# ~.- NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2009] 4 S.C.R. 687
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-03-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.2116 of 2000
- **Bench:** B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Aftab Alam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nature-lovers-movement-v-state-of-kerala-and-others-25734
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
Section 2 - Whether prospective in operation - Whether
Government of Kera/a could without prior approval of Central c
Government grant pattasllease hold rights to unauthorized
occupantslencroachers of forest land - Held: The 1980 Act is
prospective in operation - Policy decision taken by Kera/a
Government after seeking approval from the Central
Government does not suffer from any legal infirmity - After D
the. 1980 Act, prior approval of the Central Government is
necessary - Travancore Forest Regulations of 1068.
In this appeal the questions that arose for
consideration were whether Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 is prospective in operation and E
whether the Government of Kerala could without prior
....
approval of the Central Government grant pattas/lease
hold rights to unauthorized occupants/encroachers of
forest land.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is
applicable to all forests irrespective of the ownership or
classification thereof and after 25.10.1980, i.e., date of
- - ~
enforcement of the 1980 Act, no State Government or other
authority can pass an order or give a direction for deG
reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or
permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for
any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect
687
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
A of forest land to any private person or any authority,
corporation, agency or organization which is not owned,
managed or controlled by the Government. Even if any
forest land or any portion thereof has been used for nonforest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a
B particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the
1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended
by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25.10.1980
without obtaining prior approval of the Central
Government. [Para 24] [ 721-E-H]
c
State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and others (1985) 3
SCC 643; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others
(1987) 1 SCC 213; Tarun Bharat Sangh, A/war v. Union of India
and others 1993 Supp (3) sec 115; State of A.P and others v.
Anupama Minerals and others 1995 Supp (2) SCC 117 and
D
TN. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others
(1997) 2 sec 267 - relied on.
2. It is not in dispute that before the enactment of the
1980 Act, the Government of Kerala had taken a policy
E decision to regularize the illegal/unauthorised occupation
and encroachments of forest land made prior to 1.1.1977
and also to remove all unauthorized occupation/
encroachments made on and after 1.1.1977. For implementation of that decision, the State Government approached
F and succeeded in persuading the Central Government to
grant approval for diversion of 28,588.159 hectares of land
by way of assignment to the unauthorized occupants/
encroachers. The approval granted by the Central
Government was in consonance with the guidelines
G framed by it for regularization of encroachments on forest
land. Therefore, there is no valid reason to interfere with
the High Court's refusal to nullify the action taken by the
State Government to regularize the unauthorised
occupation/encroachment of .28588.159 hectares of forest
H land in five districts. [Para 25] [ 722-A-D]
..
• •
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
689
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
-~
3.1 The policy decision taken by the Government of A
Kerala to assign 28,588.159 hectares of forest land to
unauthorized occupants/encroachers after seeking
approval from the Central Government does not suffer
from any legal infirmity and the High Court rightly declined
to interfere with the said decision. [Para 27] [ 723-E-F]
B
3.2 After the enforcement of the 1980 Act, neither the
State Government nor any other authority can make an
~
order or issue direction for de-reservation of reserved
forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest
land or any portion thereof for any non-fores

## Text

_Characters 0–39,900 of 72,025. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39900 for what follows._

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 687
~.-..
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT
A
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No.2116 of 2000
MARCH 20, 2009
B
(B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
Section 2 - Whether prospective in operation - Whether
Government of Kera/a could without prior approval of Central c
Government grant pattasllease hold rights to unauthorized
occupantslencroachers of forest land - Held: The 1980 Act is
prospective in operation - Policy decision taken by Kera/a
Government after seeking approval from the Central
Government does not suffer from any legal infirmity - After D
the. 1980 Act, prior approval of the Central Government is
necessary - Travancore Forest Regulations of 1068.
In this appeal the questions that arose for
consideration were whether Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 is prospective in operation and E
whether the Government of Kerala could without prior
....
approval of the Central Government grant pattas/lease
hold rights to unauthorized occupants/encroachers of
forest land.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is
applicable to all forests irrespective of the ownership or
classification thereof and after 25.10.1980, i.e., date of
- - ~
enforcement of the 1980 Act, no State Government or other
authority can pass an order or give a direction for deG
reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or
permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for
any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect
687
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
A of forest land to any private person or any authority,
corporation, agency or organization which is not owned,
managed or controlled by the Government. Even if any
forest land or any portion thereof has been used for nonforest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a
B particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the
1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended
by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25.10.1980
without obtaining prior approval of the Central
Government. [Para 24] [ 721-E-H]
c
State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and others (1985) 3
SCC 643; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others
(1987) 1 SCC 213; Tarun Bharat Sangh, A/war v. Union of India
and others 1993 Supp (3) sec 115; State of A.P and others v.
Anupama Minerals and others 1995 Supp (2) SCC 117 and
D
TN. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others
(1997) 2 sec 267 - relied on.
2. It is not in dispute that before the enactment of the
1980 Act, the Government of Kerala had taken a policy
E decision to regularize the illegal/unauthorised occupation
and encroachments of forest land made prior to 1.1.1977
and also to remove all unauthorized occupation/
encroachments made on and after 1.1.1977. For implementation of that decision, the State Government approached
F and succeeded in persuading the Central Government to
grant approval for diversion of 28,588.159 hectares of land
by way of assignment to the unauthorized occupants/
encroachers. The approval granted by the Central
Government was in consonance with the guidelines
G framed by it for regularization of encroachments on forest
land. Therefore, there is no valid reason to interfere with
the High Court's refusal to nullify the action taken by the
State Government to regularize the unauthorised
occupation/encroachment of .28588.159 hectares of forest
H land in five districts. [Para 25] [ 722-A-D]
..
• •
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
689
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
-~
3.1 The policy decision taken by the Government of A
Kerala to assign 28,588.159 hectares of forest land to
unauthorized occupants/encroachers after seeking
approval from the Central Government does not suffer
from any legal infirmity and the High Court rightly declined
to interfere with the said decision. [Para 27] [ 723-E-F]
B
3.2 After the enforcement of the 1980 Act, neither the
State Government nor any other authority can make an
~
order or issue direction for de-reservation of reserved
forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest
land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or c
assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of
lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority,
corporation, agency or organization not owned, managed
or controlled by the Government except after obtaining
-
~
prior approval of the Central Government. [Para 27] [ 723D
G-H; 724-A]
3.3 Conclusion No.D recorded by the High Court in
para 103 of the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable and is set aside. [Para 27) [ 724-A-B]
3.4 As and when the State Government decides to E
assign 10,000 hectares of forest land to unauthorised
.. "
occupailts/encroachers, it shall do so only after obtaining
prior approval of the Central Government and the latter
shall take appropriate decision keeping in view the object
F
of the 1980 Act and the guidelines framed for regularization of encroachments on forest l~nd. [Para 27] [ 724-C]
Case Law Reference
(1985) 3 sec 643
relied on
Para 19
• J/
(1987) 1 sec 213
relied on
Para 20·
G
1993 Supp (3) sec 115
relied on
Para 21
1995 Supp (2) sec 111
relied on
Para 22
(1997) 2 sec 267
relied on
Para 23
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
A
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2116
B
of 2000
From the Judgement and Order dated 07.10.1999 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakumal in Original Petition
No. 14276 of 1993.
L. Nageswara Rao, T.L. V. Iyer, Raj Panjwani, Vijay
Panjwani, Roy Abraham, Seema Jain, Himinder Lal, Sunita
Sharma, S.N. Terdal, B.V. Balaram Das, R. Sathish, T.G.
Narayanan Nair, for the appearing parties.
C
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J.
1. Whether Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 (for short 'the 1980 Act') is prospective in operation and
D whether the Government of Kerala could, without obtaining prior
approval of the Central Government grant pattas/lease hold rights
to the unauthorised occupants/encroachers of forest land are
the questions which arise for determination in this appeal filed
against the order of the Full Bench of the Kera la High Court.
E
2. The Indian society has, for many centuries, been aware
and conscious of the necessity of protecting environment and
ecology. Sages and Saints of India lived in forests. Their
preachings contained in Vedas, Upanishadas, Smritis etc. are
ample evidence of the society's respect for plants, trees, earth,
F
sky, air, water and every form of life. The main moto of social life
is to live in harmony with nature. It was regarded as a sacred
duty of every one to protect them. In those days, people
worshipped trees, rivers and sea which were treated as
belonging to all living creatures. The children were educated by
G elders of the society about the necessity of keeping the
environment clean and protecting earth, rivers, sea, forests,
trees, flora fauna and every species of life.
3. With a view to make provision for better protection and
H management of forests in the State, Maharaja of Travancore
..
-
-
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
691
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J]
enacted "The Travancore Forest Regulations of 1068" [for short,
A
-+
"the Regulations"]. Clause 3 of the Regulations provided that
Diwan of the State could, with the sanction of Maharaja constitute
any land at the disposal of Government a reserved forest after
following the procedure prescribed in Clause 4, i.e., publication
of notification in Government Gazette containing proposal for
B
declaring the particular land as a reserved forest, holding of
inquiry by the Forest Settlement Officer and issue of
proclamation under Clause 6 inviting claims from the affected
-1
persons. Clause 7 of the Regulations contained a bar against
acquisition of right in or over the land included in the proclamation c
between the date of publication of proclamation and the date
fixed by final notification to be issued under Clause 18. It was
also provided that no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any
other purpose shall be made on the land to be declared as
reserved forest except with the written permission of the Forest
D
""
Settlement Officer. Clauses 8 to 17 contained procedure for
dealing with the claims of the individuals, disposal thereof by
the Forest Settlement Officer, hearing of appeals by Zila Court
and the High Court. Clause 20 of the Regulations provided for
dereservation of reserved forest. Clause 21 provided for E
penalties against trespass and damage to reserved forest and
acts prohibited in such forests. In terms of Clause 22 of the
Regulations, the Government could make rules to regulate the
.. Ir
use of pastures and natural produce of any land at the disposal
of the Government, which may not have been included in a
reserved forest. By virtue of Clause 25, the Government was
F
empowered to issue notification for regulating or prohibiting
vegetation in any forest or waste land not belonging to the
Government, the breaking up or clearing of land or the firing or
clearing of vegetation. If the owner of the land was to decline
compliance of the directions contained in the notification, the
G
-
.
.>i
Government could resume the forest or land on lease for a
specified period.
4. Notwithstanding the enactment of afore-mentioned
Regulations, parts of reserved forests in the erstwhile State of
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 4 S.C.R.
A
Travancore were unauthorisedly occupied by landless persons
who undertook agricultural operations for their survival. In 1940,
the Government of the State of Travancore sanctioned
'Kuthakappattom' grants in the reserved forests. Thereafter, a
policy was framed for leasing out forest lands to individuals, coB operative societies and associations for cultivation of food
crops. In 1944, Maharaja ofTravancore made Kuthakappattom
Rules for grant of lease of government land and trees by public
auction. During that period, forest lands in the erstwhile State of
Cochin were also made available for cultivation of food crops.
c
In view of the liberal attitude and policies of the Governments of
the erstwhile States, large tracts of reserved forest/forest land
were unauthorisedly occupied/encroached and used for nonforest purposes. After formation of the new State, the
Government took a serious view of the unauthorised occupation/
encroachment of forest land and decided that encroachments
D made after 1.4.1957 will be removed. However, that decision
remained on papers and nothing appears to have been done
to remove unauthorised occupation/encroachments of forest
land despite the fact that the legislature of the new State enacted
the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [for short, "the 1961 Act"] for
E
protecting forests. After about four years, the State Government
constituted range based committees for demarcation of
encroached portions of forest land. The State Government also
constituted a committee under· the chairmans)lip of Shri K.P.
Radhakrishna Menon, Special Collector (Forest Conservation)
F
for preparing a scheme for protection of valuable forests in the
State and also for suggesting solution to the problem created
due to settlement of large number of persons in the areas
declared as reserved forests. After considering the report of
the committee, the State Government issued G.O.(P)98/63/Agri.
G dated 30.01.1963 for regularization of unauthorised occupation/
encroachment of forest land made before 1.1.1960. However,
this time also effective steps do not appear to have been taken
for freeing the forest land from those who unauthorisedly
occupied or made encroachments after 1.1.1960. As a result,
H more and more areas of forest land were encroached,
~-
l
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
693
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
_;-..,
sometimes by landless poor and on other occasions by not so A
poor segments of the society. In order to find out a permanent
solution to this perennial problem, the State Government
constituted another committee, which came to be known as
Maniyangadan Committee. The report submitted by that
committee was considered by the Parliamentary Consultative B
Committee on Kerala, which made several recommendations
including the one that cut off date fixed for regularization of
.)
unauthorised occupation/encroachment of forest land be
changed from 1.1.1960 to 1.1.1968. The State Government
accepted some of the recommendations and issued GO(P)98/ c
68/Agri. dated 7.6.1968. Even this did not deter people from
making further encroachment on forest land and use the same
for non forest purposes and due to lack of political will the
Government continued to postpone drastic action till it was
decided that all encroachments of forest land made prior to D
,I
1.1.1977 will be regularized by framing a policy and those made
on or after 1.1.1977 will be removed. However, before that
decision could be implemented, the 1980 Act was enacted by
Parliament and in view of the non obstante clause contained in
Section 2 thereof, the State Government could not pass any
E
order for regularizing unauthorised occupation/encroachments
of forest land.
"' "
5. After almost six years of the enforcement of the 1980
Act, Agricultural Production Commissioner ahd Secretary
(Agriculture and Forests), Government of Kerala, vide his letter
F
No.51289/FGl/83/AD dated 26.6.1986 apprised his counterpart in the Government of India, i.e., the Secretary, Ministry of
Forest and Environment, Department of Forest and Wildlife with
the human face of the problem of encroachment/unauthorised
occupation of forest land .and requested that the Central G
- - ..
Government may permit regularization of such occupation/
encroachment by issue of title deeds under the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules. For the sake of reference that letter is
reproduced below:
H
A
B
c
D
E
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
"GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Forest Environment & Wild Life (C) Department
No. 51289/FGl/83/AD
Trivandrum
Dated: 26.6.1986
From
The Agricultural Production Commissioner &
Secretary (Agriculture & Forests)
To,
The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Forest and Environment,
Department of Forest and Wild Life,
Government of India,
Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi.
Sir,
Sub: Forests-Assignment of Forest Lands which have
already come under Agricultural occupationsclearance under Forest Conservation Act requested.
Several forest areas in Kerala came to be exposed to
human occupation particularly since 1956, primarily due to the
very heavy pressure of population and secondarily due to
Governmental programmes like colonization schemes, grow
F
more food schemes, arable land scheme, hydro power projects,
plantations etc. In the sixties and seventies, the perspective was
one of providing land based employment to landless people. It
was on account of this that some of the above schemes came
under implementation. Forest lands were transferred for non
G forest purposes. Pressure built up for further expansion into forest
areas adjoining converted lands. Government did carry out
evictions of unauthorised encroachments from time to time from
forest as well as project areas. Nonetheless, this kind of
pressure continued and by the time the Central Forest
H
Conservation law came into force in 1980, there still were a
' - -
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
695
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. S/NGHVI, J.)
--~
large number of unauthorised occupations in forest areas. In A
the meantime, Government took the decision to regularize all
the occupations that had come into being prior to 1.1.1977.
The matter was taken up by the Chief Minister of Kerala
with the Prime Minister in a letter dated 20th of March 1984. He
sought the special intervention of the Prime Minister in the matter 8
of regularization of pre-1.1 .1977 occupations. The Union
Minister for Agriculture, Shri Rao Birendra Singh in his letter
~
number 1598-Minister(Agriculture)/8 dated 23rd of March 1984
. (Copy enclosed) replied to the Chief Minister stating that the
Government of India agree in principle that occupations prior to C
1.1.1977 may be regularized by issue of title deeds under the
Kera/a Land Assignment Rules to eligible persons. However,
he wanted full details regarding extent, period ofoccupation,
pattern of cultivation, impact of encroachments on conservation
-1.
aspects etc.
D
Largely, the encroachments are in five Revenue Districts
(14 Forest Divisions). Detailed joint field verification has been
got conducted by teams of Revenue and Forest officials to
determine the particulars of occupants, estimated area of
individual holding, nature of cultivation, age of occupations etc. E
To be specific, the following are the division-wise details
•
~
of the encroachments:-
(The estimated number of holdings is over 50,000)
Name of Forest
Division
1. Chalakudy
2. Trichur
3. Munnar
4. Munnar
5. Munnar
District
Trichur
Trichur
Ernakulam
ldukki
ldukki
Estimated area of
he occupations (in
hectares)
380.00
2340.00
185.00
180.00
6940.65
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R
A
(Cardamom Hill Reserve)
fc •
6. Kothamangalam
Ernakulam
160.00
7. Kothamangalam
ldukki
2430.00
8. Malayattur
Ernakulam
30.00
8
9. Malayattur
ldukki
410.00
10. Kottayam
ldukki
1500.00
11. Kottayam
ldukki
13443.94
lo
c
(Cardamom Hill Reserve)
12. Periyar Wild
ldukki
480.00
Life Sanctuary
D
13. Konni
Pathanamthitta
60.00
-·-
~
14. Thenmala
Quilon
70.00
Total
28588.159
So far as Udumpanchola Taluk (Kottayam Division) is
E
concerned it was re-surveyed during the period from 1974 to
1977. This re-survey was done close to the crucial date of
L
1.1.1977. Resurvey records are also very authentic having been
...
prepared after following the statutory formalities under the Survey
... .
and Boundaries Act including detailed field survey. So far
F
occupations in Udumpanchola taluk have not been subjected
to further joint field verification referred to above.
The lands proposed to be assigned have actually ceased
to be forest lands years back. They are forest lands only on
G
record. Townships with colleges, Schools, hospitals, etc. have
come up in many of these places. These lands cannot be
, . -
restored to their original status of vegetation or ecology and for
that purpose thousands of families occupying these areas
cannot be evicted.
H
So far as the areas other than Udumpanchola taluk are
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
697
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J]
concerned, extent of occupations has been assessed only on A
the basis of ocular estimation. Permanent demarcation of the
line of con~rol through a regular survey will have to be done. before
the occupants are assigned lands.
In the occupied lands, there is some residual tree growth
of very sparse distribution. Such residual tree growth can be 8
salvaged before title deeds are given.
4
The Chief Conservator of Forests has recommended that
for compensatory afforestation revenue land will have to be made
available. This recommendation is not feasible of c
implementation. Vacant revenue lands of the extent required
for compensatory afforestation are just not available.
We cannot also acquire lands, costs being prohibitive.
Acquisition will also involve displacement of the occupants which
exactly Government are trying to avoid in the unauthorisedly D
occupied areas.
Proforma statements and maps are submitted herewith
Division wise. While proforma statements have been
authenticated by forest officials including the Chief Conservator E
of Forests, the attached maps have not been authenticated by
them. The reasons is that, as already stated, in regard to areas ·
other than Udumpanchola occupations wise survey have not
been done. So the maps have been prepared only
approximately indicating the life of the occupations on copies
of the relevant survey of India sheets.
F
Government of India may be pleased to convey their
concurrence under the Forest Conservation Act for the purpose
of enabling issue of title deeds to the occupants of these forest
areas which already stand converted on ground for agricultural G
purpose for a number of years now.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
H
698
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
For The Agricultural Production Commissioner
& Secretary (Agriculture & Forests)"
6. On receipt of the afore-mentioned letter, the Government
of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests sent letter dated
2.4.1992 to Secretary, Forest and Wildlife (C) Department,
8
Kerala, requiring the latter to furnish information about the
assurance given by the Chief Minister, Kerala on the floor of the
legislature and also asked for the details of the encroachment
of forest area sought to be regularized in different districts and
the scheme of compensatory afforestation. The State
C
Government furnished the necessary information. Thereafter, the
Central Government granted conditional approval for
regularization of pre-1.1.1977 encroachments of forest land.
This was conveyed by the Ministry of Forest and Environment,
Government of India to the Government of Kerala vide letter
D
No.8-118/86-FC dated 23.3.1993, the relevant portions of which
are extracted below:
E
"After careful consideration of the proposal of the State
Government the Central Government hereby agrees in
principle for approval for diversion of 28,588.159 hectares
forest land in ldukki, Pathanamthitta, Thrissur, Ernakulam
and Kellam Districts for regularization of pre-1.1.1977
encroachments in Kerala subject to the fulfillment of
., •
following conditions,
F
(i)
Ground verification & demarcation of area to be
regularized in favour of individual encroachers shall
be done by the State Government.
G
H
(ii)
Regularisation of encroachments shall not be done
in favour of encroachers otherwise found eligible
either in the midst of the forest area or in Periyar
Tiger Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary. Such encroachers
are to be shifted on the fringe of the forests, for which
excess area available for eligible encroachers may
be utilized.
I
-
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
699
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(iii) Detailed map showing demarcation of the area to A
be regularized in favour of individual encroachers
shall be got prepared.
(iv)
Regularisation of encroachments in favour of eligible
encroachers shall not be done in excess of
assignment permissible as per Kera la _Land
Assignment Rules, 1988. The excess area with such
encroachers shall be taken back from the possession
of the encroachers and shall be utilized for shifting
eligible encroachers from the midst of the forest areas
or from Periyar Tiger Reserve area.
(v)
A comprehensive scheme for soil conservation and
agro forestry shall be prepared and implemented as
a time bound programme to check accelerated soil
B
c
erosion and siltation of dams taking place in the area. D
(vi)
The State Government shall give firm commitment.
that funds for the compensatory affor,estation over
double the degraded forest land shall be provided to
the Forest Dept. as per the phased compensatory
afforestation
scheme.
The
compensatory E
afforestation shall be done within a period not
exceeding 5 years.
3.
After receipt of compliance report on the fulfillment of
the above conditions from the State Government, formc:ll
approval will be issued in this regard under Section-2 of F
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Transfer of forest
land to user agency should not be effected by the State
Government till formal order approving diversion of forest
land are issued bythe Central Government."
~ ~4
G
7. In the meanwhile, the Government of Kerala in exercise
of the power vested in it under Section 7 of the Kerala
Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 framed the Kerala
Land Assignment (Regularization of Occupation of Forest Lands
Prior to 1.1.1977) Special Rules, 1993 (for short, 'the 1993 H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 4 S.C.R.
A
Rules') for regularization of occupation of forest lands by way of
• --.
assignment subject to fulfillment of certain conditions including
payment of value of the land at the prescribed rate apart from
land revenue, taxes and rates. The State Government also gave
an assurance to the Central Government that sufficient funds
s will be made available for compensatory afforestation. After
taking cognizance of the State Government's response, the
Central Government vide its letter No.8-118/86-FC dated
31.1.1995 accorded final approval under Section 2 of the 1980
..
Act for diversion of 28,588.159 hectares forest land in ldukki,
C
Pathanamthitta, Thrissur, Ernakulam and Kallam districts for
regularization of pre-1.1.1977 unauthorised occupation/
encroachments.
-
8. The appellant, which is a society formed for protection
of environment and ecology in the State of Kerala, challenged
D the decision of the government to regularize unauthorised
· occupation/encroachment of forest lands by filing writ petition
under Article 225 of the Constitution. It prayed for grant of a
declaration that the Government of Kerala is not entitled to
dereserve the reserved forest or permit use of forest land for
E
any non-forest purpose without obtaining approval of the Central
Government in terms of Section 2(iii) of the 1980 Act. The
appellant further prayed that pattayams (title deeds) issued in
respect of forest land without obtaining approval of the Central
Government should be quashed. In the affidavit filed on behalf
F
of the appellant before the High Court, it was claimed that
regularization of unauthorised occupation/encroachments of
forest land will adversely affect the environment and wildlife and
ultimately the population of the State.
'
9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
G Government, it was averred that due to pressure of population
and due to implementation of Colonisation Scheme, Arable Land
Assignment Scheme, Grow More Food Programme, HydroElectric Irrigation projects, plantations etc. considerable extent
of forest lands in the State had been exposed to human
H
habitation and such forest lands had been actually used for non-
•
. - -
-
...
)
.. -.
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
701 ·
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
forest purposes and converted into populated areas with A
structures and improvements; that in those days people were
not conscious of the fact that the maintenance of forest was
required for ecological balance and substantial extent of forest
lands had been transformed into agricultural holdings and human
settlements and there is no scope for reverting them into forests; s
that because of high density of population any scheme for
evicting the occupants of those converted forest lands and
providing them with rehabilitation facilities is unworkable; that
because of the pressing need for production of more food grains,
the Governments had in the past allowed cultivation in the forest c
lands; that the decision to regularize the encroachments made
prior to 1.1.1977 was taken because it was impossible to
rehabilitate all the occupants if they were evicted; that the
Government of India has already clarified that· no sancti~n under
Section 2 of the 1980 Act is necessary for utilizing the forest D
lands de-reserved for non-forest purposes prior to the
promulgation of the Act and that eligibility of persons to whom
the holdings are to be assigned has been decided after a field
verification of the entire area by a joint team of officials of forest
and revenue departments. On the issue of compensatory
afforestation, the counter affidavit contained the following E
assertions:
".As a measure to co'mpensate the loss of forest land and
with a view to create an awareness among the people
about the need to maintain the tree growth, the State F
Governments have been implementing the social forestry
programme and compensatory afforestation programme
for last several years. In view of the approval of
regularisation of diversion of forest lands, the State
Government have formulated a scheme f6t compensatory G
afforestation covering an area of 57, 180/- hectare of
degraded forest area which represents double the area
approved for regularisation. Administrative sanction has
already been accorded to the said scheme which is
estimated to cost Rs.113 crores and fund has been H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
earmarked to this project. Till 1994 the Scheme had been
implemented in an area of 1233 hectares spread over the
districts of Trivandrum, Kollam, ldukki, Thrissur, Wynad
and Kasargode."
In the counter affidavit the following further averments were
made:-
"The policy of the Government is that all post-1977
conversions should be evicted. There was no intention for
the Government to regularise the entire conversion up to
25.10.1980. The Assembly passed a unanimous resolution
and the cut off date was fixed as 1.1.1977 as against
1. 7 .1977. After an extensive correspondence for several
years the Union Government agreed to the diversion of.
28,588 hectares of forest land occupied prior to 1.1.1977.
This decision was announced in a public function
organized in Nadumkandom in ldukki district on 20.3.1993.
The State Government's policy decision was taken and
declared by the then Chief Minister of the State to regularise
the encroachments made prior to 1.1.1977 and action
was pursued as per the guidelines issued by the
Government of India for regularisation of encroachments.
The cut off date was decided after careful consideration
of the population pressure on forest land and the need for
protecting the forest land. Ext.P-19 rules are notified for
·assignment of the encroached land after obtaining sanction
and those rules are valid. These rules are framed for
speedy regularisation on getting concurrence from
Government of India. No new forest lands are assigned
for creation of township. There is no cause for attracting
the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. No
prejudice is caused to the petitioner and hence the
petitioner is not entitled to claim relief against the
respondents."
10. In a separate affidavit filed on behalf of the Central
Government, it was averred that approval was accorded to the ·
. . -
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
703
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
diversion of forest land measuring 28,588.159 hectares A
~
because the State Government had given.assurance to make
available funds for compensatory afforestation and compliance
of other conditions specified in letter dated 23.3.1993. It was .
further averred that approval was granted in terms of Section 2
of the 1980 Act in the backdrop of the fact that forest land was B
being used for non-forest purposes for many years prior to the
enactment of the 1980 Act.
~
11. By the impugned judgment, the Full Bench of the High
Court after a detailed discussion on the issues of locus standi
of the appellant,· constitutional imperatives, sustainable c
develcfpment and environment protection, held as under:
1.
The petitioner has the locus to invokejurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and make a prayer for quashing the decision D
,.
of the State Government to regularize unauthorised
occupation I encroachment of forest land ..
2.
The 1980 Act is prospective in operation andthe
provisions contained therein are not applicable to
the cases in which the forest land has already been E
used for non-forest purpose prior to 25.10.1980.
3.
The scheme framed by the State Government for
... '
compensatory afforestation ~atisfies the condition
imposed by the Government of India in its letter dated
F
23.3.1993 and the decision of the State Government
to grant pattas/lease hold. rights to pre-1.1.1977
unauthorised occupants/encroachers of forest1and
did not involve violation of any constitutional or legal
provision.
.
.....
~ -·
4.
The decision of the Central Government to grant G
approval to the use of forest land for non-forest - ·
purpose is not violative of Article 48A or 51A of the
Constitution.
5.
The provisions of the 1993 Rules are legal and valid. H
A
B
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
6.
The cut off date, i.e., 1.1.1977 fixed for assignment
of forest land is not arbitrary.
7.
The unauthorised occupants/encroachers are liable
to pay compensation for the injury caused to the
general public by using forest land for non-forest
purposes.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his
client is not serious in pressing the challenge to Central
Government's decision to approve the use of forest land for none forest purpose, namely, assignment of forest land to pre1.1.1977 unauthorized occupants/encroachers because the said
decision was taken for solving the problem being faced by
50,000 families which are settled in forest areas for last more
than five decades, but argued that the declaration made by the
0
Full Bench of the High Court that the 1980 Act is prospective
and is not applicable to the cases involving use of forest land
for non-forest purpose prior to 25.10.1980 is ex facie erroneous
and is liable to be set aside, else the same is likely to be misused
by the State Governments for regularizing the encroachments
of forest land made prior to 25.10.1980 without seeking prior
E
approval of the Central Government. He further argued that the
State Government should not be permitted to regularize
unauthorised occupation/encroachment of 10,000 hectares of
forest land made after 1.1.1977 without obtaining prior approval
of the Central Government and the latter should not give such
F
approval else the encroachment of forest land will continue. In
the end, learned counsel argued that a mandamus be issued to
the Central Government to ensure total compliance of the
conditions incorporated in letter dated 23.3.1993.
G
13. Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor
General argued that in view of non obstante clause contained
in Section 2 of the 1980 Act, the Government of Kerala could
not have assigned any part of forest land or reserved forest to
unauthorised occupants/encroachers irrespective of the tenure
of such occupation/encroachment without obtaining approval
H
I
•
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
705
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of the Central Government. Shri Sharan referred to the A
--~
guidelines framed by the Central Government for regularization
of encroachments on forest land and submitted that the State
Government had rightly sought approval of the Central
Government for assignment of land to unauthorised occupants/
encroachers even though such occupation/encroachment had B
been made many decades prior to 25.10.1980. Learned
Additional Solicitor General submitted that the view expressed
by the Full Bench on the issue of non applicability of the 1980
4
Act to pre-25.10.1980 us~ of forest land for non-forest purposes
is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the same should c
be overruled, else the directions given by this Court in last 30
years for protection of reserved forests, forest lands, environment
and ecology will become redundant.
14. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Kerala submitted that exercise for assignment of D
,_
forest land has been undertaken strictly in accordance with the
approval accorded by the Central Government and so far no
action has been initiated for regularization of occupation/
encroachment of 10,000 hectares of forest land. Learned senior
counsel emphasized that the unauthorised occupation/ E
encroachments have been regularized keeping in viewthe r.::.tory
of such occupation/encroachment and the fact that 50,000
...
4
families would have been displaced if the Central Government
had decided against such regularization by way of assignment
under the Kera la Land Assignment Act and th~ 1993 Rules.
F
15. Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents argued that his clients
are not at all concerned with the issue of retrospective
application of 1980 Act because on a reference made by the
State Government, the Central Government has already G
...
approved assignment of land to pre-1.1.1977 occupants/
encroachers. At the same time, he submitted that while
considering such an issue the court is duty bound to keep in
view the human face of the problem. He pointed out that
thousands of landless families had occupied the land declared H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
A as reserved forest and used the same for cultivation because
they had no other source of sustenance.
16. We have given serious thought to the entire matter and
scrutinized the records. Sections 3, 4, 7 and 22 of the Kerala
Forest Act, 1961 (for short 'the 1961 Act), Sections 2, 3 and 3A
8 of the 1980 Act and the relevant portions of the policy framed by
the Government of India for regularization of encroachments on
forest land, which have bearing on the decision of this appeal,
read as under:-
c
Kerala Forest Act, 1961
3. Power to reserve forests.- The Government may
constitute any land at the disposal of the Government a
Reserved Forest in the manner hereinafter provided.
D
4. Notification by Government.- Whenever it is
proposed to constitute any land a Reserved Forest, the
Government shall publish a notification in the Gazette.-
(a)
specifying as nearly as possible, the situation and
limits of such land;
E
(b)
declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land
a Reserved Forest; and
(c)
appointing an officer (hereinafter called the Forest
Settlement Officer) to inquire into and determine the
F
existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed,
by or alleged to exist in favour of any person in or
over any land comprised within such limits, or to any
forest produce of such land and to deal with the same
as provided in this Act.
G
The officer appointed under clause (c) of this section
shall ordinarily be a person other than a Forest Officer;
but a Forest Officer may be appointed by the
Government to attend, on behalf of the Government
at the enquiry prescribed by this Chapter.
H
..,
t •
•
' .
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V.
707
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
_,_-j
7. Bar of accrual of forest right, prohibition of A
clearings, etc.- (J) During the interval between the
publication of the notification under S.4 and the date fixed
by the notification under section 19, no right shall be
acquifed in or over the land included in such notification
under S.4 except under a grant or contract in writing made B
or entered into by or on behalf of the Government, or by,
or on behalf of, some person in whom such right or power
to create the same was vested when the notification under
-·
S.4 was published or by succession from such person;
and no clearings shall be made on such land, nor shall any c
person cut, collect, or remove any forest produce nor shall
set fire to such land or kindle or leave burning any fire in
such manner as to endanger the same.
(2) No patta shall, without the previous sanction of the
..,,.
Government, be granted in such land, and every patta
granted without such sanction shall be null and void.
D
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit
any act done with the permission in writing of the Forest
Settlement Officer.
.
E
22. No right acquired over Reserved Forests ~xcept
as herein provided.- No right of any description shall be
~
~-
acquired in or over a Reserved Forest except under a
grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the
Government or by or on behalf of some person in whom
F
such right or the power to create such right was vested
when the notification under section 19 was published or
by succession from such person:
Provided that no patta shall, without the previous sanction
....
~
of the Government, be grantedior any land included within G
a Reserved Forest and every patta granted without such
sanction shall be null and void.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [As amended by Act
69 of 1988]
H
708
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 4 S.C.R.
2.