Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

Forest conservation and the laws

SUBMITTED TO:
MISS.DEEPIKA URMALIYA

SUBMITTED BY:
SIDDHARTHA CHANDRA
ROLL NO. - 134
SEMESTER 7TH
SECTION B

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to extend a word of my gratitude to my

esteemed Law of Environment teacher Dr. A. K. Tiwari who had been a

constant source of inspiration for me in the pursuance of this project. Sir has

been gracious enough to guide me on the right path which has enabled me

to strengthen my efforts. May I also take this opportunity to wish the reader

of my project a knowledgeable experience. The project has been made with

utmost care & with utmost finesse to see that the information mentioned is

to the best of the accuracy and correctness.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AND FOREST CONSERVATION
THE INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927
THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980
CONSTITUTION OF ADVISORY COMMITEE
FOREST CONSERVATION: ROLE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
FOREST CONSERVATION AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE
FELLING OF TREES, FOREST CONSERVATION
AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE
USE OF FORESTS FOR NON-FOREST PURPOSE
AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE-
TRIBAL RIGHTS TO MINOR FORESTS
AND LIVELIHOOD
ECO-TOURISM AND FOREST CONSERVATION
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

3
INTRODUCTION
The forests are natural renewable resource. They are one of the major terrestrial eco-
systems. They also constitute one of the most vital sources of national wealth. Forests cover
nearly 40% of the worlds land. Depending upon the potential of climate and land area, all
countries differ in their forest resources. There has been reduction in the forest cover throughout
the world.
Every legislation is influenced by the prevailing social and political forces. The Indian
Forest Act 1927 (Forest Act), is a comprehensive legislation relating to forests management that
consolidates pre-existing laws. The forest Act, being the product of the British colonial days,
reflects the exploitative intention of colonial and feudal society of the time rather than the
environmental and ecological interests. Based on a revenue- oriented policy, its main object was
to regulate dealings in forest produce, and augment the public exchequer by levy of duties on
timber.
The Forest Act contains provisions pertaining to reserved forests, whereby the state
government could constitute any forest land or waste land as a reserved forest by a notification.
The reserved forest would then become a land over which the state government would have
proprietary rights. The government would also be entitled to own the whole or any part of the
forest produce. The Forest Act also provides for reservation and incidence of reservation.

NEW PERSPECTIVES TOWARD FOREST LAWS

Supreme Court had recognized the role of the forests as an important element in
maintaining ecological balance. In State of Tripura v Sudhir Kumar Ranjan Nath 1 where a state
legislation on transit of timber and other forest produce was challenged as violative of freedom
and commerce, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the Forest Act as a mere taxing enactment.
However, the court considered it as one to preserve, protect and promote the forest wealth in the
interests of the nation. The court explained that the object of the Forest Act was to preserve and
protect the forest wealth of the country, and to regulate cutting, removal, transport and
possession of the forest produce in the interest of the states and their people.

1
AIR 1997 SC 1168

4
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AND FOREST
CONSERVATION
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act. 1976 has introduced a new directive principle of
state policy-article 48-A and a fundamental duty under article 51(a)(g)for the protection and
improvement of environment including forests. These provisions provide as under:
Article 48-A.- Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests
and wild life.- The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard
the forests and wild life of the country.
Articls 51-A(g) provides- It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures.
State and the citizens are under an obligation to protect and safeguard forests, which will
have an impact on the environment. Forest was initially a State subject covered by Entry 19
in List II of the VII Schedule. The Indian Parliament realizing the national significance of the
forest has also made changes in the VII schedule. Entry 19 in List II of the VII schedule has been
deleted and a new entry 17-A relating to forests has been introduced in the Concurrent List of the
Vii Schedule by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 Thus, state as well as
Center can make the law relation to forests. The state Government can make laws relating to
forest administration provided it is in consonance with the forests policy of centre for
preservation and development of the nations forest resources.

FOREST CONSERVATION AND THE

LEGISLATIVE ACTION
The first codification, which came on the statute book in relation to administration of
forest in India, was the Indian Forest Act, 1865. The Act of 1865 was amended from time to time
and ultimately it was repealed and replaced by the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which not only
consolidated but also re-shaped the law relating to forest.

5
THE INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927
The Indian Forest Act, 1927 contains 86 sections and it deals with four categories of forests
namely (i) Reserve Forests in Chapter II (ii) Village Forests in Chapter III (iii) Protected Forests
in Chapter IV and (iv) Non-government Forests in Chapter V. thus. The Act is wide enough to
cover all categories of forests. Besides forests specified under the Act on a functional basis as
reserve forests, village forests, protection forests and non-government forests, the Act
contemplates protection of forest land under certain condition. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 was
clearly one step to considering the importance of ecology and environment balance. Most of the
private forest covered under the fourth category mentioned, above were earlier parts of estates
which have now been abolished and thus such forests have also become government property.

The Act empowers the State Government to constitute any forest-land or waste-
land as reserved forest and to issue notification in official gazette 2. The notification is required to
be published in the official gazette and unless it is published it is of no effect. After the
notification under section 4 of the Act. No right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised
in such notification and previously recognized individual and community rights over the forest
are extinguished upon such a notification and access to forest and forest products becomes a
matter of privilege subject to permission of forest officials action under governing laws and
regulations. The Act includes procedures for making claims against the Government for the loss
of legal rights over the forests.

The State Government has also been empowered to declare any forest-land or wasted-
land which is not included in the reserve forest but in which the Government has proprietary
right or rights to any part of forest products as protected forests3. Thus, protected forests cannot
be created from reserve forests. The Government must survey the rights and claims of private
persons in forest being considered for protection but may declare the forest area a protected
2
Section 3 and 4 of The Indian Forest Act 1927
3
Section 29

6
forest pending the completion of survey. Under section 30 of the Act, the State Government can
close portion of the forests, for such term not exceeding thirty years, as long as the remainder of
the forests is sufficient for individuals and communities to exercise their existing legal rights to
use forests. The State Government may prohibit certain activities such as grazing, cultivation,
charcoal burning and stone quarrying. The State Government may also regulate all rights as
privileges for the use of protected forests. Government may also use of protected forests.

THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980

In 1980, the Parliament in response to the rapid decline in the forest cover in India and also
to fulfill the constitutional obligation under article 48A of the constitution enacted a new
legislation the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
This Act has been passed with a view to check deforestation which has been taking place
in the country on al large scale and which had caused ecological imbalance and thus led to
environmental deterioration. The President of India promulgated the Forest (Conservation)
Ordinance on 25th October, 1980. Section 5 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has repealed
this ordinance. This Act has not taken into consideration those aspects which were covered by
the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It simply aims at putting restriction on the dereservation of forests or
use of forest-land for non-forest purposes. The Act is interned to serve a laudable purpose 4 as is
evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, which reads:

(1) Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental

deterioration. Deforestation has been taking place on a large scale in the country
and it has caused widespread concern.
(2) With a view to checking further deforestation. The President promulgated on 25 th
October, 1980 the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made
the prior approval of the Central Government necessary for dereservation of
reserved forests 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 such approval.

4
State of Bihar v Banshi Ram Modi AIR 1985 SC 814

7
SUSTAINABLE USE OF FORESTS: THE RIGHT OF FOREST
DWELLERS
It is universally true that for industrial growth and progress, energy is indispensable;
exploitation of resources available from forest cannot be ruled out. The location of development
projects in or near a forest area raise complex questions, conflict between short term benefits and
long term gains, the social impact, rehabilitation of the local people and long term reforestation
etc. In approving the advent of a Super thermal plant of National Thermal Power Corporation
Limited in a location that extended to a forest area the Supreme Court observed in Banwasi Seva
Ashram v. State of U.P5.
Indisputably, forests are much wanted national asset. On account of the depletion thereof
ecology has been disturbed; climate has undergone a major change and rains have become
scanty. These have long term adverse effects on national economy as also on living process. At
the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that for industrial growth and also provision for
improved living facilities there is great emend in this country for energy such as electricity. A
scheme to generate electricity is therefore, of national importance and cannot be differed.
The Supreme Court has balanced ecological and development imperatives and gave
prominence to development imperative looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
requiring solution of the problem.

FOREST CONSERVATION: ROLE OF CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT
The provision of prior approval provided under FCA, as condition precedent for activates
in the forest area, has transformed the Central Government into the guardian of forest protection.
The obvious assumption is that the guardian will act only in the interests of safeguarding the
forest environment, and will be ever vigilant pre-empting any assault on forest. The provisions of
FCA have been subject to judicial scrutiny of many occasions. The question is whether the courts
5
AIR 1987 SC 374 at p. 376

8
have lived up to the expectations of the law, and helped in evolving viable strategies of forest
management.

Prior to the commencement of FCA, mining activities in a forest area were regulated only
by the conditions listed under the license granted by the government, and prior approval of the
Central Government was not necessary. This seems to have been the position taken in State of
Bihar v Banshi Ram Modi6. In that case, while the licensees was mining for mica under a license
granted before the commencement of FCA, the licensee came across two other minerals, felspur
and quartz. The forest department objected, as there was no prior approval from the Central
Government. According to the court, the action of the state government did not violate FCA as
the new minerals were found in an area already broken up and cleared for mining, although this
may not be the case for mining in a virgin area. The court instructed that the mining should not
lead to felling of trees. However, the assumption, without any scientific evidence, that mining
more minerals than the one for which license is given in an area already broken up would not
bring environmental damage, does not seem to be entirely correct. This might have been the
inarticulate force behind Ambica Quarry Works v State of Gujarat7, where the Supreme Court
made it categorically clear that renewal of a license after FCA came into force can be made only
on getting prior permission from the Central Government. The FCA was passed in order to arrest
ecological imbalance, which is a consequence of deforestation. While holding that the power of
the power of the authorities is not coupled with the duty to renew all licenses once given, the
court observed.

The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in
these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the
individuals.

FOREST CONSERVATION AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE

The judiciary has not only played a pivotal role in a manner to interpret the forest laws to
protect the forest and environment but also it has shown judicial activism by entertaining public

6
AIR 1985 SC 814
7
AIR 1987 SC 1073

9
interest litigations under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court and High
Court while protecting environment and promoting sustainable development have delivered may
important judgments.
Felling of trees, Forest Conservation and Judicial Attitude -
For the protection and conservation of forests it is necessary that there should be no illegal
felling of tress. The judiciary has shown its concern to stop the illegal felling of trees in forests.
In T. N. Godavaramn Thirumulkpad v Union of India8, the Supreme Court issued interim
directions that all the on-going activities within any forest in any State throughout the country,
without the permission of the Central Government must be stopped forthwith. The court also
pointed out that the industrial requirements had to be subordinated to the maintenance of
environment and ecology as well as bona fide local needs. The court also stressed on the
scientific management of the forests.
It was brought to the notice of Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v
Union of India9, that under grab of removing infected trees in accordance with the order of
Supreme Court, the trees having no disease were also cut. Thus, the Supreme Court in this case
directed the State government and its functionaries to restrain from cutting any trees till further
order orders, even if it was found to be diseased tree. The Supreme Court has noticed on the
basis of various reports and affidavits that the deforestation and illicit mining has caused
immense damage to the environment and ecology.

Use of Forests for Non-Forest purpose and Judicial

Attitude- Section 2 of the Act applies not merely to cases of mining leases granted in
respect of areas within the reserved forests but to all cases where forest-land is sought to be used
for non-forest purposes. Conservation of forests includes not only preservation and protection of
an existing forest but also reafforestation. Forests have to be regularly cut to meet the needs of
the country. At the same time reafforestation should go on o replace the vanishing forests. It is a
continuous and integrated process.
In Ratan Lal Sharma v. Secretary to Governmen10t, Forest Department, no prior approval
of the Centre Government had been taken for the use of part of protected forest for non-forest
8
(1997) 2 SCC 267
9
(1998) 9 SCC 660
10
AIR 1987 Raj. 129

10
purposes. Though the leases were registered after coming into the force of the Act, it was held
that the lease did not confer any right on the lessee to operate mine.
No applicant has a vested right for renewal of lease and it is only when the authorities are
satisfied that the application is in order and is in conformity with the Act and the rules and is of
the opinion that renewal should be granted, they should seek the prior approval of the Central
Government. In other words, the Act did not contain any absolute ban but provides11.
In M. C. Mehta v Kamal Nath 12, it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that
large area of the bank of River Beas which was part of protected forest had been given on lease
purely for commercial purposes to the motel of the respondent. The court had no hesitation in
holding that the Himachal Pradesh Government committed a patent breach of public trust by
leasing the ecologically fragile land to the motel management. The motel management was asked
to show cause why pollution fine should not be imposed on it. Since this case had been filed by
way of public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
subsequently held that pollution fine cannot be imposed under article 32 of the constitution and
thus the said notice be withdrawn. The Court further held that it can, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 32, award exemplary damages in PIL and the person causing the pollution can be
held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as deterrent for others not to cause
pollution in any manner.

Tribal Rights to Minor Forests and Livelihood - Sometime, the State

Government accepts the rights of local people but they cannot be enjoyed on account of
connivance of the officials of Forest Department. Fatesang Gimba v. State13 case is typical on
the point. The facts in this were that the tribal people were supplied bamboo at confessional rate
to enable them to take out a living by making articles for sale in the open market. However, the
state Forest officials blocked the transport of articles on the ground of possible exploitation of
forest in reckless manner, The Court laid emphasis on the rights of tribal to depend on the forest,
which was the only source of their livelihood. Their removal did not warrant action by forest

11
G. Raghava Das v Government of U.P. AIR 1987 AP 166
12
(1997) 1 SCC 388
13
AIR 1987 Guj. 9

11
officials. The Court said that once bamboo chips are transformed by human labour into
commercially new and distinct commodity the article ceased to be a producer of nature.

ECO-TOURISM AND FOREST CONSERVATION

Tourism in India is a growing industry. Eco-tourism can be one of the objects for any
biological park project. In Niyamavedi v state of Kerala14, the Kerala High Court found that a
project for such a park was designed after consulting many experts who gave full support to
watching wildlife at close quarters, without interfering with the sanctity of flora and fauna. In the
eyes of the court the governments decision to establish a park after consultation was a policy
decision, which could not be interfered with. In Nagarahole Budakattu Hakku Sthapana Samithi
v State of Karnataka15, the establishment of a restaurant, with boarding and lodging, in the midst
of a national park was the main issue. On the basis of an eighteen-year lease from the
government, the lesse, a private company, renovated old buildings for the establishment of the
facility. The Karnataka High Court held that once an area was declared a national park, no one
has a right on or over the land, unless it is specifically granted 16. Further, subsequent to the 1988
amendment to the FCA, no forest land or portion could be assigned by way of a lease or
otherwise to anybody. The court noted that the expression otherwise denotes that a lease or
even an easement is incapable of being assigned. The lease being contrary to laws relating to
both wildlife and forest conservation, the court ordered to laws relating to both wildlife and
forest conservation, the court ordered to hand over the possession of the building to state
government17.

CONCLUSION
Forests with their green leafy vegetations help in protecting environment. They help
particularly in prevention of air pollution and soil pollution. Laws relating to forest conservation
is embodied in Article 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution. It is also incorporated in the
Concurrent List giving the right to both State as well as the Union to make laws on it. Both the

14
AIR 1999 Ker 262
15
AIR 1997 Kant 288
16
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972, s 20
17
AIR 1997 Kant 288

12
Articles are contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The DPSP is contained in Part
IV of the Constitution and sets out the aims and objectives to be taken up by the State in the
governance of the Country. Therefore, the government is making laws for conserving the forests
and the habitats living there. But the problem is in the implementation of laws which should be
considered.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
S. Shanthakumars, Introduction to Environment Law, (2nd Edn., Wadhwa and Co. 2008).
P. S. Jaiswal, Environment Law, (2nd Edn., Pioneer Publication 2006).
P. Leelakrishnan, Environment Law in India, (3rd Edn., Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa
2010).
Maneka Gandhi, Ozair Husain, Raj Panjwani; Animal Laws of India, (3 rd Edn., Universal
Law Publishers 2006).
Roger Leroy Miller, Essentials of Legal Environment, (2005).
Stuart Bell, Donald McGillivary, Environment Law, (7 th Edn., Oxford University Press
2008).
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, (1th Edn., Central Law Agency)

13
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constituional Law, (5th Edn., Lexisnexis Butterworths)

WEBSITES
www.ecoindia.com/education/laws.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Forest_Act,_1927
envfor.nic.in/legis/forest/forest2.html
edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/laws.htm

14