# T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2014] 14 S.C.R. 279
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-03-12
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-noia-ors-29739
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 279
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
A
v.
UNION OF !NOIA & ORS.
(1.A."Nos. 2143 with 2283, 3088, 3461, 3_479, 3693 in 2143,
827, 1122, 1337, 1473 and 1620 and 1693 in 1473 and
B ·
3618)
h
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995)
MARCH 12, 2014
[A. K.PATNAIK, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] ·
Environmental Laws:
c
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Gudalur and Nilgiri D
forests - Public Interest Litigation - Destruction of tropical
rain forest resulting in ecological imbalances affecting lives
and livelihood of the people living in the State of Tamil Nadu
-
Compulsory Afforestation Fund - Release of -/As by
different States seeking release of some funds for completing E
the task of compulsory afforestation - Held: Order dated 1 O'" •
July 2009 modified - National CAMPA Advisory Council
(NCAC) directed to finalize and issue guidelines before 1st
May, 2014 regarding the activities for which the use of the
CAMPA funds would not be permissible and the activities for F
which a ceiling on the use of the CAMPA funds would apply
- These guidelines to be strictly followed by the State CAMPA
-Ad-hoc CAMPA permitted to release annual amount equal
to 10% of the principal amount lying to the credit of each
State/Union Territory, out of the interest receivable by it with G
effect from financial year 2014-2015 onwards - No money
out of the amounts available with Ad-hoc CAMPA to be
transferred or utilized without the leave of the Supreme Court
- National CAMPA Advisory Council to file a Status Report
279
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A
within a period of three months regarding the monitoring and
evaluation of the works being undertaken, by utilizing the
funds released by CAMPA - Forest Act, 1927 - Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 -
Tamil Nadu Hill Stations
Preservation of Trees Act.
B
The instant writ petition was filed as a PIL under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for and on behalf
of the people living in and around the Nilgiri Forest on
the Western Ghats. The petitioner sought to challenge
the legality of the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, the
C Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer,
Gudalur and the Timber Committee in destroying the
tropical rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in.
violation of the Forest Act, 1927, Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 and Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of
D Trees Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as
it has resulted in serious ecological imbalances affecting
lives and livelihood of the people living in the State of
Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has alleged that the
respondents have in collusion with certain vested
E interests allowed trespassers to encroach and enter
upon the forest land forthe purpose of felling trees and
conversion of forest land into plantations and well
organized rackets existed between the forest authorities,
timber contractors and the local authorities which are
F facilitating the cutting and removal Of trees and timber
in gross violation of Forest Coriservation Act.
The instant Interlocutory Applications were filed
seeking either general or specific directions in relation
G to various issues concerning the· protection and
improvement of environment. The Supreme Court has
been continuously monitoring the enforcement of the
protected measures directed to be taken by the various
Central/State authorities on the basis of the
recommendations made by the relevant expert bodies.
H
..
T. N. GODAVARMANTHIRUMULPAOv. UNION OF INDIA
281
The Court noticed on 29'" October, 2002, that the amount A
collected by various States from the user agencies to
whom permissions were granted for using forest land
for non forest purposes was not being utilised for such
compensatory afforestation. The Court directed that the
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) should B
formulate a Scheme whereby, whenever any permission
is granted for change of user of forest land for non-forest
purposes, an

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 51,151. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 279
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
A
v.
UNION OF !NOIA & ORS.
(1.A."Nos. 2143 with 2283, 3088, 3461, 3_479, 3693 in 2143,
827, 1122, 1337, 1473 and 1620 and 1693 in 1473 and
B ·
3618)
h
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995)
MARCH 12, 2014
[A. K.PATNAIK, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] ·
Environmental Laws:
c
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Gudalur and Nilgiri D
forests - Public Interest Litigation - Destruction of tropical
rain forest resulting in ecological imbalances affecting lives
and livelihood of the people living in the State of Tamil Nadu
-
Compulsory Afforestation Fund - Release of -/As by
different States seeking release of some funds for completing E
the task of compulsory afforestation - Held: Order dated 1 O'" •
July 2009 modified - National CAMPA Advisory Council
(NCAC) directed to finalize and issue guidelines before 1st
May, 2014 regarding the activities for which the use of the
CAMPA funds would not be permissible and the activities for F
which a ceiling on the use of the CAMPA funds would apply
- These guidelines to be strictly followed by the State CAMPA
-Ad-hoc CAMPA permitted to release annual amount equal
to 10% of the principal amount lying to the credit of each
State/Union Territory, out of the interest receivable by it with G
effect from financial year 2014-2015 onwards - No money
out of the amounts available with Ad-hoc CAMPA to be
transferred or utilized without the leave of the Supreme Court
- National CAMPA Advisory Council to file a Status Report
279
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A
within a period of three months regarding the monitoring and
evaluation of the works being undertaken, by utilizing the
funds released by CAMPA - Forest Act, 1927 - Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 -
Tamil Nadu Hill Stations
Preservation of Trees Act.
B
The instant writ petition was filed as a PIL under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for and on behalf
of the people living in and around the Nilgiri Forest on
the Western Ghats. The petitioner sought to challenge
the legality of the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, the
C Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer,
Gudalur and the Timber Committee in destroying the
tropical rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in.
violation of the Forest Act, 1927, Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 and Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of
D Trees Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as
it has resulted in serious ecological imbalances affecting
lives and livelihood of the people living in the State of
Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has alleged that the
respondents have in collusion with certain vested
E interests allowed trespassers to encroach and enter
upon the forest land forthe purpose of felling trees and
conversion of forest land into plantations and well
organized rackets existed between the forest authorities,
timber contractors and the local authorities which are
F facilitating the cutting and removal Of trees and timber
in gross violation of Forest Coriservation Act.
The instant Interlocutory Applications were filed
seeking either general or specific directions in relation
G to various issues concerning the· protection and
improvement of environment. The Supreme Court has
been continuously monitoring the enforcement of the
protected measures directed to be taken by the various
Central/State authorities on the basis of the
recommendations made by the relevant expert bodies.
H
..
T. N. GODAVARMANTHIRUMULPAOv. UNION OF INDIA
281
The Court noticed on 29'" October, 2002, that the amount A
collected by various States from the user agencies to
whom permissions were granted for using forest land
for non forest purposes was not being utilised for such
compensatory afforestation. The Court directed that the
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) should B
formulate a Scheme whereby, whenever any permission
is granted for change of user of forest land for non-forest
purposes, and one of the conditions of the permission
is that, there should be compensatory afforestation, then
the responsibility for the same is that of the user-agency c
and should be required to set apart a sum of money for
doing the needful. The CEC examined the issue and
recommended that it would be desirable to create a
separate fund for Compensatory Afforestation, wherein
all the money received from the user-agencies would be o
deposited and subsequently released directly to the
implementing agencies as and when required. The funds
received from a particular State would be utilized in the
same State. There was a consensus among the States
and the Union Territories that such a fund be created. It E
was also recommended that the funds should not be a
part of general revenues of the Union or all the States or
of the Consolidated Funds of India. The CEC Report
also contemplated the involvement of user-agencies for
Compensatory Afforestation. Pursuant thereto, the F
MoEF issued a notification on 23'd April, 2004
constituting a "Compensatory Afforestation Funds
Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)" as an
authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. Unfortunately, the said notification G
only remained on paper and it was not made functional
till date by the MoEF. Huge amount of money received
from the user-agencies towards the NPV, Compensatory
Afforestation etc. were lying with various authorities
without any effective control and monitoring as the H
..
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A CAMPA notification was not made operational by the
MoEF. Therefore, by order dated 5'" May, · 2006, the
Supreme Court accepted a suggestion made by the CEC
for constitution of an Ad-hoc body till CAMPA becomes
operational. All State Governments/Union Territories
B were directed to account for and pay the amount
collected with effect from 30'" October, 2002 in conformity
with the order dated 29'" October, 2002 to the said Adhoc body (Ad-hoc CAMPA). The suggestions were made .
by the CEC that all the monies recovered on behalf of
c the 'CAMPA' and which are presently lying with the
various officials of the State Government are transferred
to the bank account(s) to be operated by this body; and
get audited all the monies received from the user
agencies on behalf of the 'CAMPA' and the income earned
D thereon by the various State Government officials. These
suggestions were accepted. In accordance with the
directions of the Supreme Court, the money already
received as well as the money being received towards
the NPV etc. were transferred to the Ad-hoc CAMPA and
E invested in the fixed deposit with National Banks. On 2•d
April, 2009, MoEF issued "the guidelines of State
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority (State CAMPA)". By order dated 10'"
July, 2009, the Supreme Court directed that the guidelines
F and structure of the State CAMPA as prepared by MoEF
may be notified and implemented. The Court also
permitted the Ad-hoc CAMPA to release about Rs.1000
crore per year for the next five years, in proportion of
. 10% of the principal amount pertaining to the respective
G States/Union Territories, inter alia, subject to the
condition that the State Accountant General shall carry
out, on annual basis, the audit of the expenditure
incurred every year out of the State CAMPA funds. It was
further directed that an amount upto 5% of the amount
H released to the State CAMPA, i.e., upto Rs.50 crore per
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
283
annum, may also be released and utilized by the National A
CAMPA Advisory Council constituted under the
Chairmanship of Ministry of Environment and Forest for
monitoring and evaluation and for the implementation
of the various schemes as given in the State CAMPA
guidelines. The State CAMPA was constituted for each
B
State/Union Territory. The Ad-hoc CAMPA released the
funds to each of the State CAMPAs as per the approved
• Annual Plan of Operation (APO). At present, a total sum
of Rs.1000 crore is permitted to be released to the State
per year. The State-wise accounts of the principal c
amounts and cumulative interest is to be maintained by
the Ad-hoc CAMPA. The funds are not permitted to be
utilized for any purpose other than those authorized by
the Court. The administrative expenses of CAMPA are
incurred by the CEC. With the establishment of the Ad- o
hoc CAMPA, huge sums of money have accumulated
which can be released to the State CAMPA for utilization,
for protection and for the improvement.of the national
environment.
·
The instant IAs were filed by different States seeking E
release of some funds for completing the task of
compulsory afforestation. The CEC also recommended
that the Supreme Court may in partial modification of its
earlier order dated 1 O'h July 2009 consider permitting the
Ad hoc CAMPA to annually release from the financial year F
2014-15 onwards, out of the interest received/receivable
by it, an amount equal to 10% of the principal amount
lying to the credit of each of the State/UP at beginning of
the year to the respective State CAMPA subject to certain
conditions.
G
Disposing of the IAs, the Court
HELD: 1. The recommendation of CEC are
accepted. The National CAMPAAdvisory Council (NCAC)
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A will finalize and issue guidelines before 1st May, 2014
regarding the activities for which the use of the CAMPA
fun~s will not be permissible (such as foreign study·
tours) and the activities for which a ceiling on the use of
the CAMPA funds will apply (such as purchase of
B vehicles and construction of residential I office
buildings). These guidelines will be strictly followed by
the State CAMPA. The order dated 10th July, 2009 is
modified accordingly. The Ad-hoc CAMPA is permitted
-
to release annual amount equal to 10% of the principal
C amount lying to the credit of each State/Union Territory,
out of the interestreceivable by it with effect from financial
year 2014-2015 onwards. The release of the said funds
shall be subjected to certain conditions. It is further
directed that no money out of the amounts available with
o Ad-hoc CAMPA will be transferred or utilized without the
leave of this Court. It is further directed thatthe National
CAMPA Advisory Council will file a Status Report within
a period of three months regarding the monitoring and
evaluation of-the works being undertaken, by utilizing
E the funds released by CAMPA. [Paras 31 to 33][304-F-H;
305-A-D]
F
M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. 1997 (1) SCC
388: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
· 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12
referred to Para 16
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 2143 with
2283,3088,3461,3479,3693in2143,827, 1122, 1337, 1473
AND 1620 and 1693 IN 1473 and 3618 in Writ Petition (Civil)
G No. 202 of 1995.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Manjit Singh, AG, Harish N. Salve, Uday U. Lalit, P.S.
Patwalia andAnoop G. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. M.K. Subramanian,
H
T. N. GODAVARMANTHIRUMULPADv. UNION OF INDIA
285
Sp. G. P., A. D. N. Rao, Siddhartha Chowdhury, P. K. Manohar,
A
· l<eshav Thakur, Saket Sikri, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Harris
Beeran, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Anil Shrivastava, Riku Sarma,
Navnit Kumar (For M/s. Corporate Law Group), Gopal Singh,
Manish Kumar, C.D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, T. Mahipal,
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, TarjitSingh, Vinay B
Kuhar, Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Ms. Pragati
Neekhra, Ashok Mathur, Gopal Prasad, Parikshit P. Angad,
Ms. Anitha Shenoy (For Mr. V.N. Raghupathy),. Ms. Bina
Madhavan, Naveen Sharma, Ms. Swati B. Sharma, Mishra
Saurabh, Sanjay Kharde, Aniruddhya P. Mayee, Kh. Nobin c.
Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, P.· V. Yogeswaran, Ranjan
·Mukherjee, Ms.Anil Katiyar, Shibashish.Mishra, Kuldip Singh,
Milind Kumar, For M/s.Arp.utham, Aruna & Co., B. Balaji, R.
Rakesh Sharma, Selvin Raja, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Utkarsh
. Sharma, Amit Kumar Singh,Abhishek Choudhary, Ms. Saumya D
Chakraborty, Anip Sachthey, Col. R. Bala'subramanian, K. V. ·
Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, D.S. Mahra, V.G. Pragasam, S.J.
Aristotle and Prabu Ramsubramanian, Adlis. for the appearing .
parties.
·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·
E
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1.This order will
dispose o!the I.As. noted above.·
2. Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 was file~ as a PIL
under Article 32 of the Constitution of )l)dia for and on behalf of. F
the people living in and around the Nilgiri Forest on the Western .
Ghats. The petitioner sought to challenge the legality and the
validity of the actions ofthe·state of Tamil Nadu, the Collector,
· Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer, Gudalur and the
Timber Committee represented through the Collector, Nilgiris G
(Respondent Nos. 2 _to 5 respectively), in destroying the tropical
rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in violation ofthe
ForestAct, 1927, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 arid Tamil
Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of Trees Act and the· ·
H
286
S!JPREME COURT REPORTS
_[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A . Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This, according to the
petitioner, has resulted in serious ecological imbalances
affecting lives and livelihood of the people living in the State of ·
TamilNadu.
3. The petitioner has highlighted that the respondents
8
have in collusion with certain .vested interests allowed
trespassers to encroach and enter upon the forest land for the '
purpose of felling trees and conversion of forest land into
plantations. It was pointed out that the encroachers on the
forest land have been indiscriminately cutting and removing
C valuable Rosewood trees, Teak trees and Ayni trees, which
are immensely valuable and are found exclusively in the
aforesaid forest. It was pointed 'out that loss of such trees
would be permanent and irn~parable to the present and future
generations to come. The petitioner has clear'ly pleaded that
D the value attached to Rosewood and Teak wood has resulted
in a mad rush by timber contractors in collusion with
.
-··
.
'
),
.
Government agencies, for making quick profits without any ·
regard to the permanent damage and destruction caused to
the rain forest and to the eco-system of the region. The
E petitioner also pointed out that cutting and removing of trees
is notlimited only to the mature trees. In their anxiety to make
huge profits the entire forest areas are being cleared, by
indiscdminate felling of trees~ The petitioner also pointed out
that the national policy adopted in the year 1952 provided for
F . the protection and preservation of forests. The existence of
large areas of land covered under forest is recognized as a
valuable segment of the national·heritage. The petitioner also
pointed out that the protection from exploitation of forests, in
particular natural forests, is imperative as such forests once
G
destroy~d can not be regenerated to their natural state. The
petitioner has pleaded that the destruction of rain forests would
adversely affect the environment, eco-system, the plants and .
animals living within the forests. This would result in such
. destruction, which would ultimately result in drastic changes in
H
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
287
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
the environment and the quality of life of people living in and
A
around the forests. The petitioner also highlighted that although
the national policy has provided that 33% of the land mass of
India shall be covered with forests, the present extent of the
forest covered areas was below 15%. The natural rain forest
cover was only around 5%. Such meager forest cover had led
B
to the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Statement of objects and reasons of the aforesaid Act is as
follows:-
. ( 1) Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads
to environmental deterioration. Deforestation had C
been taking place on a large scale in the country and
it had caust:id widespread concern.
(2) With a view to checking further deforestation, the
President promulgated on the 25th October, 1980, the D
Forest (Conservation). Ordinance, 1980. The
Ordinance made the prior approval· of the Central
government necessary for de-reservation of reserved
forests . and for use' of forest-land for· non-forest
purposes. The Ordinance also provided for the E.
constitution of an advisory committee to advise the
Central Government with regard to grant of such
approval.
·
4. Apart from pointing out the provisions of the aforesaid
Act, the petitioner also protested that the population living in
F
the areas mentioned above is being deprived of the right to
live in a clean and pollution free environment and, therefore,
their fundamental rights protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India are being violated. The petitioner pointed
out that the preservation and protection of forests is recognized G
as essential for maintaining a clean and pollution free
environment. He further pointed out thatthe rain forests, which
are found only in the southern part of the Western Ghats contain
several rarest species of plants and animals and also the main
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A
source of water supply to the rivers flowing from the Ghats.
B
c
The large scale denuding of the green cover on the Western
Ghats has resulted in shortage of water in the rivers and has
adversely ;:iffected the people living on the water flowing from
the rivers.
5. This apart, it was pointed out that forests are the main
source of livelihood for a large number of people, who live
within and around the forests. It was also pointed out that the
rain forests are the source of life and the plants and animals
contained within it are useful for enhanced quality of life enjoyed
by mankind. The bio-diversity of the rain forest, it was
emphasized, has to be preserved for the welfare and well being
of future generations of mankind. The petitioner was
constrained to move this Court in the present writ petition being
so perturbed by the large scale destruction of the forests and
D other natural resources found in the three States namely Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. It was lamented that all the
protective legislation· enacted by Union of India are nothing
more than statements ·in the statute books, in as much as the
forest land and its wealth are being plundered everyday. He
E pointed out that it can no longer be deni_ed that well organized
rackets exist between the forests authorities, timber contractors
and th!( local authorities which are facilitating the cutting and
removal of trees and timber in gross violation of Forests
Conservation 'Act. The petitioner has given details of the
F
manner il'l which individuals, contractors and firms were
clandestinely permitted to trespass and plunder the forest area
for the invaluable. Rosewood trees. It was stated that each
tree commands a price of Rs.15 to 20 Lakhs in the market.
When all the efforts of all the concerned individuals, NGOs and
G other social activists failed; the petitioners were constrained
to knock on the doors of this Court byway of writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The prayers made in the
aforesaid writ petitions are as under:- ·
H
(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
289
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J .]
the State of Tamil Nadu to take steps to stop all felling
A
and clearing activities in the forests of Nilgiris District .
in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the respondents 2 to 5 to stop conversion of forest
lands to plantation or other purposes.
· 8
(c) issue an appropriate writ, or direction directing
respondents 2 to 5 to take steps to remove all
unauthorised and illegal occupants of forest land in
the Nilgiri District of Tamil Nadu.
c
(d) issue an appropriate writ, order direction directing
respondent 2 to 5 to stop the transport and removal of
timber from the forests in the Nilgiri District.
(e) issue an appropriate writ, order direction to appoint D
a committee for assessing the damage caused to the
forest in the western ghats in the State of Tamil Nadu,
Karntaka and Keral and in particular the hills of the
Nilgiris mountain.
(f) Pass such other and further orders.
E
6. Understandably disturbed by the horrendous fact
situation narrated in the writ petition, this Court issued notice
. to not ·only the concerned States but also to .other States.
Thereafter, the writ petition is pending.
7. In this writ petition, Interlocutory Applications have been
filed seeking either general or s·pecific directions in relation to · ·
various issues concerning the protection and improvement of
environment. The subjects covered by Interlocutory Applications
F
at various stages ranged from protection of existing. forest G
cover; improvement in the forest cover; protection of lakes,
. rivers and wild life; and protection of flora and fauna and the
ecological system of the country. This Court has been
continuously monitoring the enforcement of the protected
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A
measures directed to be taken by the various Central/State·
. authorities on the basis of the recommendations made by the
relevant expert bodies.
,
8. On 29'" October, 2002, this Court considered I.A.
No. 566, in which this Court had taken suo-moto notice on the
8 · Statement of Mr. K.N. Ra\.val, Additional Solicitor General to
the effect that the amount collected by various States from the
user agencies to whom permissions were granted for using
forest land for non-forest purposes, was not being utilized for
such compensatory afforestation. It was pointed out that
C moneys paid by user agencies to State Governments for
compensatory afforestation were utilized for such afforestation
only to the extent of 63% of the funds actually realized by the
State Governments. The shortfall even at that time was nearly
Rs. 200 crores. This Court, therefore, recorded that on the
D next date, it would consider as to how this shortfall was to be
made good. It was directed that the Ministry of Environment
and Forest should formulate a Scheme whereby, whenever
any permission is granted for change of user of forest land for
non-forest purposes, and one of the conditions of the
E permission is that, there should be compensatory afforestation,
then the responsibility for the same is that of the user-agency
and should be required to set apart a sum of money for doing
the needful. It was further provided that in such acase, the
State Governments concerned will have to provide or make
F available land on which forestation can take place. This land
may have to be made available either at the expense of the
user-agency or of the State Governments, as the State
Governments may decide. It was further directed that the
scheme which is framed by the MoEF should be such as to
G ensure that afforestation takes place as per the permissions
which are granted and there should be no shortfall in respect
thereto.
9. It was also brought to the notice of this Court on the
basis of the statement placed on record in l.A.Nos.419 and
H
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION.OF INDIA
291
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
420 that the funds accumulated for diverting forest area for A
non-forest purposes, compensatory afforestation, although
actually received, had not been appropriately utilized. The CEC
examined this question. The report; inter alia, provided that
there should be a change in the manner in which the funds are
released by the State Governments relating to Compensatory B
Afforestation. The CEC recommended that it would be
desirable to create a separate fund for Compensatory
Afforestation, wherein all the money received from the useragencies are to be deposited and subsequently released
directly to the implementing ageilcies as and when required. c
The funds received from a particular State would be_ utilized in
the same State.
10. There was a .consensus among the States and the
Union Territories that such a fund be created. It was also
recommended that the funds should not be a part of general D
revenues of the Union or all the States or of the Consolidated
Funds of India. The CEC Report also contemplated the
imlolvement of user-agencies for Compensatory Afforestation.
11. The CEC in its report dated 5'h September, 2002 E
made eight recommendations which were accepted ·by the
Union of India in an affidavit filed in response to the aforesaid
. report. The Union of India further stated, in the affidavit, that
major institutional reorganization of the present mechanism
has to be undertaken. It was proposed that comprehensive
rules will be framed which will inter alia relate to the 'procedure
F
and compensation. It was also proposed thatthere shall be a
body for the management of the Compensatory Afforestation
Fund (CAF). The suggestion of the Union of India was that
CAF would be composed of a Director General of Forest;
Special Secretary, who would be the ex-officio Chairman and
G
Inspector General of Forest, who would be the ex-officio
Member Secretary. The report of the CEC was accepted and
this Court made the following recommendations :-
"(a) The Union of India shall within eight weeks from today H
292
A
c
D
E ,
F
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 14 S.C.R.
frame comprehensive rules with regard to the constitution
of a body and management of the Compensatory
Afforestation funds in concurrence with the Central
Empowered Committee. These rules shall be filed in this
Court within eight weeks form today. Necessary
notification constituting this body. will be issued
·simultaneously.
(b) Compensatory Afforestation Funds which have not
yet been "realised as well as the unspent funds already
- realised by the States shall be transferred to the said
body within six months of its constitution by the respective
.
'
states and the user-agencies.
·
(c) In addition to above, while according transfer under
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for change in user-agency
from all non-forest purposes, the user agency shall also
pay into the said fund the net value of the forest land_
'
.
diverted for non-forest purposes. The present value is to
be recovered at the rate of Rs. 5.80 lakhs per hectare to
- Rs. 9.20 Jakhs per hectare afforest land depending upon
the quan~ity and density of the land in question converted
for non-forest use. This will be subject to upward revision
by the Ministry of Environment & F crests in ·consultation
with Central Empowered Committee as and when.
necessary.
(d)A 'Compensatory Afforestation Fund' shall be created
'in.which all the monies received from the user-agencies
.
'
l
'
•
towards compensatory afforestation, additional
compensatory afforestation, penal comp_ensatory
afforestation, net present value of forest land, Catchment
Area Treatment-Plan Funds, etc. shall be deposited. The
_ rules'. procedure and composition of the body for
· management of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund
shall be finalised by the Ministry of Environment & Forests
with the concurrence of Central Empowered Committee
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
29·3
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
within one month.
A
(e) The. funds received from the user-agencies in cases
where forest land diverted falls within Protected Areas
i.e. area notified under Section 18, 26A or 35 of the Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for undertaking activities
related to protection of bio-diversity, wildlife, etc., shall
B
also be deposited in this Fund. Such monies shall be
used exclusively for undertaking protection and
conservation activities in protected areas of the
respective Statesl\]nionTerritories.
c
(f) The amount received on account of compensatory
afforestation but not spent or any balance amount lying' ·
with the. States/Union Territories or.any amount that is
yet to be recovered from .the use-agency shall also be
deposited in this Fund.
·
(g) Besides artificial regeneration (plantations), the fund
shall also be utilised for undertaking assisted natural
regeneration, protection of forests and other related
activities: For this purpose, site .specific plans should
D
be prepared and implemented in a time bound manner.
E
(h) The user agencies especially .tlie large public sector
undertaking such as Power Grid Corporation, N.T.P.C.,
etc. which frequeriJly require forest land for their projects
should also be involved in undertaking compensatory
afforestation by establishing Special ~urpose Vehicle.
F
Whereas the private sector. user agencies may be
. involved in monitoring and most importantly, in protection
of compensatory afforestation. Necessary procedure for
this purpose would be laid down by the Ministry of
Environment & Forests with the concu.rrence of the G
Cer;itral Empowered Committee.
(i) Plantations must use local and indigenous species
since exotics have long term negative impacts on the
environment.
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A
B
0) An independent system of concurrent monitoring and
evaluation shall be evolved and implemented through the
CompensatoryAfforestation Fund to ensure effective and
proper utilisation offunds;"
12. Keeping in view the afqresaid representation, the
MoEF issued a notification qn 23rd April,' 2004 constituting a
"Compensatory Afforestation. Funds Management and
Planning Authority (C_Al\l!PA)" .a!? an· authority under Section
c 3(3) of the Environment (Protebtion)Act, 1986. This notification
provides that there shall be a governing body. Minister of
· Environment and Forests, Go.vemment of India is the
Chairman. Apart from the members who are taken from the
level of Secretary, MoEF to the lev'el·oflnspector General of
D Forest, the governing body also ·ineludes an eminent
professional ecologist, not being from the Central ~nd the State
Government for a .period of 2 ,years of time, but for two
consecutive terms. the .flotificatior;i also .provides for an
executive body having S!=!Yenmembers with Director General
of Forests and Special Secretary, MoEF., Government of India
E as the Chairman. The notification. elaborately provides the
power and functions of the· Go>iernfng Body; power and
functions of the Executive Body; Maiiagement of the Funds;
Disbursement of funds; i'iionitoring·ano evaluation of works. It
also provides that every State or"the Union territory shall have
F a Steering Committee arid a Management Committee. It also
provides the powers and funi:ti6ns' of the State Steering .
Committee and the State Managem'ent Committee. The
jurisdiction of the C:AMPA is throughout India. Unfortunately,
G the aforesaid notification has only remained on paper and it
has not been made functional till da!e by t~e MoEF.
·
H
13. This Court again exami.ne.d the entire iss~e in relation
to the decline in environment quality due to increasing pollution,
loss of vegetation cover and bioiogical diversitv. excessive
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
295
[SURINDERSINGH NIJJAR, J.]
concentrations of. harmful chemicals in the ambient A .
atmosphere and in food chains, growing risk of environmental
accidents, and threats to life support system, forthe protection
of which the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 had been
enacted. A comprehensive judgment was given in LA.No.826
in LA.No.566 in W.P. (C) No.202 1995 on 26'" September,
B
2005. The Court noticed the statutory provisions cont;;iined in
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, and Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act,
1974. It also noticed that large sums of money which had been
payable by user-agencies in cases where approval had been c
granted for diverting forest land that stipulated for compensatory
afforestation were not being used. It is further noticed by this
Court that certain rates had been fixed per hectare of forest
land depending on the quality and density of the land in question
converted for non-forestry use. After detailed examination of D
the issues.related to the payment of Net Present Value (NPV)
and Compensatory Afforestation Fund, the Court upheld the
constitutional validity of the payment to CAMPA under the
notification dated 23rd April, 2004. It was held that the payment
of NPV is for the protection of environment. It was further held
E
that the natural resources are not the ownership of any one
State or individual, public at large is its beneficiary. Therefore,
the contention that the amount of NPV shall be made over to
the State Government was rejected.
14. The Court also constituted a Committee of Experts
F
(Kanchan Chopra Committee) to formulate a practical
methodology for determining NPV payable for various
categories of forest and the project which deserves to be
exempted from payment of NPV.
15. As noticed ea~lier, huge amount of money received
G
from the user-agencies towards the NPV, Compensatory
Afforestation etc. were lying with various.authorities without
any effective control and monitoring as the CAMPA notification
had not been made operational by theMoEF.
H
296
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 14 S.C.R.
A.·
16. The Court reiterated the ratio of M.C.Mehta Vs.
Kamal Nath & Ors.' that it is the duty of the State to preserve
the natural resources in their pristine purity. The Doctrine of
Public Trust was re-enforced. It was emphasized that the
8
Doctrine of Public Trust is founded on the idea that certain
common properties such as rivers, seashore, forest and the
air were held by the Government trusteeship for the free and
unimpeded use of the general public. It was reiterated that our
legal system based on English Common Law which includes
C the Doctrine of Public Trust as part of its jurisprudence. The
State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature
meant for public use and enjoyment. ·
17. Therefore, this Court recognized the need to take all
D precautionary measures when forests land are sought to be
diverted for non-forestry use, the creation of CAF was
approved. In coming to the aforesaid conclu~ions; the Court
took into consideration inff')rgenerationalequity. The State was
required to undertake short term as well as king term measures
E for the protection of the environment.
.
18. As noticed. earlier, this Court by order dated 28'h
March, 2008 had fixed the rates at which NPVis payable for
the non-forestry uses· of forest land falling in different Ecoclasses and density ~ub-classes. The rates vary from Rs.10 .43
F
lakh per hedare to Rs.4.38 lakh per hectare: For-the use of
forest land falling in the National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries, the NPV is payable at 10 times and 5 times
respectively of the normal rates of NPV. By order dated 9th
May, 2008, this Court has exempted the payment of NPV for
· G non-forestry use of forest land (a) upto one hectare for
construction of schools, hospitals, village tanks, laying of
underground pipe lines and electricity distribution lines upto
. 22 KV, (b) for relocation of villages from National Parks/Wildlife
Sanctuaries, (c) for collection of bould~rs/silts from river beds,
H
'1997(1)SCC388
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
297
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
(d) for laying of underground optical fibre cables and (e) for A
pre-1980 regularization of encrci'achments and has granted
50% exemption for underground mining projects.
19. Although huge sums of money had been received
from user-agencies but there were no effective checks and
balances for its utilization. Therefore, by order dated 5'h May,
B
2006, this Court accepted a suggestion made by the CEC
submitted in I.A. No.1473 for constitution of an Ad-hoc body till
CAMPA becomes operational. All State Governments/Union
Territories were directed to account for and pay the amount
collected with effect from 30'" October, 2002 in conformity with C
the order dated 29'" October, 2002 to the aforesaid Ad-hoc
body (Ad-hoc CAMPA). The following two suggestions made
by the CEC were accepted:-
"( a) ensure that all the monies recovered on behalf of the 0
'CAMPA' and which are presently lying with the various
officials of the State Government are transferred to the
bank account(s) to be operated by this body.
(b) get audited all the monies received form the user
agencies on behalf of the 'CAMPA' and the income E
earned thereon by the various State Government officials.
The auditors may be appointed by the GAG The audit
may also examine whether proper financial procedure
has been following in investing the funds."
20. The Chief Secretaries of the State Governments/
F.
Administrators of Union Territories were directed to cooperate
with the Ad-hoc CAMPA as well as the Comptroller and Auditor
General. The Ad-hoc CAMPA under the Chairmanship of the
Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, MoEF and
has (a) Inspector G'eneral of Forest (FC), MoEF (b) G
representative of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (c)
nominee of the Chairman of the CEC as its Members. In
accordance with the directions of this Court, the money already
received as well as the money being received towards the
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 14 S.C.R.
A
NPV etc .. have been transferred to the Ad-hoc CAMPA and
invested in the fixed deposit 'JI/Ith National Banks. The money
lying with theAd-hoc CAMPA towards the NPV etc. received
from the States (principal amount) and the interest received
on the fixed deposit (cumulative interest) has substantially ·
B increased over a period of time and is presently about Rs.
c
30,000 crores.
·
21 ~On 2"" April, 2009, MoEF has issued '1he guidelines
of State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority (State CAMPA)". These guidelines have
been prepared on the basis of the discussions held in the
meeting of the Chief Secretaries that the objective to assist
the States/Union Territories for setting up the requisite
mechanism in consonance with the directions issued from time
to time by this Court The guidelines are general in natu·re and
D .can be moulded keeping in view the specific needs of any
particular State/Union Territory. The State CAMPA has been
set up as an instrument to accelerate aetivities for preservation
of natural forests, management of wildlife, infrastructure
development in the sector and other allied works. By order
E dated 101h July, 2009 this Court directed that the guidelines
.and structure of the State CAMPA as prepared by MoEF may
be notified and implemented. The Court also permitted the
Ad-hoc CAMPA to release about Rs: 1000 crore per year for
the fiext five years, in proportion of 10%of the principal amount
· F pertaining to the respective States/Union Territories, inter alia,
subject to the condition that the State Accountant General shall
carry out, on annual basis, the audit of the expenditure incurred
every year out of the State CAMPA funds. It was further directed
that ari amount upto 5% of the amount released to the State
G CAMPA, i.e., upto Rs.50 crore per annum, may also be
released and utilized by the National C..A,MPAAdvisory Council
· constituted under the Chairmanship of Ministry of Environment
and Forest for monitoring and evaluation and for the
implementation of the various schemes as given in-the State
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
299
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
CAMPA guidelines.
A
22. The State CAMPA has been constituted for each
State/Union Territory. It has a three-tier structure. The Executive
Committee functions under the Chairmanship of the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests is responsible for the Annual
Plan of Operation (APO) for various works planned to be
8
undertaken during each year. The Steering Committee under
the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary is responsible for
approving the APO for each year. The Chief Minister is the
Chairman of the Governing Body which is responsible for
overall guidance and policy.issues. The Ad-hoc CAMPA· C
releases the funds to each cif the State CAMPAs as per the
approved APO.