Forest Land Retained For Afforestation Need Not Be Notified As Reserved Forest To Attract FC Act: Karnataka High Court
The Court held that lands used or retained for afforestation purposes fall within the ambit of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, irrespective of formal notification as a reserved forest, and cannot be diverted for non-forest use without prior approval.
The Karnataka High Court has held that, under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, a parcel of land doesn't need to be formally notified as a reserved forest, and where such land has been retained or utilised for afforestation, it cannot be treated as resumed by the Revenue authorities or diverted for non-forest purposes.
The Court was hearing writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging orders directing the stoppage of quarrying operations on the ground that the subject land constituted forest land and that prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, had not been obtained.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, while refering to the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997), observed: “… it is not necessary that the lands be notified as a part of the reserve forest for the same to fall within the ambit of the FC Act. If the respondents are correct in their submission that the subject lands have been retained for afforestation purposes, the said lands could not be considered as resumed by the Revenue authorities”.
Advocates Rakshith B.V.M. and Suresh T.S. appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar appeared for the State.
Background
The petitions arose from orders passed by the Department of Mines and Geology directing stoppage of quarrying operations undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to quarrying leases granted in respect of lands situated in Survey No.23 of Athiguppe Village, Mysore District.
The petitioner contended that the subject lands were revenue lands and not forest lands, relying upon earlier Government Orders releasing portions of forest land for cultivation and subsequent re-transfer of C and D category lands from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department.
The respondents, on the other hand, asserted that the lands were under the control of the Forest Department and had been utilised for compensatory afforestation, and therefore fell within the scope of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, making diversion for quarrying impermissible without Central Government approval.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the legal position regarding the scope of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the definition of “forest land” as elucidated by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997).
It noted that the term “forest” must be understood in a broad sense and includes not only statutorily notified forests but also areas recorded as forest in government records or used for forest purposes.
The Apex Court, in its ruling, had observed that “the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests… must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof… the term ‘forest land’… will also include any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of ownership.”
Applying the aforesaid principles, the Court held that even if the lands in question were not formally notified as reserved forests, their utilisation or retention for afforestation purposes would bring them within the ambit of the Forest (Conservation) Act.
The Court further noted that the record indicated that afforestation activities had been undertaken on the subject lands pursuant to compensatory afforestation obligations, and such use could not be disregarded merely on the ground that the afforestation had failed at some stage.
In this regard, the Court observed, “there is material on record to indicate that the land was used for forestry purposes… even if the afforestation efforts had failed at one stage, it would not change the nature of the lands.”
The Court rejected the contention that failure of afforestation would alter the character of the land, holding that afforestation could be undertaken in stages and that such failure would not result in reversion of the land to non-forest status.
It was further held that once land is found to be forest land, diversion for quarrying or other non-forest purposes without prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act is impermissible.
Conclusion
The Court held that the subject lands were part of land vested with the Forest Department and utilised for afforestation, and therefore fell within the ambit of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the stoppage of quarrying operations and dismissed the writ petitions.
Cause Title: H.K. Lakshman Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Click here to read/download Judgment