
the Section-2 of the F.C.A.
2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-
forest purposes - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior
approval of the Central Government, any order directing :
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression
"reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that
State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any
non-forest purpose;
4[(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by
way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any
authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not
owned, managed or controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of
trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the
purpose of using it for reafforestation.
5
[Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "non-forest purpose" means the
breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for :
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants,
horticultural crops or medicinal plants.
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation.
but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and
management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines,
wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes,
trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.]
3. Constitution of Advisory Committee : The Central Government may constitute a
Committee consisting of such number of persons as it may deem fit to advise the Government
with regard to -
(i) the grant of approval under Section-2; and
(ii) any other matter connected with the conservation of forests which may
be referred to it by the Central Government.
25
[3A. Penalty for contravention of the Act : Whoever contravenes or abets the
contravention of any of the provisions of Section-2, shall be punishable with simple
imprisonment for a period which may extend to fifteen days.
3B. Offence by Authorities and Government Departments. : (1) Where any offence under
this Act has been committed -
(a) by any department of Government, the head of the department ; or

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
5
(b) by any authority, every person who, at the time the offence was
committed, was directly in charge of, and was responsible to, the
authority for the conduct of the business of the authority as well as the
authority ;
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render the head of the
department or any person referred to in Clause (b), liable to any punishment if he proves that
the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to
prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where an offence
punishable under the Act has been committed by a department of Government or any authority
referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of ; or is attributable to any neglect on the part of
any officer, other than the head of the department, or in the case of an authority, any person
other than the persons referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), such officer or persons
shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.]
4. (1) Power to make rules - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made,
before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which
may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the
expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid,
both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule
should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of
no effect, as the case may be ; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
5. Repeal and savings - (1) The Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 is hereby replaced.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the
provisions of the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of this Act.
IV. Comments and case laws to Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 -
(1) Scope - Except with prior permission of the Central Government, deforestation
is impermissible under provisions of FCA. It is observed that it cannot be disputed that lands
are situated within reserved forest area. In the lands assigned to the petitioner, the trees are
standing. In terms of the grant made to them, the trees belong to the Government. Under those
circumstances, for the reason that it is a reserved forest area, since the grant was made only
for the purpose of cultivation, the respondents have no right whatsoever to deforest the land
and to cut and carry the trees belonging to the Government much less without the permission
of the authority - State of Orissa ver. Duti Sahu, AIR 1997, SC p. 1040, 1041 : (1997) 3 SCC
p.501.

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
6
In the strict sense clearance of forest land will take place even by cutting down one
tree therefrom. At any rate, there is no doubt that the multiple coppice shoots of trees have to
be cut and removed, though appellant would say that more than a dozen trees are to be felled
for this purpose. Hence, whatever be number of trees involved the court hold that the F.C.A.
clearance for forest land is necessary for constructing the proposed forest lodge - Jairaj A.P.
ver. Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), AIR 1996 Ker 362 p. 363 ; (1996) 1 Ker. LJ p. 364.
Thus, the law is well-settled that any non-forest activity in the forest area without prior
approval of the Central Government is banned. For grant of mining lease or renewal of mining
lease for non-forest activity, the provisions of Section-2 of the FCA has to be complied with
before grant or renewal of mining lease. There is no distinction as to whether the mining area
has been broken or not, even if the area has been broken in terms of earlier lease unless
mining lease is renewed after complying with the requirement of Section-2 of the FCA meaning
thereby after prior approval of the Central Government; no mining operation can be carried
out by any person by taking recourse to the legal provisions as contained in Section 24-A (6)
of the Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1960. In other words, the provision of Section-2 of the FCA
will prevail over the provisions of the Mines Act 1952 & Rules; Mines & Minerals (Development
& Regulation) Act, 1957 & Rules ; Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957
; and Rule 24-A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 have to yield to the provision of
the FCA - State of Bihar ver. M/s R.M.C. Dill Co. (P.) Ltd., AIR 1998 Pat 20 p. 22, 23.
A mere reading of Section-2 of the FCA clearly shows that prior approval of the Central
Government is mandatory as well as a pre-condition of the grant of lease of forest lands for
non-forest purposes. It is admitted beyond doubt that a mining lease is a non-forest purpose.
The impugned order states that the grant would be subject to a special condition that
the commencement of quarrying operation should be done only after obtaining concurrence
of MOEF, Government of India. The said special condition on the face of it, is not in conformity
with the requirement of Section-2 of the FCA in that it totally fails to give effect to the word
"prior approval" and state that quarrying operations should be commenced only after the
concurrence of Government of India, thereby defeating the object of the word "prior" and
making the same ineffective and redundant. In conclusion, the Court observed that the
impugned order dated 05.05.1995 itself is the outcome of ingenious abuse of powers
conferred to the State Government and illustrate a glaring and colourable exercise too. The
Section-2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 imposes a ban by enacting that
"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State; no
State Government or other authority shall make except with the prior approval of the Central
Government any order directing dereservation of any reserved forest or the use of any forest
land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose". Therefore, the Court is of the view
that whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular
manner, and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement lead to
severe consequences such requirements would be mandatory.
It is the fundamental principle of interpretation that where a statute provides that
a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not
in any other way. It is settled rule of interpretation that where the statute is penal in
character, it must be strictly construed and followed. When a law says that a thing is to
be done is a particular manner, it should be done in accordance with the said principles
and not otherwise. We have already noticed that the requirement under Section-2 is

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
7
mandatory and therefore, non-compliance of the same must result in cancelling the grant
made in favour of the lessee. The order of the Court quashing the impugned Government
Order granting the lease in favour of Golden Granites (it is in any way vitiated) is the only
order that could be made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
It applies to even such cases where mining is to be continued in any already broken
up area. It is clear from Circular No. A-1/62 dated 26.03.1982 of MOEF, GOI that mining /
quarrying of granite in a reserved forest is a non-forestry activity and requires the prior
approval of the Central Government under Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
It has been established beyond any doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu have
completely ignored and failed to get the prior approval of the Central Government and that the
effect of the impugned order has only made the prior approval of the Central Government as
ex-post facto clearance. M/s Golden Granites ver. K.V. Shanmugam, AIR 1988 Madras 150
p. 162 to 169.
(2) Notification of forest land as 'reserve forest' not necessary - The Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 could apply to any forest land, its notification as a "Reserved Forest"
(R.F.) under Section-20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is not necessary for the application of
the FCA6.
(3) Meaning of expression 'forest' and 'forest land' - Any area notified under
Section-4, 20, 28 and 29 attracts provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The FCA
Guideline 1.1.(i) has made it clear that any area notified under Section-4 also comes under
purview of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. This position has been upheld by the Hon. Supreme
Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). The Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 could apply to any forest land, its notification as a 'Reserve Forest' (RF) under
Section-20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is not necessary for the application of the same.6
A question has been raised regarding applicability of the Forest Conservation Act on
the undemarcated forests. The "Reserve Forests" notified under Section-20 is always
demarcated forests. But as far as "Protected Forests" are concerned, it requires some
clarifications. The first Indian Forest Act, 1865 (Act-VIII of 1865) was placed on the Statute
Book in 1865 ; which was replaced by Indian Forest Act, 1878 (Act-VII of 1878). The Indian
Forest Act, 1878 was amended by the Indian Forest (Amendments) Acts 1890, 1901, 1918
and 1919. The present Indian Forest Act (Act-XVI of 1927) was legislated in 1927 to
consolidate forest related legislations. These Indian Forest Acts were adopted by various
provinces and erstwhile princely states with certain modifications. And notifications were
issued for declaring area as "Reserved Forests" and "Protected Forests". It has been observed
in certain instances where area was covered under blanket notifications. Particularly in
erstwhile princely states blanket notifications (without mentioning boundary, khasra number,
village, tehsil, taluk, compartment number, forest block etc.) were issued to bring more and
more area under the control of the princely states. After the abolition of Jamindari and
Malguzari in 1950's ; these areas, covered under blanket notifications were transferred to
State Revenue Departments as a result thereof. Then these areas were transferred to the
State Forest Departments for demarcating and notifying same as RF or PF. The State
Government constituted certain "Survey & Demarcation Units" in 50's and 60's with a view
to demarcate these undemarcated forest areas. Large number of notifications were issued in
60's and 70's under Section-4 and Section-29 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, but still some of
the forest lands notified under blanket notifications were left outside the demarcation boundary

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
8
to straighten the boundaries of forest blocks. The jurisdiction over this undemarcated
forest areas have always remained a bone of contention between the State Forest Deptt.
and the State Revenue Deptt., but as far as legal status of the land is concerned, but it
is undisputably "forest land", since it has been covered under a valid notification.
The Supreme Court's order does not bar the application of enacted law, if any. Enacted
law applies in respect of non-forest private plantations.7 When there was direction of the Hon.
Supreme Court then there was no other alternative to the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC)
but to initiate the work with abundant caution, because of the coming into force of the Forest
Conservation Act, they had submitted the proposal to the State Government, who in turn
referred the matter to the Central Government and then permission was granted with the
conditions. When the conditions have been fulfilled bona fide of the Damodar Valley
Corporation's authorities cannot be questioned as such, the prosecution against the
petitioners can only be said to be an abuse of the judicial process and hence the same should
be quashed8. Mere perusal of the provisions of Section-2, it is mandatory and / or obligatory
for the State Government to obtain prior permission from the Central Government for de-
reservation of forests and / or use of the forests land for non-forest purposes. Even it is
accepted that after acquisition of the land through land acquisition proceeding, it has become
the private property of the petitioner i.e. Corporation, but in view of the operation of Forest
Conservation Act, the question of renewal of the lease will not be as a matter of right unless
the approval is granted by the Central Government. In view of the specific and unambiguous
provisions as continued in Section-2 of the Act, read with the explanation thereto, the State
Government or any of its authority cannot allow the forests land be used for any non-forest
purposes without prior approval of the Central Government. In view of the specific and
unambiguous provisions as contained in Section-2 of the Act, read with the explanation
thereto, the State Government or any of its authority cannot allow the forests land be used for
any non-forest purposes without prior approval of the Central Government9.
The Hon. Supreme Court of India in a land mark judgement10 dated 12.12.1996 (Civil
W.P. No. 202/95 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad ver. Union of India & Otrs.) has observed
that :
"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
designation 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 and Ors. versus State of Gujarat and
Ors. (1987 (1) Sec-213), Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra versus State of U.P.
[1989 Suppl. (1) Sec-504], and recently in the order dated 29th November, 1996 in

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
9
W.P.(C) No. 749/95 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee Vs. Mussorie Dehradun
Development Authority and Ors. The earlier decision of this court in State of Bihar
versus Banshiram Modi and Ors,[(1985(3) Sec-643] has, therefore, to be understood in
the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this
settled position emerging from the decision of this court to dispel the doubt, if any, in
the perception of any State Government or authority."
In the context of aforesaid verdict, it is absolutely clear that Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 applies to all statutorily recognised forests (including reserve forests,
protected forests-covers demarcated and undemarcated both and unclassed forests
also), any area falling under the dictionary meaning of forests, and any area recorded
as forest in the Government records irrespective of the ownership.
(4) Section-2 of the FCA abridges powers of Forest Settlement Officer (FSO),
Forest Court & State Government - When we interpret Section-2 of FCA and Section-5
to 19, 27, 33 and 34 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, a conclusion can be drawn that any
area notified under Section-4 or 29 of IFA cannot be denotified under Section-27 or 34
of IFA unless prior approval under Section-2 of FCA has been obtained by State
Government. This interpretation also abridges the statutory powers of the Forest Settlement
Officer, Forest Court and the State Government to denotify any land falling in the area notified
under Section-4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. It means if denotification of any such area is
required, the State Government is required to obtain prior approval of MOEF, GOI. Certain
State Government like Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have inserted Section-34(A) for the
denotification of the area notified under Section-29 of IFA. If denotification of any land notified
under Section-29, IFA is required, then it is mandatory on the part of the State Government to
obtain prior approval of MOEF, GOI for this purpose. The Section-2 of FCA also abridges
powers of the State Governments to denotify any R.F. under Section-27 of IFA and the State
Government is required to obtain prior sanction of MOEF, GOI for this purpose.
(5) Invoking of restrictions on transfer of forest land to persons organisation,
committee, trust, companies etc. - Section-2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980
restricts the powers of the State Government to transfer or create any rights or privileges in or
over a forest land or a portion of forest land either by a lease or otherwise. The expression
'otherwise' will, include assignment of rights even by way of easement or licence 11.
(6) Applicability of the Forest Conservation Act to mining leases / renewal -
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 applies to renewal of leases as well and even if there was
a provision for renewal in the lease agreement on exercise of lessee's option, the requirements
of FCA had to be satisfied before such renewal could be granted12.
The expression "forest land" has not been defined under the Indian Forest Act, 1927
or under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Section-3 of the Indian Forest Act 1927; however,
provides some clue to its meaning. The Section-3 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 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 de-reservation of "reserved forest" the land would be forest
land or waste land depending upon its functional status at the time when it was notified as
reserved forest. Moreover, the word "forest" came up for consideration before the Court in the
case of Janu Chandra Waghmare ver. State of Maharashtra13. One of the question involved

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
10
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 that -
"..... In other words, even the dictionary meaning clearly shows that 'forest'
means an extensive tract of land together with the trees and undergrowth which covers
such tract and also includes pastures which intermingle with such tract. That a forest
includes 'trees' become very clear from the second part of the applicable meaning
where it is stated : "Forest" means also the trees collectively of a forest. In our view
therefore, even the dictionary meaning of the expression ' forest' make the position
clear that 'forest' means not only an extensive tract of lands but includes the trees,
undergrowth and pastures grown or found lying on such tract of land......"
However, relying on the Hon. Supreme Court decision in the case of Ambica Quarry
Works ver. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC p. 1073, the petitioner contended that the meaning
of expression 'forest' in that decision need not be adopted in the present case as the ratio of
any decision must be understood in the background of the facts in that case. Moreover, the
Explanation to Section-2 (ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provide important clue for
interpretation, which reads -
"Explanation - For the purpose of this section 'non-forest purpose' means breaking
up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereto for any purpose other than re-afforestation".
While Section-2 of FCA undoubtedly stipulates prior approval of the MOEF, GOI for
the purpose mentioned in Sub-sections (i) and (ii), the expression "non-forest purpose" finds
place in Sub-section (i) and (ii) and this expression has been defined by the Explanation
thereto. Explanation, defines "non-forest purpose" as meaning (i) breakjng up or clearing of
any forest land or portion thereof; and (ii) for any purpose other than re-afforestation. The
explanation has two parts. The first part is "breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion
thereof". The other part is that the above act should be for any purpose other than re-
afforestation. In other words, both the conditions must be satisfied if it is to be held non-forest
purpose. First we would like to understand the meaning and scope of second part as the
meaning of second part will also throw some light as to the meaning of first part. In its wisdom
the Parliament has used the word 're-afforestation" in the second part and not afforestation.
When we analyse it in depth, we found that it has got lot of significance. Both the words have
their origin in the word "afforest" which according to the Stroud's Judicial Dictionary means to
turn ground into forest. The meaning of word, "afforest" according to Illustrated Oxford English
Dictionary is "to convert into forest; plant with trees". The Webster's New World Dictionary
also defines the word "afforest" as "to turn (land) into forest; plant many trees on". The word
"re-afforest" would naturally mean to afforest again. Consequently, "re-afforestation" would
mean "afforesting a land" again which was cleared of afforestation once existed. Considered
in the context of meaning of second part of the explanation as understood by the court, the
expression "forest land" used in the first part would mean afforested land. In the instant case
the land in question was never afforested. In fact it was leased out to Respondent No. 3 in the
year 1975 for afforestation as distinct from re-afforestation. Section-2 (ii) of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 has therefore, no application in the facts of the case. The caption of
the Act, its preamble and the statement of Objects and Reasons support the above view
inasmuch as all these merely contemplate conservation, preservation and / or protection of
forest. The caption of the Act, is "The Forest Conservation Act, 1980". the preamble reads as
follows :

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
11
"An Act to provide for the conservation of forests and for matters connected
therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto".
Whereas, the Statement of Objects and Reasons reads as given below :
"1. Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental
deterioration. Deforestation had been taking place on a large scale in the country and
it had caused widespread concern.
2. With a view to checking further deforestation promulgated on the 25th
October, 1980 the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made the
prior approval of the Central Government necessary for de-reservation of the reserved
forest and for use of forest land for non-forest purposes. The Ordinance also provided
for the constitution of an advisory committee to advise the Central Government with
regard to grant of such approval.
3. .............................."
Thus, the conclusion is that the prior approval of the Central Government is necessary
only where the land was afforested at the commencement of the Act and was going to be used
for non-forest purpose after the promulgation of FCA. As regards the two decisions of
Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner, the Court finds that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision does not at all support his contention. No doubt, it was
held in Ambica Quarry Works ver. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1073, that the prior approval
of Central Government was necessary and since such prior approval was not taken the State
Government's action in granting renewal of the quarry leases was illegal. However, it is
significant to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court differed from their earlier decision in the
case of State of Bihar ver. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR 1985, SC 814, the observations from which
were quoted in the citation in paragraph-10 of the Judgement at page 1077 are as follows:
"We are, therefore, of the view that while before granting permission to start
mining operations on a virgin area Section-2 of the Act, has to be complied with, it is
not necessary to seek the prior approval of the Central Government for purposes of
carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the
commencement of the Act".
The decisions, therefore, indicate that where a forest area had been broken up or
cleared before the commencement of the Act, mining operations therein did not require prior
approval of the Central Government. In other words, what is necessary for attraction of the
provisions of Section-2 (ii) of the FCA, is that breaking up or clearing of the forest should be
for the first time after the commencement of that Act. As a natural corollary where the land is
waste land without any afforestation, though initially declared as "reserved forest" but
denotified as "reserved forest" before the commencement of the Act, the Section-2 (ii) of FCA,
would not attract, since on the fateful day of 25.10.1980 (when the FCA Ordinance was
promulgated) the land in question was not forest land legally. In fact, in paragraph-19 of the
judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court have categorically stated that in the instant appeals the
situation was entirely different. The appellants were asking for a renewal of the quarry leases,
which would lead to further deforestation or at least it would not help reclaiming back the areas
where deforestation had taken place. The situation in the present case as stated by the Court
earlier is entirely different. The land in question had been barren and rocky and no forest

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
12
cover or plantation existed thereon. The facts in the Allahabad High Court case were similar
to those in the Supreme Court case referred to above. Therefore, this decision is also
distinguishable from the case of State of Bihar ver. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR, 1985, SC 814. In
the context of the interpretation of the matter, court, hold that the land in question was not a
forest land, covered by the provisions of Section-2(ii) read with "Explanation" thereto of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and therefore, prior approval of the Central Government was
not necessary.
(7) Mining in forest land - Prior approval of the Central Government for mining operations
in forest area already broken up or cleared before commencement of the Forest Conservation
Act is not necessary. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Bihar ver. Banshiram, Modi AIR 1985, SC 814, which has indeed been relied upon by
the counsel for the appellant. For a proper appreciation of the ratio of the said decision, it is
necessary to notice the facts of that case. The respondent in the appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was granted a mining lease for mining and winning mica in respect of area of
80 acres, which formed part of a reserved forest. The mining lease was executed in April,
1966. The mining lease was for a period of 20 years. During currency of the mining period,
the lessee was carrying on mining operations only in an extent of about 5 acres. While carrying
out the mining operations he came across two other related minerals, viz, Feldspar and
Quartz. Under the terms of lease, he was obliged to report to the State Government the
discovery of any other mineral in the leased area, he was entitled to win and dispose of such
mineral, as if a lease was grated to him on that behalf. Accordingly, he intimated the authorities
and a supplementary lease-deed was executed, co-extensive with the original lease deed
permitting him to win and extract the two new minerals as well. On coming to know of the
same, the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, written to the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Bihar, drawing his attention to the provision of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 and also stating that inasmuch as the mining area was situated within a reserved forest
area and further, inasmuch as the prior approval of the Central Government had not bee
obtained for inclusion of Feldspar and Quartz in the mining lease as required by the Forest
Conservation Act, the lessee could not be permitted to win the said new minerals
notwithstanding the execution of the supplemental lease deed. Aggrieved by the said letter,
the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed while making it clear
that if for winning Felspar and quartz the lessee was required to break up or clear any forest
land other than the area required for mining to win mica, he could not do so without obtaining
the prior approval of the Central Government under the FCA, aggrieved by the judgement of
the High Court, the State of Bihar approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only question
which the Supreme Court considered was "whether the mining operations which are being
carried on in the 5 acres of land for the purpose of winning Felspar and quartz are illegal by
reason of the absence of the previous approval of the Central Government granted under the
Act". After examining the object underlying the FCA and the language of Section-2, in
particular clause (ii) therein, read with the "Explanation" the Court, made landmark
observations. In State of Bihar V. Banshi Ram Modi14 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in reference
to Section-2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 observed that:
"Reading them together, these two parts of the section mean that after the
commencement of the Act no fresh breaking up of the land or no fresh clearing of the
forest on any such land can be permitted by any State Government or any authority
without the prior approval of the Central Government. But if such permission has been

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
13
accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the forest land is broken up or
cleared then obviously the section cannot apply. In the instant case, it is not disputed
that in an area of five acres out of eighty acres covered by the mining lease the forest
land had been dug up and mining operations were being carried on even prior to the
coming into force of the Act. If the State Government permits the lessee by the
amendment of the lease deed to win and remove Felspar and quartz also in addition to
mica it cannot be said that the State Government has violated Section-2 of the Act,
because thereby no permission for fresh breaking up of forest land is being given. The
result of taking the contrary view will be that while the digging for purpose of winning
mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting Felspar or quartz which he
may come across while he is carrying on mining operations for wining mica. That would
lead to an unreasonable result which would not, in any way, subserve the object of the
Act. We are therefore, of the view that while before granting permission to start mining
operations on a virgin area Section-2 of the Act has to be complied with, it is not
necessary to seek the prior approval of the Central Government for purposes of
carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the
commencement of the Act."
The aforesaid observation make it clear beyond any doubt that any fresh clearing of
the forest cannot be permitted by the State Government or any other authority, without the
prior approval of the Central Government. What all the judgement says is that since 5 acres
of land was already broken up and cleared and mining operations for winning mica were going
thereon, no fresh permission of the Central Government is necessary for mining and winning
Felspar and Quartz in the very same area. If the mining operations are to be carried on beyond
those 5 acres and if any forest crop is to be cleared then prior permission of the Central
Government is necessary, before it is permitted by the State Government or any authority.
Indeed, the counsel for the lessee before the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided an undertaking
that even for felling and removing the standing trees on the said 5 acres, the respondents
would obtain the prior permission of the Central Government in writing, counsel for the lessee
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court further undertook that the lessee would not carry on any
mining operations on any area other than the said 5 acres, which had already been utilized for
non-forest purposes even before the coming into force of the Forest Conservation Act 1980
for the purpose of winning Felspar or Quartz ;
The counsel for the appellant i.e. State of Bihar however, relied upon the following
sentence occurring in paragraph 13
:
"It has also to be mentioned here that before the High Court the learned standing
counsel for the Central Government had stated that the Act, had no application to leases
granted prior to the coming into force of the Act and that there is no repudiation of that stand
before us by the Central Government......"
In the opinion of this court, the said sentence, cannot, and should not be read in
isolation, but in its proper context. The said sentence occurs after referring to the undertaking
given by the counsel for the lessee that the lessee would confine his mining operations only
to the 5 acres and is followed by the sentence wherein the only question arising for
consideration in the said appeal was posed, viz., whether the mining operations being carried
on in the said 5 acres for winning felspar and quartz are illegal by reason of the absence of
the previous approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act. The

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
14
Court is therefore, of the opinion that the said sentence cannot be read as saying that the
grant of a mining lease is tantamount to grant of permission to break-up or clear the forest
land. What is material for the purpose of the FCA is not the date on which the lease is granted,
but the date on which the State Government or other authority permits the breaking - up,
clearing of the forest land or any portion thereof, [Hyderabad Abrasives & Minerals ver. Govt.
of A.P. Forest Dept., (Part-4), 1990 FLT 119 at 121 to 126 (AP)].
In Ambika Quarry Works ver. State of Gujarat, (Ambika Quarry Works ver. State
of Gujrat, AIR, 1987, SC p. 1073 ; (1987) 1 SCC 213 ; AIR 1985 SC p. 1073, 1077 & 1078),
the Hon. Supreme Court differed from the view taken by it earlier in State of Bihar ver.
Banshiram Modi, AIR 1985, SC p. 814 and held that where an application for renewal of
existing mining lease moved after the legislation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (Act-
LXIX of 1980) is rejected. The decision of rejection is in conformity with the spirit and intention
of the Act. After the enforcement of the FCA, the renewal of pre-existing mining leases in forest
areas can be granted only in cases where the provisions of Section-2 of the Forest
Conservation Act has been complied with. The Hon. Supreme Court observed:
"18. The aforesaid observations have been set in detail in order to understand
the true ratio of the said decision in the background of the facts of the case. It is true
that this Court held that if the permission had been granted before the coming into
operation of the 1980 Act and the forest land has been broken up or cleared, Cl. (iii) of
Section-2 of 1980 Act would not apply in such a case. But that decision was rendered
in the background of the facts of that case. The ratio of any decision must be
understood in the background of the facts of the case. It has been said long time ago
that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically
follows from it. But in view of the mandate of Art-141 that the ratio of the decision of
this Court is a law of the land. Shri Govind Dass submitted that the ratio of a decision
must be found out from finding out if the converse was not correct. But this Court,
however, was cautious in expressing the reasons for the said decision in State of Bihar
ver. Banshi Ram Modi. This Court observed in that decision that the result of taking
the contrary view would be "that while digging for purposes of winning mica can go on,
the lessee would be deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come across
while he is carrying on mining operation in winning mica. That would lead to
unreasonable result which will not, in any way, subserve the object of the Act. There
was an existing lease where mining operation was being carried on and what was due
by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on
some other minerals were available, he was giving right to collect those. The new lease
only permitted utilisation or collection of the said other minerals.
19. In the instant appeal the situation is entirely different. The appellants are
asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least
it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. In that
view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio
of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the appellant's demands in
these cases because the facts are entirely different here. The primary purpose of the
Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent
further deforestation. The Central Government has not granted approval. If the State
Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where the State Government should
seek approval of the Central Government, the State Government cannot apparently

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
15
seek such approval in a matter in respect of, in our opinion, which it has come to the
conclusion that no renewal should be granted.
In G. Raghava Das ver. Govt. of A.P.,14 the Andhra Pradesh High Court discussed
the scope of Section-2 of FCA and held that Section-2 applies to cases of renewal of lease.
The application for renewal has to be treated as a de novo application for a fresh lease for the
purpose of Section-2 of the FCA and the prior approval of the Central Government should be
obtained. By granting renewal, the State Government would permit fresh breaking up and
clearing of the forest. But for the renewal, the lessee would not be able to do as the lease had
expired. The Hon. Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that :
"13. In State of Tamil Nadu ver. M/s Hind Stone,15 Justice Chinnappa Reddy,
who spoke for the Court held that an application for renewal of a lease is in essence is
an application for grant of a lease for a fresh period. In view of this decision, we have
no doubt that the application for renewal has to be treated as an application for a fresh
lease for the purpose of Section-2 of the Act and the approval of the Central
Government has to be necessarily obtained. By granting renewal, the State Government
would be permitting fresh breaking up and clearing of the forest. But for the renewal,
the lessee would not be able to do it as the lease had expired unlike in the case of State
of Bihar ver. Banshi Ram Modi,16 where even without the fresh permission, the lessee
could carry on the mining operations. We are, therefore, unable to accept contention of
the learned Counsel that Section-2 has no application to a case of renewal of leases."
"15. However, the rejection of the renewal application by the respondents on the
ground that the Forest Conservation Act prohibited grant of lease altogether within the
reserve forest area is illegal. The Act did not contain any such absolute ban, but only
provided that the prior approval of the Central Government shall be obtained before
permitting any use of the reserve forest for a non-forest purpose which includes the
use of land for mining purposes as well. All that Section-2 says is that no State
Government or other authority shall make an order directing the reserve forest land or
any portion thereof to be used for a non-forest purpose except with the prior approval
of the Central Government"17
.
In Hyderabad Abrasives & Minerals ver. Govt. of A.P. & others,18 the Andhra
Pradesh High Court held that where the mining lease had been granted to a person in a forest
area before the commencement of the Forest Conservation Act, on 25.10.1980 an application
for permission to clear forest cover made in 1982 can be granted only after obtaining approval
from the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
In Ratan Lal Sharma ver Secretary to the Govt. Forest Deptt.,19 the High Court
observed that where mining lease is executed after the enactment of Forest Conservation Act,
1980, prior permission of the Central Government for use of the forest land for non-forest
purpose is necessary as Section-2 of the FCA will apply to such type of cases. It cannot be
disputed that the lease-deed was registered after the FCA, came into force i.e. after 25th
October, 1980. The Section-2 of the Act, provides notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force in a state, no state government or other authority shall
make except with the prior approval of the Central Government any order directing, any forest
land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. "Non-forest purpose"
means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than
re-afforestation, it cannot be disputed that under the explanation of sub-sections of Section-2

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
16
of the FCA, the grant of the area for mining lease will be a non-forest purpose. Thus, after
coming into force of the FCA, without the prior approval of the Central Government, no part of
the forest land could be used for any non-authorised purpose. Merely, because the lease was
sanctioned under order dated, 27th September, 1980 by the Mining Engineer, it cannot be
said that the mining lease came into operation before the promulgation of FCA. As already
stated earlier a simple perusal of the Clause (a) (c) of the deed of the mining lease, will make
it clear that it was for a period of 10 years, commencing from the date of registration and there
can be no dispute that the registration of lease and its execution took place after 25th
October, 1980.
Therefore, the mere fact that no objection was received from the Forest Department
before the FCA came into force will not confer a right on the petitioner to extract "Cheja Pathar"
from the area in dispute which lies in protected forest land. And it is also not disputed that no
prior approval of the Central Government was obtained. In State of Bihar ver. Banshi Ram
Modi,(AIR 1985, SC 814), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the mining lease has been
granted before the coming into force of the Act, then Section-2 of the FCA, will not come in
the way of the lease. In that case, the lessee had been granted a mining lease much before
the FCA, came into force. That ruling does not apply to the instant case. Consequently,
because the lease in this case was granted after the coming into force of the FCA and prior
approval of the Central Government was not taken for the diversion of the part of the protected
forest for non-forest purpose, in view of Section-2 of the FCA, the petitioner cannot be allowed
to operate the mine. [Ratan Lal Sharma ver. Secretary Govt. Forest Dept., 1991 FLT 210
(Raj)].
In Suresh Chandra ver. State of Rajasthan the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar for permanent injunction and at the same time, he filed an
application for temporary injunction with a prayer that during the pendency of the suit the
disputed land should be made available for use of the plaintiff-petitioner so that he may be
able to carry out his mining operations effectively. Defendant non-petitioners contested the
application for temporary injunction and asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to carry out
mining operations, because "No Objection Certificate" has not been provided by the Rajasthan
Forest Department and issue of such a "No Objection Certificate" is a condition precedent for
carrying out any mining operation in view of the provisions contained in the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986.
After hearing the arguments of parties Munsif and learned Judicial Magistrate held that
mine was operational since 1979 and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, have
come into force in 1986. These rules are not applicable to the case of the plaintiff. The learned
Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate further held that irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff-
petitioner, if he is not allowed to use the access to the disputed site. Against the order of
injunction the State Government filed an appeal and the same was transferred to the Civil
Jundge, Jhalawar for disposal. Learned Civil Judge expressed the view that in terms of Rule-
4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 "No Objection Certificate" from
the Forest Department was necessary before the plaintiff-petitioner could carry out mining
operations and since no such "No Objection Certificate" had been issued by the Forest
Department, the petitioner was not entitled to carry out the mining operations. The Civil Judge
further, held that the Forest Department had carried out afforestation in about 100 hectares of
land and now the area in question was a Reserve Forest. Therefore, without proper sanction
from the Rajasthan Forest Department, it was not permissible for the plaintiff petitioner to

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
17
undertake any mining operation. On the basis of these findings the learned Civil Judge has
set aside the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate
dismissed the injunction application filed by the plaintiff petitioner.
The principal argument advanced by the petitioner is that the provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are not
applicable to the existing mining lease or the cases of renewal of existing lease ; the petitioner
argued that once mining operation has already been carried out in the forest area with the
permission of the Rajasthan Forest Department, the forest land must be deemed to have been
broken and the restrictions contained in the Forest Conservation Act, are not applicable in
such matter. The petitioner further argued when the Mines Department has already given
renewal of lease in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner there is no reason or justification for
depriving the petitioner of the fruits of the lease. He further submitted that the petitioner has
incurred huge expenditure on the renewals granted by the Mines Department and there is no
reason for withholding of "No Objection Certificate" by the Forest Department and that the
Government is now estopped from raising objections regarding the absence of "No Objection
Certificate" from the Rajasthan Forest Department. The petitioner placed cardinal reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar ver. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR 1985,
SC 814 and M.P. Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. ver. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979, SC 621.
The counsel for the respondents argued that the provisions of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 are applicable even to the cases of renewal of mining lease and unless prior
approval is granted by the MOEF, Govt. of India the existing lease-holder cannot carry out the
mining operations. The counsel of respondents submitted that the provisions of FCA, have
an overriding effect on all other provisions of law (pertaining to forest land) and therefore, grant
of renewal in favour of the petitioner by the Mining Department does not entitle the petitioner
to carry on the mining operation. The counsel further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Banshi Ram Modi was given in a peculiar situation and in the
subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court has itself distinguished from Banshi Ram Modi's
case. The counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica
Quarry Works ver. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987, SC 1073 ; Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra ver. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187; Tarun Bharat Sangh ver. Union of India, 1993
(3) Judgement Today p. 1. Both the counsels argued that the principle of promissory estoppel
or equitable estoppel is not applicable to the case of plaintiff petitioner, because there can be
no estoppel against the statute and no representation could possibly be held out by the Mining
Department, The counsel of respondent further submitted that the Mining Department had
never given any assurance or promise to the petitioner that he would be entitled to carry on
the mining operation even without requisite "No Objection Certificate" from the Rajasthan
Forest Department. The provisions of Section-2 of the FCA, are applicable to the cases of
renewal of lease. Further in view of object of Forest Conservation Act being vital public interest
of conservation of environment and maintaining ecological balance obtaining of "No Objection
Certificate" is necessary. Hence, revision petition dismissed with permission to petitioner to
take away material already excavated so far. (Suresh Chandra ver. State of Rajasthan, 1994
FLT 178 : (1994) 1 WLC 314 (Raj)].
It is absolutely clear to note that the Forest Conservation Act does not permit mining
in the forest without prior approval of MOEF, GOI. If mining activity even to a limited extent is
permitted in future, it would not be congenial to the ecology and environmental conservation
and the natural clam and peace which is a special feature of this area, shall not be restored

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
18
to normal condition. Mining activity in the Doon Valley must be completely stopped but as
indicated in another part of this judgement, as such this situation will be available only after
the original leases of the working mines are over. (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra ver.
State of U.P., AIR 1990, SC 594 ; 1990, FLT 220).
(8) Principle of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights in Forest
Conservation Act cases - A person who applies for permission under Section-2 of FCA
cannot claim to be heard as a matter of the right, before the Central Government takes a
decision in the matter. Even if the Central Government takes a decision to refuse to accord
approval for the grant of lease or renewal, it is not bound to hear the party affected. By refusing
to accord prior approval, the Central Government is not taking away any existing right, it is
only refusing to confer a new right.
The application of principles of natural justice varies from case to case, depending
upon the facts and context of each case. Here it should be kept in the mind that the forest land
belongs to the Government. The project proponent cannot claim as a matter of fundamental
right to carry on his business on the land of the State. It is indeed a privilege provided to the
users of the forest land.
The decision of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests should be arrived
in keeping the public interest in the mind. The Central Government should be deemed to be
the best authority to judge where the public interest lies. But the GOI, MOEF has not been
given arbitrary powers to decide cases as per discretion, the Central Government is required
to take the decision on the material facts placed before it in the shape of the proposal and the
opinion of the "Forest Advisory Committee". The GOI, MOEF is also empowered to make such
further inquiry as it thinks appropriate in a particular case or the situation may warrants. The
opinion of the GOI, MOEF though subjective is to be arrived at on objective facts. It is pertinent
to note that the power to allow use of forest land for non-forestry purposes is vested in the
Central Government, which is the highest authority in the country. There is no reason to
believe that the Central Government will act capriciously in a partisan manner to decide the
cases.
A very important factor to be kept in mind on the legal aspect is that by refusing
to accord prior approval, the Central Government is not taking away any existing right
(since the forest land belongs to the State), it is only declining to confer a new right. In
lease renewal cases, it has been held that no one has a vested right to the grant or
renewal of lease and that it lies within the discretion of the Government20, and there is
no doubt that this process is governed by statutory rules. it is expected that the Central
Government shall act fairly and decide cases in a fair and just manner. The project
proponent cannot claim to be heard as a matter of right, before the Central Government
takes a decision in the matter. Even if GOI, MOEF takes a decision to decline to accord
approval to the project / renewal, it is not bound to hear the party so affected.21
(9) Application after coming into force of Act i.e. on 25.10.1980 - The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that in the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The
appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or
at least it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place due
to mining activity . In that view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the appellants, the demands
in these cases are totally different because the facts are entirely different here. The primary

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
19
objective of the Forest Conservation Act is to subserve the purpose to prevent further
deforestation. The Central Government has not granted "forest clearance" in the instant case.
The contention of the State Govt. is incorrect that provisions of FCA does not apply in this
case. In that view of the matter and provisions of the FCA the respondents were right and the
appellants were wrong. All interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the spirit
and intention of the act. This interpretation, will subserve the predominant purpose of the Act.
- Ambica Quarry Works ver. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987, SC 1073 p. 1078 ; (1987) 1 SCJ 275;
(1987) 1 (SC) 174.
(10) Grant / renewal of leases - The Petitioner was granted a mining lease for
laterite, for a period of 20 years, over an extent of 318 acres in Peddamaredille Reserve Forest
under G.O. M.S. No. 352, dated 26.03.1974. Laterite is a major mineral as per provisions of
the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The lease is governed by the
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; Mineral Conservation &
Development Rules, 1958; and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. As required by the Act and
the Rules, an agreement was executed (in Form K) by the appellant and the District Collector,
East Godavari, representing the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 01.06.1974. Later on,
the appellant constructed an approach road to the area leased out. On 28.02.1982, he made
a request to the D.F.O., Kakinada Division that an area of 10 to 15 acres on the northern most
part of the hill-top has been selected by him to commence mining operations and that he may
be permitted to fell 849 trees standing in the said area, to enable him to commence the mining
operations. The area in question was inspected by the Range Officer, Rampachodavaram. He
reported that the total area selected by the appellant for commencing mining operations was
12.5 hectares and that 849 trees have to be felled for the purpose. The standing crop was
valued at Rs. 2,15,828.09. Acting on the report, the D.F.O. Kakinada, referred the matter to
Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle on 19.01.1983 for permission to fell 50 trees in a
particular portion of the leased area pending finalisation of the matter, so as to enable lessee
to commence the mining operations. This permission was granted to him by the D.F.O.
Kakinada. The respondent's however, complained that instead of felling 50 trees only the
appellant felled 105 trees. Be that as it may finding no response to his representation, the
appellant approached court in February, 1985 (W.P. No. 1174 / 85 from which the present Writ
Appeal arises) for issuance of an appropriate writ order to grant permission for clearing the
trees growth as applied for by him on 28.02.1982.
The appellant argued that according to Clause 4 (iv) of the Appendix to the mining
lease. He has a right to clear 20% of the forest growth on the leased area and, therefore, the
Forest Department cannot refuse to grant permission for same. Even otherwise, he has a right
to clear the forest growth over the entire leased area, inasmuch as the lease in his favour was
granted prior to the coming into force of the Forest Conservation Act. 1980 on 25.10.1980,
and the FCA has no application to his lease. It was, therefore, not necessary for the authorities
to refer the matter to the Central Government for orders under the Section-2 of FCA. The
appellant is prepared to pay the value of the standing trees as may be assessed by the Forest
Department. Because of the respondent's failure to accord necessary permission, the
appellant is unable to commence the mining operations which is causing him grave injustice
and financial hardship.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it was submitted that according to
Clause 4 (iv) of the Appendix to the lease deed the clearance of tree growth cannot be in
excess of 20% of the number of trees in the leased area and that even for clearing the said

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
20
20%, permission of the Forest Department is necessary. The petitioner wishes to remove the
entire tree growth which, if permitted is likely to cause ecological imbalance and soil erosion
in the area, since the area selected by the appellant is situated on steep-hill, slopes. The
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is attracted in the matter and in that view the matter was
referred for orders to the Central Government. The matter is pending for consideration of the
MOEF, Government of India. The Court agreed with the respondents that before permitting
the clear felling of 849 trees, as requested by the appellant, it was obligatory upon the State
Government to obtain prior approval of the Central Government as required by Section-2 of
the Forest Conservation Act 1980. The learned Judge disagreed with the appellant's
contention that because the lease in his favour was executed prior to the coming into force of
the FCA, the prior approval of the Central Government need not be obtained even where the
permission to cut the forest growth is sought for after the coming into force of the Act.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The correctness of the view taken by the learned
Judge is questioned in this writ appeals. When the appeal came up before a Division Bench,
the appellant relied upon certain observation made by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 795/85,
disposed of on 20.08.1995. According to the appellant, those observations supported his
argument that where a lease is granted prior to the coming into force of the FCA, prior approval
of the Central Government need not be obtained under Section-2 of the FCA. for clearing the
forest growth on the leased area. But, as stated above, the decision of said Bench has been
overruled by a full bench of this Court in G. Raghava Das ver. Government of A.P., AIR 1987,
AP 166. This court must, however, state that the main question arising in the Bench decision
and also in the case before the full bench, was whether an application for renewal of lease
should be treated as an application for fresh lease. While, the Bench held, purporting to follow
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar ver. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR 1985,
SC 814, that for granting renewal of a lease, prior approval of the Central Government under
Section-2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, is not necessary, the Full Bench held that,
since a renewal is also a grant, such approval is necessary. In this case, the Court is neither
concerned with the renewal of lease, nor with the question whether before granting a renewal,
prior approval of the Central Government need be obtained under Section-2 of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. The question before the Court is where a lease has been granted
prior to the coming into force of the said Act, but the forest growth thereon is sought to be
felled / cleared after the coming into force of the FCA, whether such permission can be granted
by the State Forest Department without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government
under Section-2 of the Act Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Section-2 of the FCA opens with a non-obstante clause. The provision contained
therein applies notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force
in a State, the section prohibits a State Government, or for that matter, any other authority,
from making any order de-reserving a reserved forest or permitting use of a forest land or any
portion thereof, for any non-forest purpose, except with the prior approval of the Central
Government. The "Explanation" to the Section-2 defines "non-forest purpose", it means,
breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than re-
afforestation. Breaking up or clearing a forest for mining purpose is thus a "non-forest
purpose" within the meaning of the FCA. Now, in this case, court is not concerned with de-
reserving any reserved forest and, therefore, Clause (i) in Section-2, need not be considered.
The only question is, whether the State Government is obliged to seek the prior approval of
the Central Government before permitting the clearing and cutting of forest growth on the land
leased out to the appellant ? The contention of the appellant is that inasmuch as the lease

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
21
was granted, prior to the commencement of the Act, the State Government need not obtain
such prior approval before permitting the clearing of forest over the leased area. While
according to the respondents, what is relevant is not the date of the mining lease, but the date
on which the permission to cut the forest-growth is being given. On a plain reading of the
provisions, the Court is inclined to agree with the respondents. The grant of a mining lease
is not tantamount to grant of permission to cut and clear the forest growth. The mining
lease granted to the appellant does not empower him to fell and clear the forest growth
without the permission of the Forest Department. Since the leased area is situated in
reserved forest, no forest growth therein can be felled or removed except in accordance
with the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and the Rules made thereunder. There
is nothing in the lease-deed to show that such permission is not necessary or that the
application of the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967and the Rules made thereunder, is
dispensed with vis-a-vis the leased area assuming that such a stipulation is permitted in law.
On the contrary, the lease deed makes it specifically clear that the permission of the Forest
Department has to be obtained. Clause-4 in the Appendix to the mining lease stipulates:
(a) the lessee shall not enter upon or commence mining operations in any reserved
forest situated upon the said land without thirty days, previous notice in writing to the District
Forest Officer and without obtaining the written sanction of that officer, which may be with such
conditions as that officer may impose in his reasonable discretion.
(b) "The lessee shall not cut any trees or growth on the area granted in excess of
20% of the number of trees on the whole area under lease without the previous permission of
the District Forest Officer". The District Forest Officer shall determine the value of such trees,
which shall be paid by the lessee [vide Sub-clause (4)].
(c) "The lessee shall not construct any new road in Government forest without the
previous sanction of the Divisional Forest Officer......."
At this stage, it may be mentioned that there is a difference of opinion between the
appellant and the respondents as to the interpretation of Clause-4 (iv) of the Annexure of the
lease-deed. While the appellant says that he is required to obtain such permission only if he
proposed to fell trees over and above 20%, the respondents say that the appellant can cut
only upto 20% and even for that 20% cutting, he requires permission of the State Forest Deptt.
Reading the said clause in the light of the statutory provisions contained in Chapter-II of the
A.P. Forest Act, 1967 it can be held that for any and every permission to cut and clear the
forest growth, the lessee is obliged to obtain permission of the competent authority under the
A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and the Rules made thereunder. It must also be mentioned in this
connection that neither the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 nor
the Rules made thereunder (Mineral Conservation & Development Rules, 1958 ; Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960), provide for consultation with or concurrence of the forest authorities
where the leased area is situated in a reserved protected or private forest. The grant of lease
under the said Act and the Rules does not empower the lessee to refuse to abide by the
provisions of the A.P. Forest Act and the Rules made thereunder. This court is thus of the
opinion that permission of the authority under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 has to be obtained
before any forest growth is felled and cleared in a reserved forest and that the authority
granting the permission shall not only have to abide by the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act
and the Rules made thereunder, but also with the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act,
1980 and the Rules made thereunder. It is not possible to agree that grant of a lease under

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
22
the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules made
thereunder, amounts to, or is equivalent to grant of permission to cut and clear the forest
growth in a reserved forest or for that matter in any other forest. A lessee under a mining lease
has still got to abide by the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, which in turn brings in the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 before he fells and removes any forest growth in reserved
forest.
No applicant has a vested right for renewal and it is only when the authorities are
satisfied that the application is in order and is in conformity with the MMRD Act & FCA and
the Rules and is of the opinion that renewal should be granted they should seek the prior
approval of the Central Government [G. Raghava Das ver. Government of A.P., AIR 1987, AP
166 p. 170, 171; (1987) 1 APLJ 195; (1987) 1 Andhra LT 210 (FB)].
It is settled law that the grant or renewal of a lease is a fresh grant and must be made
consistent with law. The Section-2 of FCA prohibits the grant or renewal without prior approval
of the Central Government. In case the State Government decides to grant fresh lease or
renewal of the lease it is mandatory that the applicant should obtain prior approval of the
Central Government. Admittedly, no prior approval of the Central Government had been
obtained under Section-2 of the F.C.A. The State Government thus had realised the mistake
in directing renewal when the Forest Department had objected to the renewal of the lease in
favour of the respondent. Therefore, the cancellation of the order, before it came into effect by
registering lease deed had been properly made by the appellant. The High Court was,
therefore, not right in directing grant of renewal of the lease. [State of Madhya Pradesh ver.
Krishnadas Tilakram, (Part 4) 1995 FLT 23 at 23, 24 (SC)].
The Rule-24-A (i) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 stipulates that "an application
for the renewal of a mining lease shall be made to the State Government in Form-J at least
12 months before the date on which the lease is due to expire", and the Rule-24A(6) confer a
right that" if an application for renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in
Sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease,
the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the
State Government passes order thereon." This right is not an absolute right and subjected to
the "forest clearance" under the provisions of the FCA. Though legally the lease might has
been extended under Rule-24A(6) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the mining operations
cannot continue if the lessee is not having a valid "forest clearance" under the FCA.
(11) Breaking up of forest land after promulgation of FCA - There is no pleading
on behalf of the petitioners that the forest land was cleared for the purpose of planting
cardamom.
In the absence of any specific pleading by the petitioners that the forest had been
cleared prior to the planting of cardamom or at least prior to the promulgation of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 on 25.10.1980. It is not possible to hold that the Forest Conservation
Act, does not have any application, in view of the land being broken up within the meaning of
"Explanation" to Section-2 of the FCA. It is no doubt true that the order of the Government on
this aspect is not detailed or satisfactory. It was held, that in the absence of any specific
pleading by the petitioner that the forest had been cleared prior to the relevant date, the court
would not be unjustified in holding that the firm has not shown that the land in question had
ceased to be forest, for the purpose of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 [V.R.
Thirumalaiswamy Gounder ver. Chief Conservator of Forests, AIR 1996, Ker 213 at 218 (DB)].

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
23
What is important for the purpose of the FCA is not the date on which the lease is
granted, but the date on which the State Government or authority permit the breaking up or
clearing of the forest land or any portion thereof. After promulgation of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 on 25.10.1980, if the fresh breaking of forest land is involved, then Section-2 of the
FCA apply to such cases. [Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals ver. Government of A.P., AIR
1990 AP 257 at 263].
(12) De-reservation of forest - The forest land is decleared "Reserved Forests"
(R.F.) under provisions of the Section-20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and "Protected
Forests" (P.F.) under Section-29 of the same statute. The Indian Forest Act has got provisions
to dereserve RF under Section-27, and P.F. can be denotified under Section-34A (in some
States). This power of the State Governments has been abridged by the Section-2 of the FCA.
It is clear that no forest land notified as reserve forest shall cease to be reserve forest without
prior approval of the Central Government. The demise of the land which continues to be
reserve forest, cannot, therefore, be made without the prior sanction of the Central
Government. According to the Court, on this ground also, the claim of the petitioner for leasing
of the land to it without the prior approval of the Central Government, cannot be sustained.
The "Explanation" under Section-2 is relevant only to Clause (ii) of Section-2 of the
FCA and the "Explanation" has relevance only to use of the land for non-forest purposes. The
Explanation that non forest purpose means breaking up, or clearing of any forest land for any
purpose other then re-afforestation cannot cover Clause (i) of Section-2, dealing with reserve
forest and the prior approval needed to de-reserve such a forest. Even, if the land had been
broken up prior to 25.10.1980 and used for a non-forest purpose that would not by itself do
away with the need to have prior approval of the Central Government in view of the fact that
the land that is proposed to be leased out for cardamom cultivation is Reserve Forest [V.R.
Thirumalaiswamy Gounder ver. Chief Conservator of Forests, AIR 1996, Ker 213 at 216 (DB);
State of Bihar ver. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR 1985, SC 814; Ambika Quarry Work ver. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1987 p.1073; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra ver. State of U.P., AIR
1988, SC 2187].
(13) Forest conservation - All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries
in the State of Maharashtra, U.P. and Arunachal Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the
State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission / licence for
the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shall also not grant any
fresh permission / licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the concerning State will
ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks in the
Hon"ble Supreme Court. [T.N. Godavarman Thiramulkpad ver. Union of India, AIR 1997, SC
1233 p. 1235].
(14) Breaking of forest land when it has been notified under Section-9 of Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 - After the mineral rich coal bearing
area has been notified under Section-4(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition &
Development) Act, 1957 the competent agency should obtain permission from the "Competent
Authority" of the Forest Department to enter forest area and carryout prospecting of coal. The
Section-4(3)(f) of CBA (A&D) Act, 1957 empowers the "Competent Authority" to cut down and
clear away any part of standing crop, fence or jungle, but this power of cutting down forest
crop has been abridged by the Section-2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Guideline
1.3.(ii) issued by MOEF under the provisions of FCA states that "if however,

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
24
investigations and surveys involve clearing of forest area or felling of trees, prior
permission of the Central Government is mandatory". Hence if tree felling is involved
in prospecting prior approval of the MOEF, GOI should be obtained.
(15) Projects involving both forest land and non-forest land - Some projects
involve use of forest land as well as non-forest land. State Government / Project Authorities
sometimes start work on non-forest lands in anticipation of the approval of the Central
Government for release of the forest lands required for the projects. Though the provisions of
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 may not have technically been violated by starting of work
on non-forest lands, expenditure incurred on works on non-forest lands may prove to be
infructuous if diversion of forest land involved is not approved. Therefore MOEF, GOI has
decided (Guideline-4.4.) that if a project involves forest land as well as non-forest land, work
should not be started on non-forest land till the approval of the Central Government for release
of forest land under the FCA has been accorded.
It is in the interest of the project proponent to obtain "forest clearance" under provisions
of FCA before starting work on the non-forest land because in most of the colliery cases, the
operations involve laying of railways, extensive road network, transmission lines, conveyor
belts, washries, coal handling plants, etc. with huge capital investments. The "forest
clearance" should be obtained at the commencement of the project to decide the external
layout of these operational facilities.
(16) Status of forest land after it has been diverted under Section-2 of FCA. -
The diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes is sanctioned for a specific period and
after expiry of this period the lessee / applicant is required to obtain renewal permission to
carry out non-forest activities. Even during the lease period, the legal status of the
diverted forest land remains "forest land" and the provisions of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 ; Forest Conservation Act, 1980 ; Wildlife (Preservation) Act, 1972 and other forest
legislations apply to these areas.
But in certain cases like encroachment settlement the forest land in question is
denotified (as RF or PF) and in such cases forest laws don't apply to these erstwhile forest
lands.
(17) Legal status of waterbodies formed as a result of the submergence of
forest lands - In most of major and mega River Valley Projects (RVP's) or Hydel Power
Projects the reservoirs / water bodies have been declared as sanctuaries / national parks to
partially compensate the loss of habitat for wildlife (or aquatic fauna). The provisions of
Section-18, 26, 35, and 66(3) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 apply to these areas and
place severe restrictions on certain type of activities. The Section-20 of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 also stipulates that after the issue of a notification under Section-
18 or 35 no right shall be acquired in, on or over the land comprised within the limits of
the area specified in such notification, except by succession, testamentary or intestate.
The interested person is required to ascertain whether notification for sanctuary /
national park has been issued or not.
(18) Ownership of the forest crop raised on diverted forest land - A question
has been raised about the ownership of forest crop raised on the forest land. In most of the
cases the legal status of forest land diverted for non-forest purposes doesn't change i.e. the
land remains forest land. Besides forest land, revenue or private land is also acquired under

prohibited.
Mobiles – 9827057603 1nd 9424407858
25
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition &
Development) Act, 1957 and the Petroleum and Mineral Slurry Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights
of User in Land) Act, 1962. The tree crop is raised over the mined out area of opencast mines,
safety zones etc. and the coppice forest crop automatically develops in draw down areas and
2-4 meter strip below the Full Tank Level (FTL). It is clarified, since the forest land has not
been denotified in most of the cases, the ownership of forest crop raised/developed
over these areas vest with the State Forest Department. But the forest crop raised over
acquired revenue / private land can be harvested after complying the provisions of Land
Revenue Code and other local laws in vogue.
(19) No restriction on Nistar rights under Forest Conservation Act - It has been
brought to the notice of the MOEF, GOI that in some States, villagers are sometimes deprived
of obtaining their bona fide requirements of forest produce from forest areas in view of the
provision of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Central Government [vide circular No.
11-12/98-FC (Pt. II) dated 03.05.1999 of MOEF, GOI] has clarified that the forest policy, as
well as provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, do not interfere in any manner or
restrict the Nistar, recorded rights, concessions and privileges of the local people for bona fide
domestic use as granted by the State Governments under Indian Forest Act, 1927 or State
Forest Acts / Regulations.
It has to be ensured that while allowing such rights, concessions and privileges to be
exercised, the right holders do not resort to felling of trees or break up the forest floor so as
to procure stones, minerals, or take up constructions, etc. The forest produce so obtained
shall not be utilised for any commercial purposes. The collection of such forest produce should
be manual and should be transported through local modes or transport like bullock carts,
camel carts, etc. and no mechanised vehicles shall be allowed to be used in transporting such
forest produce.
(20) Prior approval of the Central Government for harvesting of plantations in
Government land - A question has been raised whether felling of man-made forest requires
clearance from Central Government. In this connection, it has been clarified vide No. 6-1/98-
RO (IIQ) dated 14.06.1999 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India
that the Central Government has received some proposals regarding harvesting of plantations
from different States. These proposals are being examined for approval under Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. It is pointed out that in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India dated 12.12.1996 in a PIL, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/95, T.N. Godavarman ver.
Union of India and Others, that forest operations are required to be carried out strictly in
accordance with the prescriptions of the working plans approved by the Central Government.
The plantations, which State Governments propose to harvest, are standing on
Government land and the areas have been notified as RF/PF/Unclassed forests. It is clarified
that working schemes / working plans prepared for harvesting and reforestation of these
plantations would essentially require prior approval of the Central Government for their
implementation.
(21) Applicability of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 in respect of building
construction on private forest lands - The Ministry of Environment & Forests through its
Regional Office (particularly Lucknow) has received a large number of proposals from State
Governments for seeking approval of Central Government under Forest Conservation Act,

Fca m&m article_final_11.03.2019

Fca m&m article_final_11.03.2019

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Fca m&m article_final_11.03.2019

Similar to Fca m&m article_final_11.03.2019 (20)

More from RavindraSaksena

More from RavindraSaksena (19)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)