Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the leasing of a site within a reserved forest area in the Union Territory of Daman to Kamath Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for establishing a snack bar and restaurant to promote tourism. The Collector of Daman granted the lease for a period of five years, renewable in terms, without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Conservator of Forests objected to the lease, contending that Section 2 of the Act mandated prior approval for non-forest use of forest land. The respondent's activities were stopped, leading the company to file a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay. The respondent argued that the Act applied only to State Governments and not to Union Territories because they are administered by the Central Government, so the Collector, being a central authority, need not seek prior approval. The High Court accepted this interpretation and approved the Collector's action. Aggrieved, the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to Union Territories and whether the Collector of a Union Territory is an 'other authority' required to obtain prior approval of the Central Government before making an order for non-forest use of reserved forest land. The Court examined the statutory provision and noted that the Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It therefore applies to Union Territories as well as to States. The expression 'other authority' in Section 2 is comprehensive and includes any authority concerned with the matter, including the Collector. Thus, the Collector was required to seek prior approval of the Central Government before passing orders under Section 2. The High Court had erroneously approved the action without such approval. The Supreme Court observed that there were competing priorities between the tourism department and the forest department, and that a balance had to be struck in a cool and dispassionate manner, considering the protection of environment and preservation of forest wealth. Section 3 of the Act envisages constitution of an Advisory Committee to advise the Central Government on matters of approval under Section 2 and connected conservation issues. The Court assumed such a committee had been constituted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court substituted the High Court's order with its own directions. It directed that the proposal mooted by the Collector and the objection of the Conservator of Forests be sent by the Collector to the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act read with the rules framed thereunder. The Central Government was directed to act in accordance with the Act and rules, obtain advice from the Advisory Committee under Section 3, and pass appropriate orders on the proposal, informing the Collector accordingly. The Collector was directed to abide by the orders of the Central Government. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of three months. The appeal was disposed of with these directions and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Forest Law - Applicability to Union Territories - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 extends to whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir and applies to Union Territories - The High Court erroneously held that the Act did not apply to Union Territories because they are administered by the Central Government - Held that the Act's territorial extent includes Union Territories, making compliance with Section 2 mandatory for authorities in Union Territories (Paras 1-3). B) Forest Law - Interpretation of 'Other Authority' - Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - The expression 'other authority' is all-comprehensive and includes the Collector of a Union Territory - Collector therefore is required to seek prior approval of the Central Government before ordering non-forest use of reserved forest land - Held that the Collector acted without such approval and the High Court erred in approving the action (Paras 1-3). C) Forest Law - Procedural Compliance and Advisory Committee - Sections 2 and 3 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Prior approval of Central Government is a condition precedent for dereservation or non-forest use of forest land - Court directed the Collector's proposal and Conservator's objection to be submitted to Central Government for decision after obtaining advice from the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3, with the Collector to abide by the Central Government's orders - Held that the Central Government shall complete the exercise within three months (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to Union Territories and whether the Collector of a Union Territory is an 'other authority' required to obtain prior approval of the Central Government before leasing reserved forest land for non-forest purposes.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; Collector directed to send proposal along with Conservator's objection to Central Government under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 read with rules; Central Government to obtain advice of Advisory Committee under Section 3 and pass orders within three months; Collector to abide by Central Government's orders; no costs.
Law Points
- Forest (Conservation) Act
- 1980 extends to whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir
- applies to Union Territories
- 'other authority' includes Collector
- prior approval of Central Government mandatory under Section 2
- Advisory Committee under Section 3 to be consulted
