Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
I.A. No.1000 of 2003 (Recommendation of CEC dated 20.11.2003) I.A. Nos.982-984 of 2003, I.A. Nos.1026-1028 of 2004, I.A. Nos. 1123-1124 of 2004, I.A. Nos.1197-1199 of 2004, I.A. Nos. 1210-1211 of 2004, I.A. Nos.1250-1251 of 2004, I.A. No. 1412 of 2005, I.A. No.1512 of 2006, I.A. No. 1992 of 2007, 1 I.A. No. 3880 of 2015, I.A. No. 96949 of 2019, I.A. No. 117831 of 2019, I.A. NO. 65571 of 2021 In the Matter of: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202 of 1995
Decided On : 03-06-2022
Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Protection of forest land – Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary – Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which activities proscribed and prescribed in Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to – For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned – In the event ESZ is already prescribed as
per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, wider margin as ESZ shall prevail – If such wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained – Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as also Home Secretary of each State and Union Territory shall remain responsible for proper compliance of said Guidelines as regards nature of use within ESZ of all national parks and sanctuaries within a particular State or Union Territory – Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for each State and Union Territory shall also arrange to make a list of subsisting structures and other relevant details within respective ESZs forthwith and a report shall be furnished before this Court by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State and Union Territory within a period of three months – For this purpose, such authority shall be entitled to take assistance of any governmental agency for satellite imaging or photography using drones – Mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted – In the event any activity is already being undertaken within one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within ambit of prohibited activities as per 9th February 2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months – Such permission shall be given once Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that activities concerned do not come within prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimate manner – No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within ESZ – Minimum width of ESZ may be diluted in overwhelming public interest but for that purpose State or Union Territory concerned shall approach CEC and MoEF & CC and both these bodies shall give their respective opinions/recommendations before this Court – On that basis, this Court shall pass appropriate order – CEC shall quantify compensation to be recovered from each miner indulging in mining activities within Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary in violation of any statutory provision or order of this Court. (Para 44)
Facts of the case:
Instant proceedings originate from the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.), which is in the nature of a public interest litigation. It was instituted for protection of forest lands in Nilgiris district of the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, scope of that writ petition was enlarged so as to protect such natural resources throughout country. Present set of applications arise out of a report of CEC dated 20th November 2003. This report specifically pertains to Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary. This sanctuary covers an area of about 300 square kilometres. The said report gives a horrific picture of ravaging of a protected forest mainly by private miners mostly with temporary working permits obtained from Governmental agencies.
Findings of Court:
ESZ of 500 metres would be a reasonable buffer zone, within which subsisting activities which does not come within prohibited list as per the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 could be carried on. But for commencing of any new activity which would be otherwise permissible, the ESZ norm of one kilometre shall be maintained for Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary.
Result : Directions issued.
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
These proceedings originate from the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.), which is in the nature of a public interest litigation. It was instituted for protection of forest lands in the Nilgiris district of the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, the scope of that writ petition was enlarged so as to protect such natural resources throughout the country. The original writ petitioner has since passed away (on 1st June 2016) but in an order passed on 3rd February 2017, this Court opined that being a public interest litigation, there was no requirement for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. The writ petition, in substance, continued with the cause title “in Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors”. Various Orders have been passed from time to time in this writ petition to ensure preservation of forest resources of this country in balance with economic activities. By an Order of this Court dated 9th May 2002, a Central Empowered Committee (“CEC”) was directed to be formed primarily for monitoring implementation of this Court’s orders and to place the incidents of noncompliance before us. Subsequently, by a notification issued on 17th September 2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, this committee was constituted under statutory provisions. CEC has been bringing to the notice of this Court the steps taken for removal of encroachment, implementation of working plans, compensatory afforestation, plantation and other conservation issues. In this order, we shall be mainly dealing with two sets of issues. The first set relates to mining activities in and around a wildlife sanctuary in the State of Rajasthanknown as “Jamua Ramgarh” (also spelt as Jamwa Ramgarh). The second set of issues is wider in scope, and involves prescribing eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) surrounding the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. The subject of mining and other commercial activities within the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks (protected forests) shall also be dealt by us in this order. The applications before us require examination in the perspective of a set of recommendations made by the CEC and we have been urged by a set of applicants to make certain modifications of this Court’s earlier directions concerning steps to be taken for protection of forest resources. The applicants seeking modifications of our earlier orders include a set of miners, and, in some cases, the State Governments asking for opening up of the protected forest areas and their buffer zones, on which restrictions have been placed in by our earlier orders, for commercial exploitation. There is dispute as to what would constitute the buffer zones on ESZ in respect of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, as there are divergence of views among the various stakeholders.
2. The present set of applications arise out of a report of the CEC dated 20th November 2003. This report specifically pertains to Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary. This sanctuary covers an area of about 300 square kilometres. The said report gives a horrific picture of ravaging of a protected forest mainly by private miners mostly with temporary working permits obtained from the Governmental agencies. Following recommendations were made in this report:
“17……… (i) all mining leases which wholly or partly fall within the forest area inside the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and also within the safety zone, should be immediately cancelled. The mining activity can be allowed to be resumed only after the new/amended mining leases, after excluding the forest area and the safety zone are sanctioned by the competent authority and the conditions mentioned herein under are fully complied with;
(ii) presently a safety zone of twenty five me
Protection of forest land – Mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted – No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within ESZ.
Protection of Ecology – Necessity to have ESZs is to provide a buffer zone around Protected Areas – Rights of villagers residing in Protected Areas are required to be settled in accordance with provi....
''Zero Meter'' Eco-sensitive Zone- Law does not require a procedure akin to one, which is being followed at the time of making an environment impact assessment before giving clearance.
Environmental Clearance upheld for sand mining outside notified ESZ (2 km) and 1.8 km from wildlife sanctuary boundary; corrected typographical errors in forest certificates do not invalidate process....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to protect wildlife and natural habitats, as well as to enforce mandatory guidelines for determining Eco-sensitive Zones laid....
The court reinforced the prohibition of mining within one kilometer of wildlife sanctuaries, emphasizing adherence to environmental protection laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
