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

2008 Supreme(UK) 371

2008 UAD 899
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi
Civil Appeal No. 5180 of 2001
A. CHOWGULE & CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
GOA FOUNDATION & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 18.08.2008

For the Appellant :Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Anand Ramakrishnan, Mr. Somanadri Goud K., Mr. Kunal Verma, Mr. Rajul Srivastav, Ms. Supriya Jain and Mr. Anup Jain (for M/s Parekh and Co.), Advocates
For the Respondents:Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay Parekh, Mr. A.N. Singh, Mr. Jitin Sahni, Ms. Mamta Saxena, Ms. A. Subhashini, Ms. Savitri Pandey, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha and Mr. Gulshan Sharma (for M/s K.L. Mehta & Co.), Advocates

Headnote:(A) Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Sec. 2 and Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981, Rules 4, 5, 6 — Land leased for mining in forest area — Validity of — The various approvals/sanctions granted to the appellant by the Industries Department or by the Collector could not, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as permission for deforestation of the forest area, as envisaged by section 2 of the Act as the said Act required prior approval of the Central Government after the procedure given in Rules 4, 5 and 6 of The Forest (Conservation) Rules 1981 — Rules had not been followed — Such lease held to be invalid and consequently liable to be set aside — Quashing thereof — Justified.

        (Paras 2, 6 & 8)

       (B) Terms and expressions — Implication of — The terms Reforestation and Afforestation — "Reforestation" is the restocking of existing forests and woodlands which have been depleted, with native tree stock — Whereas — "Afforesation" 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. (Para 9)

       ¼v½ ou ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1980] /kkjk&2 rFkk ou ¼laj{k.k½ fu;e] 1981] fu;e 4] 5] 6 & ou {ks= esa Hkwfe [kkuksa ds fy, iV~Vs ij nh x;h & bldh oS/krk & dyDVj rFkk m|ksx foHkkx }kjk vihykFkhZ dks Lohdr vusd vuqeksnu@eatwjh] fdlh Hkh dYiuk ds f[kapko ls ou dks ou {ks= esa dkVus dh vkKk ugha ns ldrs] tSlk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 iznRr djrh gS fd dsUæ ljdkj dh iwoZ vuqefr fu;e 4] 5] 6 ou ¼laj{k.k½ fu;e 1981 dh izfd;k ds fy, vko';d gS & fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha gqvk & og iV~Vk voS/k ?kksf"kr rFkk vxzlj.k esa vikLr gks & bl izdkj vfHk[kafMr & U;k;ksfprA ¼izLrj 2] 6 vkSj 8½

       ¼c½ 'krs± rFkk vfHkO;fDr & rkRi;Z gS & 'krs± iqu% oujksi.k rFkk oujksi.k & ßiqu% ou jksi.kÞ vfLrRo ouksa dk rFkk tks ouLFkyh fjDr gks x;h gS] vius ewy LFkku ls mldk Hk.Mkj.k gS & vr% & ßoujksi.kÞ igys dh fLFkfr rFkk ouLFkyh dks iqu% mRié djuk ;k ou igys vfLrRo esa Fks ysfdu dVku ;k vU;Fkk gV x;s ;k iwoZ le; esa [kRe gks x;s] mldh izfd;k gSA ¼izLrj 9½

JUDGMENT

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. — 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 als
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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