2008(6) Supreme 128
Supreme Court of india
Tarun Chatterjee and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Goa Foundation & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5180 of 2001
Decided on : 18-08-2008
(b)Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Section 2 – By merely calling as ‘dry crop land’ it does not loose its identity as ‘forest land’ – The lad leased to the appellant was a forest land and could not be diverted without due process prescribed in the Act and the Rules. (Para 8)
(1997) 2 SCC 267; (1987) 1 SCC 213; 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 504; (2004) 12 SCC 118 – Relied upon.
AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 257 – Cited with approval.
(1985) 3 SCC 643 – Distinguished.
(c)Words and Phrases – Afforestation or re-forestation – “Reforestation is the restocking of existing forests and woodlands which have been depleted, with native tree stock, whereas afforestation is the process of restoring and recreating areas of woodlands or forest that once existed but were deforested or otherwise removed or destroyed at some point in the past” – Both re-forestation and afforestation envisage a resurrection and re-plantation of trees and other flora similar to those which have been removed and which are suitable to the area in question – Poor record of reforestation/ afforestation deprecated – a Adverse effect on eco-system by removal of forest cover decried. (Para 9)
Facts of the case :
1. The appellant, is a recognized star trading house engaged in the mining, processing and export of iron ore. In the year 1979, the appellant took a decision to establish a 100 per cent export oriented unit in Sanguem Taluka situated at a short distance from its existing mines.
2.After 10 years the Government of Goa decided to lease an area of 15 hectare out of 26.4675 hectares to the appellant.
3.On 17th August 1989, the appellant submitted a proposal to set up an integrated unit including a beneficiation plant at Tuduo Mines for the production of saleable iron ore at a cost of Rs.25 crores and to operate it as a 100 per cent export oriented unit. A formal letter of intent was also issued to the appellant on 25th January 1991. Pursuant to the decisions taken, a Memorandum of Lease dated 1st November 1989 was executed between the Governor of Goa and the appellant whereby an area of 12 hectares was leased out for the purpose of ancillary work connected to mining and for that purpose the appellant was authorized to construct the necessary civil structures.
4.Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition in public interest praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the Memorandum of Lease dated 1st November 1989 and for several other reliefs.
5.The Writ Petition was duly allowed and writ of certiorari was issued quashing the lease agreement dated 1st November 1989.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —
1.The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
2.The appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, has its registered office at Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour,Goa and is a recognized star trading house engaged in the mining, processing and export of iron ore. In the year 1979, the appellant took a decision to establish a 100 per cent export oriented unit in Sanguem Taluka situated at a short distance from its existing mines. The process of locating suitable land for the unit took about 10 years and the process for the unit was finally set in motion by a letter dated 21st December 1988 from the Collectorate of South Goa, Revenue Department to the Inspector of Survey, Land Records, Mangao-Goa informing the said officer that the Government of Goa had decided to lease an area of 15 hectare out of 26.4675 hectares to the appellant under Survey No. 12 of Potrem Village in Sanguem Taluka and directions were issued that the area be demarcated and the other formalities complied with. On 17th August 1989, the appellant addressed a letter to the Secretary for Industrial Approvals, Ministry of Industries of the Central Government about the proposal to set up an integrated unit including a benefication plant at Tuduo Mines for the production of saleable iron ore at a cost of Rs.25 crores and to operate it as a 100 per cent export oriented unit. A formal letter of intent was also issued to the appellant on 25th January 1991. Pursuant to the decisions taken, a Memorandum of Lease dated 1st November 1989 was executed between the Governor of Goa and the appellant whereby an area of 12 hectares was leased out for the purpose of ancillary work connected to mining and for that purpose the appellant was authorized to construct the necessary civil structures. The appellant also, on 7th of February 1990, entered into a contract with a Japanese Corporation for the export of processed iron ore. A No Objection Certificate from the Goa State Pollution Control Board was obtained on 15th April 1991 and a Sanad dated 10th July 1991 was also issued by the Deputy Collector of Goa permitting the use of the land for non-agricultural purposes upon payment of Rs.6 lakhs by way of conversion fees. It is the case of the appellant that pursuant to the aforesaid administrative sanctions and decisions, machinery worth Rs.12 crores was imported for the operation of the project. At this juncture Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition No.113 of 1992 in public interest before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the Memorandum of Lease dated 1st November 1989 and for several other reliefs. Respondent No.5 herein, the Conservator of Forests, Goa filed an affidavit before the High Court pointing out that the 12 hectares of land which had been leased to the appellant had already been classified as Revenue Land meant for “Dry Crops” and was not a forest area, as had been contended by the writ petitioners/respondents 1, 2 and 3. On 26th March 1992, the High Court adjourned the matter for 8 weeks in view of the statement made by the Advocate General that the State Government proposed to take up the matter with the Central Government so as to secure the necessary approvals postulated under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the “Act”) and as such it was unnecessary to proceed with the writ petition. The High Court, accordingly, adjourned the matter for 8 weeks without any discussion on merits with liberty to all parties to press their submissions in case the need arose. Pursuant to the assurance given by the Advocate General to the High Court, the State Government wrote to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi on 7th May 1992 pointing out that out of the 12 hectares leased to the appellant a small area of about 5000 square meters would be used for the erection of the benefication plant and that appellant had also taken t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.