Holding

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is prospective in operation, and any assignment of forest land after its commencement requires prior approval of the Central Government; the Kerala government's assignment of 28,588.159 hectares, obtained with such approval, is valid.

Summary

The Nature Lovers Movement challenged the Kerala government's regularisation of forest land occupied by unauthorised settlers, arguing that Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not prospective and that the state could assign forest land without Central Government approval. The Supreme Court examined the legislative intent of the 1980 Act, held that its provisions are prospective and apply to all forests irrespective of ownership. Consequently, any de‑reservation, non‑forest use or lease of forest land after 25‑Oct‑1980 requires prior approval of the Central Government. The Court found that the Kerala government had obtained such approval for the assignment of 28,588.159 hectares and therefore its action was lawful. The High Court’s refusal to set aside the assignment was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court also clarified that any future assignment of additional forest land, such as the proposed 10,000 hectares, must likewise obtain Central approval.

Issues considered

Whether Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 operates prospectively.
Whether the Government of Kerala may grant pattas, leases or assign rights over forest land to unauthorised occupants/encroachers without prior Central Government approval.

Legislation cited

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. 2, s. 3, s. 3A
Kerala Forest Act, 1961s. 22, s. 3, s. 4, s. 7

Subjects

forest conservationprospective legislationcentral government approvalforest land regularisationencroachmentenvironmental lawKeralaForest (Conservation) Act 1980

Judgment

[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 G
authority can pass an order or give a 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 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 non-
forest 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 implemen- ••
tation 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] [ 723- D
G-H; 724-A]
3.3 Conclusion No.D recorded by the High Court in
para 103 of the impugned judgment is legally unsus-
tainable and is set aside. [Para 27) [ 724-A-B]
E
3.4 As and when the State Government decides to
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
of the 1980 Act and the guidelines framed for regulari- F
zation of encroachments on forest l~nd. [Para 27] [ 724-C]
Case Law Reference
(1985) 3 sec 643 relied on Para 19
• J/ G
(1987) 1 sec 213 relied on Para 20·
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
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.
B
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
penalties against trespass and damage to reserved forest and E
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, co-
B 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 l
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 non-
forest 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,
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
,I
D
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
order for regularizing unauthorised occupation/encroachments E
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 counter-
part 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
--. Government may permit regularization of such occupation/
G
encroachment by issue of title deeds under the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules. For the sake of reference that letter is
reproduced below:

H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A "GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Forest Environment & Wild Life (C) Department

No. 51289/FGl/83/AD Trivandrum

Dated: 26.6.1986
B
From
The Agricultural Production Commissioner &
Secretary (Agriculture & Forests)
To,
c The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Forest and Environment,
Department of Forest and Wild Life,
Government of India,
Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi.
D
Sir,
Sub: Forests-Assignment of Forest Lands which have
already come under Agricultural occupations-
clearance under Forest Conservation Act requested.
E
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)
F
Name of Forest District Estimated area of
Division he occupations (in
hectares)
1. Chalakudy Trichur 380.00
G
2. Trichur Trichur 2340.00
3. Munnar Ernakulam 185.00
4. Munnar ldukki 180.00
5. Munnar ldukki 6940.65 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
lo
11. Kottayam ldukki 13443.94
c (Cardamom Hill Reserve)

12. Periyar Wild ldukki 480.00

Life Sanctuary
13. Konni Pathanamthitta 60.00
D ~ -·-
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
1.1.1977. Resurvey records are also very authentic having been ...L
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
record. Townships with colleges, Schools, hospitals, etc. have
G 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.
So far as the areas other than Udumpanchola taluk are
H
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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 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:
"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
E 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.

(ii) Regularisation of encroachments shall not be done
in favour of encroachers otherwise found eligible
G 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.
H
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 B
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. c
(v) A comprehensive scheme for soil conservation and
agro forestry shall be prepared and implemented as
a time bound programme to check accelerated soil
- (vi)
erosion and siltation of dams taking place in the area. D
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.

G
'
9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
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, Hydro-
Electric 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
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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
F 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

G
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 ·
H
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
of the State Government to regularize unauthorised
D
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
23.3.1993 and the decision of the State Government F
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.
G
..... ~ -· 4. The decision of the Central Government to grant
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
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 non-
e forest purpose, namely, assignment of forest land to pre-
1.1.1977 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
Full Bench of the High Court that the 1980 Act is prospective
0
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
I •
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
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
... families would have been displaced if the Central Government
4
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.
4. Notification by Government.- Whenever it is
D ..,
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 t •
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
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
person cut, collect, or remove any forest produce nor shall
c
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 D
granted without such sanction shall be null and void.
(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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use
of forest land for non-forest purpose.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force in a State, no State Government or
other authority shall make, except with the prior approval
B of the Central Government, any order directing-

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the
expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time
being in force in that State) or any portion thereof,
shall cease to be reserved;
c
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be
used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be
assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private
D person or to 'any authority, corporation, agency or
any other organisation not owned, managed or
controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be
E cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that
land or portion, for the purpose of using it for
reafforestation.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "non-forest
purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest
F land or portion thereof for-
(a) the cultivation of tea. coffee, spices, ruboer, palms,
oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal

G (b)
plants;
any purpose other than reafforestation; .. .

but does not include any work relating or ancillary to
conservation, development and management of forests
and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts,
H fire Jines, wireless communications and construction of
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V. 709
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] -
\ ~ fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench A
marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.

3. Constitution of Advisory Committee.- The Central
Government may constitute a Committee consisting of
such number of persons as it may deem fit to advise that
the Government with regard to- B

(i) the grant of approval under Section 2; and

(ii) any other matter connected with the conservation of
forests which may be referred to it by the Central
Government. c
3-A Penalty for contravention of the provisions of
the Act.- Whoever contravenes or abets the
contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2, shall
be punishable with simple imprisonment for a period which
D
may extend to fifteen days.

Regularisation of Encroachments on Forest Land

Encroachment of forest land for cultivation and other
purposes continues to be the most pernicious practice
E
endangeJing forest resources throughout the country.
Statistical information compiled by Ministry of Agriculture
... ~ during early 1980s revealed that nearly 7 lakh hectares of
forest land was under encroachment in the country about
a decade back. This is despite the fact that prior to 1980,
a number of States had regularized such encroachments F
periodically and approximately 43 lakh hectares of forest
land was diverted for various purposes between 1951
and 1980, more than half of it for agriculture. The decisions
.. .,_ __ Ji
of the State Government to regularize encroachments from
time to time seem to have acted as strong inducement for G
further encroachments in forest areas and the problem
remained as elusive as ever for want of effective and
concerted drive against this evil practice.

2. The National Forest Policy, 1988 has also observed
H

1
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. • ·

A the increasing trend in encroachments on forest land and
stated that these should not be regularized. Implementation
of this pronouncement has been examined by this Ministry
keeping in view the constraints of various State
Governments some of whom have expressed that they
8 stand committed to regularize encroachments of a period
prior to 1980. The issue figured prominently in the
Conference of the Forest Ministers held in May, 1989 and
was later examined by an inter-Ministerial Committee, set
up by this Ministry in consultation with the representatives
c of some of the States. Keeping in view the
recommendations of the Forest Ministers' Conference and
the Committee referred to the above, and with due approval
of the competent authority, the following measures are
suggested for review of the old encroachments and
effective implementation of the pronouncement made in
D
this regard in the National Forest Policy, 1988.
2.1 All the cases of subsisting encroachments where the
State Governments stand committed to regularize on
account of past commitments may be submitted to this
E Ministry for seeking prior approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. Such proposals should
invariably conform to the criteria given below:

1. PRE-1980 ENCROACHMENTS WHERE THE
STATE GOVERNMENT HAD TAKEN A DECISION
F BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE FOREST
(CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980, TO REGULARIZE
'ELIGIBLE' CATEGORY OF ENCROACHMENTS.
1.1 Such cases are those where the State Governments
had evolved certain eligibility criteria in accordance
G
with local needs and conditions and had taken a
decision to regularize such encroachments but could
not implement their decision either wholly or partially
before the en;:1ctment of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, on 25.10.80.
H
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V. 711
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
,,_ -)
1.2 All such cases should be individually reviewed. For A
this purpose the State Government may appoint a
joint team of the Revenue, Forest and Tribal Welfare
Departments for this work and complete it as a time-
bound programme.
1.3 In case where proposals are yet to be formulated, B
the final picture after taking into considerations all
.. the stipulations specified here maybe placed before
the concerned Gaon Sabha with a view to avoid
disputesinfuture.
c
1.4 All encroached lands proposed for regularization
should be properly surveyed.
1.5 Encroachments proposed to be regularized must
have taken place before 25.10.1980. This must be
Ir D
ascertained from the First Offence Report issued
under the relevant Forest Act at that point of time.
1.6 Encroachments must subsist on the field and the
encroached land must be under continuous
possession of the encroachers.
E
1.7 The encroacher must be eligible to avail the benefits
...- ~ of re,gularization as per the eligibility criteria already
fixed by the State.
1.8 As far as possible scattered encroachments
proposed to be regularized should be consolidated/ F
relocated near the outer boundaries of the forests.
1.9 The outer boundaries of the areas to be denotified
for regularization of encroachments should be ·
/ ~ ... demarcated on the ground with permanent boundary G
marks.
1.10 All the cases proposed to be regularized under this
category should be covered in one proposal and it
should give district-wise details.
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 1.11 All cases of proposed regularization of
encroachments should be accompanied by a
proposal for compensatory afforestation as per
existing guidelines.

1.12 No agricultural practices should be allowed on certain
8 specified slopes.

x x x x x
CLARIFICATION

c x x x x x
2. Doubts have been raised as to whether all
encroachments that had taken place up to 25.10.1980
could be regularized in accordance with an eligibility
formula by which some earlier encroachments were
D regularized.

3. A perusal of the paragraph reproduced above will
make it clear that there are 2 pre-conditions for any
encroachments to be considered for regularization. These
are:-
E
(a) The State Government should have taken the
decision on regularization of encroachments before
25.10.1980; and

(b) that the decision should be with reference to some
F eligibility criteria (normally expected to be related to
social and economic status of encroachers, location
and extent or encroachment, cut off date of
encroachment, etc.,)

G 4. It would be seen that the encroachments which are
proposed to be considered for regularization, subject to
the prescribed conditions, are those which fulfilled the
eligibility criteria evolved by the State Government as per
decision taker. before 25.10.1980 for regularization of
encroachments. The objective is limited to permitting
H
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V 713
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [GS. SINGHVI, J]
~·~
implementation of decisions taken before 25.10.1980 A
which could not be implemented because the enactment
of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 intervened. It is
therefore quite._clear that while all encroachments that can
be considered as eligible for regularization would have
taken place before 25.10.1980, all encroachments that 8
had taken place before 25.10.1980 would not be eligible
for regularization - they may be ineligible because either
they do not meet the eligibility criteria or are hot covered
by any decision taken before 25.10.1980. Thus, if the
decision on regularization of encroachments in a State c
covered only encroachments up to a date earlier than
25.10.1980, the guidelines on regularization of
encroachments do not envisage that the State Government
would now survey encroachments between that date and
25 .10 .1980 and propose regularization. The latter
D
encroachments though occurring before 25.10.1980 are
not covered by any regularization decision taken prior to
that date and hence cannot be considered for regularization
at this juncture.
5. Accordingly, the State Government may take up for E
implementation only such decision of pre 25.10.1980
• ~ period which could not be implemented because of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 intervening and propose
regularization of encroachments as per those decisions
and in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down in F
those decisions. No encroachments not covered by any
pre 25.10.1980 decisions - even though they might have
occurred prior to that date - should now be considered for
, . ... regularization in terms of our guidelines .
17. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions of the G
1961 Act makes it clear that once a land was declared reserved
forest, no right could be acquired by anyone after issue of
notification under Section 4 except under a grant or contract in
writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government,
or by or on behalf of some person in whom such right or power H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

,., <

A to create the same was vested or by succession from such ~

person and no activity of clearing such land or collection of forest '
produce could be made. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the
1961 Act also imposes prohibition against grant of patta in such
land without previous sanction of the Government. The 1980
B Act was enacted by virtue of Entry 17-A of List Ill in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution. Section 2 (as originally enacted)
contains a non obstante clause. It lays down that notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in
a State, no State Government or author'ity shall without prior
c approval of the Central Government make any order directing
that any reserved forest or any portion thereof, shall cease to
be reserved or that any forest land or any portion thereof may
be used for any non-forest purpose. By Act 69 of 1988 clause
(iii) was inserted in Section 2 and what was implicit in clause
(ii) was made explicit. Explanation appearing below Section 2
D
was also amended and it was made clear that the phrase 'non-
forest purpose' will mean breaking up or clearing of any forest
land or portion thereof for cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, etc.
and any purpose other than reafforestation. However, activity or
work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and
E management of forest and wildlife was excluded from the ambit
of the phrase 'non-forest purpose'.
~ •
18. We shall now consider whether Section 2 of the 1980
Act is prospective in operation and the State Government etc.
F are not required to obtain prior approval of the Central
Government before regularizing use of any forest land for any
non-forest purpose or issue patta or grant lease to unauthorised
occupants/encroachers of forest land, or the provision contained

G
in Section 2 is applicable qua any action which the State
Government or other authority may take with reference to activity
... - ...
undertaken in any reserved forest or any forest land prior to
25.10.1980.
Undisputedly, the object of the 1980 Act is conservation of
forest and to prevent depletion thereof. Therefore, the Court is
H bound to interpret the provisions of that Act which would further
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V 715
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
___:..-I
the object of the legislation. After enforcement of the 1980 Act, A
the State Governments were denuded of suo moto power to
deal with reserved forest or forest land and permit use thereof
for non-forest purposes. They could do so only after obtaining
prior approval of the Central Government. However, as large
tracts of reserved forests and forest land had been occupied by B
landless poor, who also undertook cultivation for their sustenance
many decades before the enactment of the 1980 Act, and there
-4 was demand from several quarters that old occupation of the
forest land may be regularised, the Government of India, after
taking note of the recommendations made in the Forest c
Ministers Conference and committee appointed by it, issued
guidelines for grant of approval to the decision taken by the
State Governments before the enforcement of the 1980 Act, i.e.,
25.10 .. 1980 to regularize encroachments made on forest land
-r and/or use thereof for non-forest purpose. This necessarily
D
implies that where the State Government had not taken any
policy decision to regularize pre-25.10.1980 occupation/
encroachment of forest land no order for regularization of such
occupation/encroachment can be passed without obtaining prior
approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the
1980 Act which, as mentioned above, contains a non obstante E
clause .
... ~
19. The question whether prior approval of the Central
Government is required for use of any forest land or any portion
thereof for non-forest purpose came up for consideration in State F
of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and others [(1985) 3 SCC 643].
The facts of that case were that 80 acres of land which formed
part of reserved forest was allotted to the respondents for
undertaking mining operations much before enactment of the
................. 1980 Act. After enforcement of the 1980 Act, the State
G
Government renewed the mining lease without obtaining prior
approval of the Central Government. Divisional Forest Officer,
Kodarma Forest Division restrained the respondents from
continuing the mining activity on the ground that prior approval
of the Central Government had not been obtained. The
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A respondents challenged the said restriction by filing writ petition ~ •
in the High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench). The High Court ruled
that Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act was not attracted in the
respondents case because the area had already been broken
for mining activity. This Court approved the decision of the High
B Court and held:

"Reading clause (ii) of and Explanation to Section 2 of the
Act it is clear that after the commencement of the Act no
fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of
the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State
c Government or any authority without the prior approval of
the Central Government. But if such permission has been
accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the
forest land is broken up or cleared then the section cannot
apply.
D
In the present case the State Government had not violated
Section 2 in permitting the Jessee by the amendment of
the lease deed to win and remove felspar and quartz also
in addition to mica because thereby no permission for
fresh breaking up of forest land is being given. The result
E of taking the contrary view will be that while the digging for
purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be
deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come .. .
across while he is carrying on mining operations for
winning mica."
F
20. The above judgment was considered in Ambica Quarry
Works v State of Gujarat and others [(1987) 1 SCC 213]. That
was a case of renewal of lease for the minor mineral granted in
Village Morai of District Valsad, State of Gujarat. The lease was
G granted on 8.11.1971 for a period of 10 years. Just before the
expiry of the term of lease, the appellant applied for its renewal
under Rule 18 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966. The
concerned Assistant Collector rejected the application on the
ground that the land is a part of the reserved forest and in terms
H of the 1980 Act renewal cannot be granted without approval of
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V. 717
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, j .]
' -I the Central Government. The appellant challenged the action of A
the Assistant Collector by filing writ petition in the High Court of
Gujarat, which was dismissed. Before this Court, learned counsel
for the appellant relied upon the judgment in Banshi Ram Modi's
case and argued that the prior approval of the Central
Government was not necessary because it was a case of renewal B
of the existing quarry lease. After extracting relevant portion of
the judgment in Banshi Ram Modi's case, this Court explained
J, and distinguished the same by making the following
observations:-
" ......... It is true that this Court held that if the permission c
had been granted before the coming into operation of the
1980 Act and the forest land has been broken up or
cleared, clause (it) of Section 2 of 1980 Act would not
apply in such a case. But that decision was rendered in
the background of the facts of that case. The ratio of any D
decision must be understood in the background of the
facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a
case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and
not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in
Quinn v. Leathern). But in view of the mandate of Article E
141 that the ratio of the decision of this Court is a law of
~
the land, Shri Gobind Das submitted that the ratio of a
4
decision must be found out from finding out ifthe converse
was not correct. But this Court, however, was cautious in
expressing the reasons for the ~aid decision in State of F
Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi. This Court observed in that
decision that the result of taking the contrary view would
be (SCC p. 648, para 10) that while the digging for
purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be
J>. ~ _. deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come
G
across while he is carrying on mining operations for
winning mica. That would lead to an unreasonable result
which would not in any way subserve the object of the Act.
There was an existing lease where mining operation was
being carried on and what was due by incorporation of a
H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A new term was that while mining operations were being ... .,
carried on some other minerals were available, he was
giving right to collect those. The new lease only permitted
utilisation or collection of the said other minerals.
In the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The
B appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases.
It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help
reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have
taken place. In that view of the matter, in the facts and
..
circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio of the
c said decision cannot be made applicable to support the
appellants' demands in these cases because the facts
are entirely different here. The primary purpose of the Act
which must subserve the interpretation in order to
implement the Act is to prevent further deforestation. The
D Central Government has not granted approval. If the State
Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where
"'
the State Government should seek approval of the Central
Government, the State Government cannot apparently
seek such approval in a matter in respect of which, in our
E opinion, it has come to the conclusion that no renewal
should be granted."
21. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, A/war v. Union of India and l. •
others [1993 Supp (3) SCC 115), this Court held that once an
area is declared as protected forest, it becomes forest within
F the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Act and prior approval of
the Central Government is a condition precedent for grant of
lease under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1986. The ratio of the judgment is contained in para 18, which
is extracted below:-
G ... - ...._
"Once an area is declared as a protected forest, it comes
within the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
It becomes a forest land within the meaning of Section 2.
The effect of this position is that no non-forest activity can
be carried on in the said area except with the prior
H
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V. 719
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

approval of the Central Government. Even the State A
Government cannot carry on any such non-forest activity
in the said area without such prior approval. That the mining
activity amounts to non-forest purpose is beyond dispute.
Thus, the grant of mining leases/licences and their renewal
by the State Government, without obtaining the prior B
approval of the Central Government, in respect of the mines ..
situated within the protected forest, after January 1, 1975
is contrary to law. All the mines listed in Appendix 'A' to the
J
committee's report do fall within the areas declared as
protected forest while the mines listed in Appendix 'B' fall c
partly within and partly outside such areas. According to
Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1986 too, no mining lease could have been granted
or renewed within the forest "without clearance from '.the
Central Government in accordance with the· Forest
D
'f (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the rules made thereunder".
Admittedly, no such prior approval or clearance of Central
Government was obtained. The Chairman of the
committee, Shri Justice M.L. Jain has rec.ommended.that
215 mines mentioned in Appendix 'A' to his report, which
are situated wholly within the protected forest should be E
. closed forthwith. There can hardly be any valid objection
in law to the said recommendation. Similarly, with respect
Al .. to 47 mines mentioned in Appendix 'B' to the report, the
learned Chairman has recommended that they should be
closed forthwith insofar as they fall within the protected F
forest. To this recommendation also, there can be no valid
objection in law."
22. In State of A.P and others v. Anupama Minerals and
others [1995 Supp (2) SCC 117], the Court referred to the earlier
, - -'/ judgment in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others
G

(supra) and held:
"The purpose of the Act is conservation of forests and to
prevent the depletion of forests. In other words the Act
intended not only to protect the existing forests but also to H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R

A conserve and protect the existing forests in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. In view of the prohibition for
grant of lease in the reserved forest area, grant of renewal
in the face of the prohibited area will be in violation of law.
Therefore, the authorities though had the power, but had
B duty while conserving the forest to refuse to grant renewal. .
In that view the Government's refusal to grant renewal,
therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. If they consider that
renewal could be granted; even then the prior approval of
the Central Government is mandatory under Section 2 of
c the Act."
23. In ·T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India ·
and others [(1997) 2 SCC 267], this Court adverted to the
misconception entertained !n .certain quarters about the true
scope of the 1980 Act and the meaning of the word "forest"
D used therein and held:
"The Forest Conserva.tion Act, 1980 was enacted with a.
view to check further deforestation which ultimately results
in ecological imbalance;. and therefore, the provisions
made therein for the conservation afforests and for matters
E connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective
of the nature of owners~ip or classification thereof. The
word "forest" must- be understood according to its
dictionary meaning. This 9escription covers all statutorily
recognised forests, wh'ether designated as reserved:
F protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(1) of
the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest· land",
occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as
understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area
recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective
G of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for
the purpose of Section 4 of the Act. The provisions enacted
in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation
of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply
clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the
H ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been
NATURE LbVERS MOVEMENT V. 721
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in A
,_ 'f
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation
and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP and recently in
the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development
Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of B
Biharv. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood
in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it
necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from
the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the
. perception of any State Government or authority. This has c
become necessary also because of the stand taken on
behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage,
relating to permissions granted for mining in such area
which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is
reasonable to assume that any State Government which
D
has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far,
will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary
remedial measures without any further delay."
24. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that the 1980
Act is applicable to all forests irrespective of the ownership or E
classification thereof and after 25.10.1980, i.e., date of
enforcement of the 1980 Act, no State Government or other
... J
authority can pass an order or give a 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 F
grant any lease, etc. in respect of forest land to any private
person or any authority, corporation, agency or organization
which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government.
Another principle which emerges from these judgments is that
even if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for
G
~~ non-forest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a
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.
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORT'S [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 25. We may now revert to the facts of the case in hand. It is
not in dispute that before the enactment of the 1980 Act, the .. ~

Government of Kera la had taken a policy decision to regularize
the illegal/unauthorised occupation and encroachments of forest
land made prior to 1.1.1977 and also to remove all unauthorised
B occupation/encroachments made on and after 1.1.1977. For
implementation of that decision, the State Government
approached 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
c occupants/encroachers. The approval granted by the Central
Government was in consonance with the guidelines framed by
it for regularization of encroachments on forest land. Therefore,
we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the High Court's
refusal to nullify the action taken by the State Government to
D regularize the unauthorised occupation/encroachment of
28588.159 hectares of forest land in five districts. -..
26. As regards 10,000 hectares of forest land, the State
Government has not taken any decision for assignment thereof
to unauthorised occupants/encroachers. This has been made
E clear in the additional affidavit dated 13.1.2009 of Shri B.R.
Mohan Kumar (Law Officer to Government of Kerala), paragraph
7 whereof reads as under:
~ •
"It is submitted that the State Government has initiated
F steps to move Government of India with suitable proposal
for obtaining clearance under Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 for assignment of about 10,000/- ha. of forest land
to the occupants prior to 01.01.1977. Alternate non-forest
lands are being identified for compensatory afforestation
G in various districts. For regularization of these forest lands
encroached prior to 01.01.1977, prior approval of the Govt. ... ~

of India is necessary. The respondent will submit an
additional proposal to Government of India for grant of
approval for diversion of forest land, as and when joint
H verification is completed. It may be pointed out that
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT V. 723
STATE OF KERALAAND OTHERS [G.S. SINGHVI, J]

·, 'i instructions have been issued in unequivocal terms to take A
stern action to evict the encroachments after 01.01.1977."
In view of the stand taken by the State Government, the
grievance made by the appellant in that regard will have to be
treated as pre-mature. However, we deem it necessary to clarify
B
that as and when the· State Government takes a decision to
assign 10,000 hectares of forest land or permit use thereof for
any non-forest purpose and approaches the Central Government
for grant of approval in terms of Section 2(ii) and (iii), the latter
shall be duty bound to examine the proposal keeping in view
the object of the 1980 Act and the guidelines framed in the light
c
of the National Forest Policy and then take appropriate decision.
Needless to say that the appellant or any other person who may
feel aggrieved by the decision of the State Government to assign
10,000 hectares of forest land or any portion thereof or permit
D
use of forest land for any non-forest purpose shall be free to
avail appropriate legal remedy.
27. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:
E
(1) The policy decision taken by the Government of
Kerala to assign 28,588.159 hectares of forest land
A to unauthorized occupants/ encroachers after
)
seeking approval from the Central Government does
not suffer from any legal infirmity and the High Court
F
rightly declined to interfere with the said decision.
(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 G
of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-
forest purpose or 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 H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A the Government except after obtaining prior approval .... ..
of the Central Government.
(3) Conclusion No.D recorded by the High Court in para
103 of the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable
and is set aside.
8
(4) As and when the State Government decides to assign
10,000 hectares of forest land to unauthorised
occupants/encroachers, it shall do so only after
obtaining prior approval of the Central Government
c and the latter shall take appropriate decision keeping
in view the object of the 1980 Act and the guidelines
framed for regularization of encroachments on forest
land.

G.N. Appeal disposed of.

• •