SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Guj) 80

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.SREEDHAR RAO, M.S.Shah
AJIT D.PADIVAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
S.C.A. 10605 of 1995
Decided On : 02/23/1998

Advocates Appeared:Advocates: AMI YAGNIK, Anip Sachthey, B.P.TANNA, Bhushan B.Oza, D.H.WAGHELA, D.K.NAKRANI, J.D.AJMERA, Nandish Chudgar, RAJ PANCHVANI, RAJEEV DHAVAN, RAJIV DHAWAN, S.N.SHELAT, SANTOSH HEGDE, TUSHAR MEHTA

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 16 & 226 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sec. 20 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Reserve forest - Notification - Specify clearily the boundary of Reserve Forest - Ecological Clearance - Minister refuse permission without taking into consideration the report of expert committee - Held, the order dt. 9.1.1998 quashed to decide striclty as per Supreme Court guidelines.

       The order dated 9.1.1998 iquashed and direct the Central Government to re-examine the prayer of Sanghi Cements for permission to put up Captive Jetty in Khauthar Bet. This must be done in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment within a period of two months.

       [Para 33]

       (b) Constitution of India, 1950 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Reserve Forest - Nature of land on date of notification - Held, falls within the boundary of reserve forest.

       Court finding that Khauthar Bet is a part of the west mangrove reserved forest, is based on the ground that the Khauthar Bet falls within the boundaries of the said reserved forest as specified in the Notifications.

       [Para36]

       (c) Constitution of India, 1950 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Reserve Forest - Jetty - Matter sent to Central Govt. for reexamination - Whether Court can give direction for re-consideration with the Court observation - Held, should receive proper consideration at the hands of Central Government.

       Exploitation of these resources with proper environment management should be resorted to for the benefit of the Nation. The case of the Government of Gujarat, that mineral based industries, like Cement, are to be set up in the above-mentioned Talukas of Kutch District, should receive proper consideration at the hands of the Central Government.

       [Para35 ]

K. SREEDHARAN, J.

( 1 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 10605 of 1995 was filed by late Shri Ajit D. Padival, who was a practising lawyer of this Court. The main prayer in that petition, filed as a public interest litigation, is to direct respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7, Union of India, State of Gujarat and its Officers to take effective steps against the unauthorised and illegal encroachment made by the 5th respondent, sanghi Industries, over an extent of 500 hectares of reserved forest land for the construction of a jetty. Allegations made therein, that respondent No. 5 is encroaching upon extensive forest areas for construction of jetty, were based on a news item, which was published in Daily newspapers, having wide circulation. The construction of jetty and connecting roads are within the reserved mangrove forest in Kutch. Though the Conservator of Forests, Kutch Circle, tried to prevent the 5th respondent from carrying on illegal activities within the forest area, revenue authorities are taking a contrary view of the matter and are siding with the 5th respondent. 5th respondent has encroached upon reserved forest area of Golai village and also into the mangrove reserved forest near Akri village, violating the provisions of the Forests Act, 1927 and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Under S. 20 of the Forests Act, 1927, government of Gujarat had declared the lands of west mangrove forest of Talukas abdasa and Lakhpat of Kutch District as reserved forests. 130,846 acres and 37 gunthas of land so declared as reserved forests still continue to be reserved forest and no non-forest activity can be permitted in that area. 5th respondent has trespassed into the west mangrove forest without any authority and started construction of jetty and approach road. These activities will lead to adverse impact on environment and ecology. Activities resorted to by the 5th respondent will destroy the mangrove forest and annihilate the entire marine wildlife.

( 2 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 2870 of 1996 has been filed by World Wide fund for Nature India, a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts act. According to them, State of Gujarat, by Notification dated 12-9-1975, issued under S. 20 of the Forests Act, 1927, declared the lands of western mangrove forest as reserved forest. 3rd respondent, Sanghi Cements, has constructed a road on the reserved forest land connecting it to the main land where they have put up their factory. This road is 50 metres wide and 1,150 metres long. They have also constructed bridges across rivers. They have constructed a jetty within the boundaries of the western mangrove reserved forest. The illegal activities and unauthorised encroachments made within reserved forests by the third respondent violates the provisions of S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Construction of jetty, bridges and road, leading to the jetty, violates the provisions of the Coastal regulation Zone Notification dated 19-2-1991, issued under S. 3 of the environment (Protection) Act, 1986. That Notification prohibits all constructions on the land, which are influenced by the tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the high tide line. It also prevents such activities in between the low tide line and the high tide line. Under clause (2), no construction is permissible in areas, which are ecologically sensitive, like National Parks, Sanctuaries, reserved forests and mangroves. On 7th July, 1995, 3rd respondent applied for permission under Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991. That application was not in proper form. 3rd respondent was directed to file proper application, with all details and route it through the State Government. Thereupon, it is alleged, 3rd respondent did not approach the Central Government, but has constructed the jetty, bridges and portion of the road, leading to jetty, which falls within the Coastal Zone Regulation notification. On these averments, it is prayed that State Gov















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top