Forest Conservation Act,

1980
Environmental Law
Rasika
Roll no 97
LLB III Sem VI
A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests
are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving
fresh strength to our people.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
 This Act has been passed with a view to check deforestation which
has been taking place in the country on a large scale and which
had cause ecological imbalance and thus led to environmental
deterioration. The President of India promulgated the Forest
(Conservation) Ordinance on 25 October, 1980. It simply aims at
putting restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest-
land for non-forest purposes. The Act is intended to serve a
laudable purpose as is evident from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act, which reads :

(1) Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to

environmental deterioration. Deforestation had been taking place
On a large scale in the country and it had caused widespread
concern

(2) With a view to checking further deforestation, the President

promulgated on 25th October, 1980, the Forest (Conservation)
Ordinance, 1980
Scope and Application
 This Act extends to whole of India except the
States of Jammu & Kashmir, which has its
own State Act. The Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 came into force on 25th October, 1980,
is, the date on which the Forest
(Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 was
promulgated.
Restriction on the Dereservation of Forests or Use of Forest-land for
Non-Forest Purpose

 Section 2 of the Act deals with restriction on the dereservation of forests

or use of forest-land for non-forest purposes. It provides that
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 prior approval of the Central Government, any order
directing-

(i) that any reserved forest declared under any law for the time being in
force in that State or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-
forest purpose;

 (iii) that any forest land any portion thereof may be assigned by way of
lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority corporation,
agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by
Government;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees
which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of
using it for re0afforestation
Non-forest Purpose
 "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up of clearing or
any forest-land or portion thereof for :-

(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-

bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants; or

(b) any purpose other than reforestation,

but does not include any work relating or ancillary to

conservation, development and management of forests and
wild-life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire
lines, wireless communications and construction of
fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench
marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes
Appeal to National Green Tribunal
(Section 2A)
 Any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the State
Government or other authority made under section 2, on or after
the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010,
may file an appeal to the National Green Tribunal established
under section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in
accordance with the provisions of that Act.
 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 Government with regard
to :--

(i) the grant of approval under section 2 (as explained above);

and

(ii) any other matter connected with the conservation of forests

which may be referred to it by the Central Government.
Rule 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 provides for the
composition of the Committee. It says that the Committee shall
be composed of the following members :---


(i) Director- General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests-

Chairman .

(ii) Additional Director-General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and

Forests-Member (He will act as chairperson in the absence of Director
General of Forests).

 (iii) Additional Commissioner (Soil Conservation), Ministry of Agriculture-

Member

 (iv) Three eminent experts in forestry and allied discipline Environment .

Scientists (non-officials)-Member

(v) Inspector-General of Forests (Forests Conservation), Ministry of

Environment and Forests-Member-Secretary.
Penalty for Contravention of the
Provisions of the Acts (Section 3A )
 Section 3A of the Act provides that whoever
contravenes or abets the contravention of any
of the provisions of section 2, shall be
punishable with simple imprisonment for a
period, which may extend to fifteen days. A
perusal of this section shows that the Act
contemplates only the punishment of simple
imprisonment and it does not contemplate
any punishment in terms of fine.
Offences by Authorities or Government Departments
(Section 3B)
 The Act provides that where any offence under this Act has been committed-

 (a) by any department of Government, the head of the department; or

(b) by any authority, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was
directly in charge of, and was responsible to, the authority for the conduct of the
business of the authority as well as the authority,

shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded

against and punished accordingly. However, the Head of the Department or any other
person referred to above shall not be liable to any punishment if he Proves that-

(i) the offence was committed without his knowledge; or

(ii) he exercised all diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a Department of Government
or any authority referred to above and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of any officer other than the Head of the Department, or in case of an authority
any person other than the persons referred to above, then such officer or person
shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly.
Power to Make Rules.
 Section 4 of the Act vests the Central
Government with the power to make rules for
carrying out the provisions of this Act. Every
rule made under this Act shall be laid, as
soon as may be after it is made, before each
house of the Parliament, while it is in session,
for a total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more
successive sessions.
Forest Conservation and Judicial Attitude
 In India, the judiciary has shown deep concern for the forest
conservation. The judiciary has not only played a pivotal role in a
manner to interpret the forest laws to protect the forest and
environment but it also has Shown judicial activism by entertaining
public interest litigations under articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court and High Courts while protecting
environment and promoting sustainable development have delivered
many important judgments.
 R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P, AIR 1985 S.C. 652
(popularly known as Doon Valley Case) has the first case of its kind in
the country involving issues relating to environment and ecological
balance, which brought into sharp focus the conflict between
development and conservation and the Court emphasized the need
for reconciling the two in the larger interest of the country. This case
arose from haphazard and dangerous limestone quarrying practices
in Mussoorie Hill Range of Himalayas. The mines in the Doon Valley a
denuded the Mussoorie Hills of trees and forest cover and accelerated
soil erosion. The Supreme Court was cautious in its approach when it
pointed that it is for the Government and the Nation and not for the
court, to decide whether the deposits should be exploited at the cost
of ecology and environment or the industrial requirements should be
otherwise satisfied. But the concern of the Court for protecting the
We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources
have got to be tapped for the purposes of the social
development but one cannot forget at the same time
that tapping of resources has to be done with
requisite attention and care so that ecology and
environment may not be affected in any serious way,
there may not be depletion of water resources and
long term planning must be undertaken to keep up
the national wealth. It has always to be remembered
that these are permanent assets of mankind and are
not intended to be exhausted in one generation.
 In Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 488
the State Government of Rajasthan though professing to protect
the environment by means of the Migrations and declarations,
was itself permitting the degradation of the garnishment by
authorizing mining operations in the area declared as "reserve
forest” in order to protect the environment and wildlife within
the protected area, the Supreme Court issued directions that no
mining operation of whatever nature shall be carried on within
the protected area.
 In State of MP. v. Krishandas Tikaram, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 587
the respondents were granted mining lease in the forest area in
the year 1966. After the coming into force of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, the State Government decided to
renew the lease for twenty years in terms of the original grant
in favour of the respondent, without obtaining the prior
approval of the Centre Government The Court, before it came
into effect by registering, held cancellation of the order of
renewal, valid.
 The HP. High Court in Kinkri Devi v. State of H.P., AIR 1988 H.P. 4 relied
on Doon Valley case and pointed out that if a just balance is not struck
between the development and environment by proper tapping of natural
resources then there will be violation of the constitutional mandate of
Articles 48-A and 51A(g). The Court rightly pointed out that the natural
resources have got to be tapped for the purpose of social development
but the tapping has to be done with care so that the ecology and
environment may not be affected in any serious way.
 The Full Bench of Kerala High Court, in Nature Lovers Movement v. State
of Kerala, AIR 2000 ker. 131 considered the question of regularization of
diversion of forest-land subject to certain conditions issued by the
Central Government. The Court in this case reconciled between the
preservation of environment and development of economy. The Court
took notice of conditions laid down by the Central Government and which
were substantially complied with by the State Government. The State
Government had also framed a compensatory forest scheme. The Court
also took note of socio-economic problem of eviction of about 66,000
families and 35 lacs of people from the forests, which in its opinion was
impracticable and thus the Court upheld the approval granted for the
diversion. However, the occupants were made liable to pay compensation
for injury caused by them to general public in View of "polluter pays
principle".
 In A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. v. Goa Foundation, AIR (2008) 12 SCC 814 the
Supreme Court has rightly explained that solution‘ to replace the original
trees by alien and non-indigenous but fast growing varieties does not
serve the purpose. Suitability of the trees and other flora to be planted in
the deforested land Should be of prime consideration.

 In Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group,

(2011) 3 SCC 363 the court held that salt harvesting by solar evaporation
of seawater is not permitted in area that is home to mangrove forests.
Mangroves fall squarely within the ambit of Category I (CRZ-I). Salt
harvesting by solar evaporation of seawater in CRZ-l areas is permitted
only where such area is not ecologically sensitive and important.

In State of AP. v. Anupama Minerals,1995 Supp. (2) SCC 117 the

authorities had the power to grant the renewal of the mining lease as per
the terms of the lease. However, after the coming into operation of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, the mining lease fell within the reserved forest
area and hence the authorities refused to grant the renewal of the lease. It
was held that the refusal by the authorities was proper because exercise
of power by public authority is coupled with duty to fulfill the conditions
for such exercise.
 In TN. Godavarman Thimmulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 (popularly
known as Forest Conservation case), the Supreme Court issued interim
directions that all the on-going activities within any forest in any State
throughout the country, without the permission of the Central Government must
be stopped forthwith. Running of saw mills including veneer or plywood mills
within the forests was also stopped. Felling of trees in the State of Arunachal
Pradesh has totally banned in certain forests whereas in other forests, it was
Suspended in accordance with the working plan of the State Government.
Movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to
any other State was completely banned. The Court issued directions to stop
falling of trees in other States such as the State of J&K, Himachal Pradesh and
Tamil Nadu, with a view to protect and preserve the forests. The Supreme Court
modified some of these directions subsequently. The Court called for the
comprehensive statement of all the States about their past activity and their
future programme to tackle the problem of degradation and degeneration of
forests.
 In case of the Goa Foundation and another vs. The Konkan Railway Corporation
and Others, AIR 1992 Bom. 471, where it was sought that the Konkan Railway
Corporation should be compelled to obtain requisite environmental clearance
for its proposed rail alignment, the high court reasoned that the corporation had
set up a specialised committee and engaged a "renowned engineer' and when
they had given the 'green signal', the court is not to interfere.
 In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 it was brought to the
notice of the Supreme Court that large area of the bank of River Beas
which was part of protected forest had been given on lease purely for
commercial purposes to the motel of the respondent. Even the Board in
its report had recommended de-leasing of the said area. The Court had
no hesitation in holding that the Himachal Pradesh Government
committed a patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically
fragile land to the motel management and the prior approval for lease
granted by the Government was quashed. The Court in this case applied
the “precautionary principle" and "polluter pays principle" and the motel
management was asked to show cause why pollution fine should not be
imposed on it. Since this case had been filed by way of public interest
litigation (PIL) under article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
subsequently held that “pollution fine” can not be imposed under article
32 of the constitution and thus the said notice be withdrawn. But the
matter did not end there. The Court further held that it can, in exercise of
its jurisdiction under article 32, award "exemplary damages" in PIL and
the person causing the pollution can be held liable to pay "exemplary
damages" so that it may act as deterrent for others not to cause pollution
in any manner, Accordingly, the Court directed that a show cause notice
be issued to the motel management as to why in addition to damages,
”exemplary damages" be not awarded against it." After considering the
reply of the motel management in this regard the Court quantified
rupees ten lacs as the “exemplary damages” in this case.
Conclusion
 A perusal of the above mentioned decisions
clearly show that judiciary live to protect and
preserve the forests. At the same time it has
never been antithetical to the development. In
fact the whole approach of the judiciary is in
consonance with he sustainable development
and thus it must be appreciated.