Goa Foundation v State of Goa AIR 2001 Bom. 318

Writ Petn. No. 113 of 1992, D/-21-7-2000

F. I Rebello and V. C Daga, JJ.

Forest Conservation Act 1980 [69 of 1980] Sec. 2

Forest Conservation Rules -[1981], Rr. 5,6

Environment Protection Act 1986

Constitution of India, Art. 21

The case involved the question of grant of lease of land, –designated as dry land, but consisting forest cover,– for setting up beneficiation plant for iron ore in favor of respondent– the Industry had permission under the Industrial [Development and regulation] Act– held that the grant of lease void.

The petitioner were a registered society under the Society Registration Act. They are also a Society working towards environmental protection. The objection of the petitioner was that the State government had granted lease of a land in SanguemTaluka for the purpose of erecting a beneficiation plant and purposes related therewith. The petitioners pleaded that a rich forest wealth in GoaState particularly the conservation of ecological fragile areas falls in the leased land. The plot in question constitutes one of the last remaining vestiges of primary forest in the ecologically sensitive region of the Western Ghats. The plot leased has more than 60 % density of trees which means the forest land is of the nature of a closed forest system and the Forest department intends to convert the same into ReserveForest. The petitioner contended that overnight the lease was granted under mysterious circumstances, when the revenue authorities filed a report underestimating the density of trees in the plot. When the lease was granted the diversion of forest land to non-forest purposes in private land or so called private forest and revenue lands was thought not to come in the purview of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980. But now the position has been altered and the State of Goa is governed by the Preservation of Trees Act, 1984.

The petitioner also alleged that the respondents had already felled 2 hectares of rich forest illegally and without any permission from any of the statutory authorities. Further monstrous act of environmental terrorism was followed by using a bulldozer to remove all the roots of the trees. Pits were dug to lay foundation stone for the beneficiation plant without any permission from any authorities under the law.

The government on its part contended that the grant of lease for setting up a beneficiation plant for iron ore was done way back in 1988 at Tudow. It is estimated that the Tudow mines contain 78 million tons o law grade iron ore. Hence 12 hectares of land was delivered and heavy investment were already being done for starting the company. The company’s project is worth Rs. 25 crores and the company will not occupy more than one hectare. Only 49 trees had been felled and they denied the petitioners claim that an average 250 tree per hectare was covered by forest.

The Court went in detailed the various International Conventions and treaties to which India is a party and held that the State of Goa should have taken prior approval from the Central Government in terms of Forest [Conservation] Rules, 1981. The Court observed that the 1980 Act was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalance as a result of such deforestation have become social menaces and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. It is, therefore, clear that merely because one of the Ministries of the Government had granted permission, that permission would not be permission for the purposes of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980. The Court rejected the contention of the respondents that the land under contention was not forest land, as the land was undisputed a forest land, with enough number of trees on it and any action taken in contravention of sec. 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 contemplates prior permission of the Central Government. Even otherwise the land is situated to an adjacent Government forest and the land is sought to be used for setting up of a beneficiation plant which involves dust and water pollution and consequent destruction of the adjoining forest. It will substantially effect the environment and ecology of the area. This, in fact, would affect the right to life. The petitioner have averred that the cutting of trees without obtaining permission was resorted to. In matters of ecology and environment and considering the principle of sustainable development, no person or organization, however, high and mighty they may be, can be permitted to flout the law of the land.

Following the above observation the Court held that the lease granted in favour of the respondent is born null and void The Court directed the authorities to restore the land to its original use.