Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50587
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
WAYANAD PRAKRITHI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C).No.3884 OF 2021(S)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.M.P.PRAKASH
For the Respondents: Sri. B.MURALEEDHARAN, SR GP for R1 to R7, Sri.B.PRAMOD, CGC for R9
Mandatory compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act for non-forestry activities in designated forest land is necessary to protect environmental and tribal interests.
Headnote:(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - The petitioner challenges the legitimacy of non-forestry activities carried out in forest land as per Ext.P2 notifications without necessary approvals.- Environmental protection is a directive principle of state policy, necessitating stricter enforcement against violations of the Act, particularly regarding tribal communities' rights. - Court found valid grounds in the petitioner’s claims that socio-economic schemes for tribal welfare were inadequately implemented. (Paras 2-23)
(B) Jurisdiction and Remedies - The National Green Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to consider environmental protection matters and enforce compliance with statutory provisions, and access to judicial review under Article 226 should be carefully applied regarding alternate remedies. (Paras 17-23)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition seeks directions to prevent illegal non-forestry activities and request for returning forest lands to conserve the environment and protect tribal interests.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's concerns were substantial; the National Green Tribunal is better suited for adjudicating environmental issues raised.
Issues: Whether non-forestry activities in forest land violate the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act and whether the National Green Tribunal has the relevant jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that non-compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act’s requirements for land use is unlawful, emphasizing the importance of environmental protection and tribal welfare.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of legality of non-forestry activities in forest land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. concerns over socio-economic projects for tribal welfare. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. jurisdiction of national green tribunal over environmental matters. (Para 12 , 13 , 21) |
| 4. the necessity for compliance with the forest conservation act. (Para 17 , 19 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22 nd day of February, 2021
S.Manikumar, C.J.
Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithi, represented by its President, Wayanad, has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:
“ (i) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents not to carry on any non forestry activity in the land covered by Ext. P2 Notifications, without complying with the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ;
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to return the vested forest lands covered by Ext. P2 notifications and remain unassigned to the tribal community for agriculture to the forest department for conservation of forest, in the larger environmental interest;
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the State Government to appoint a Commission to enquire and file a comprehensive report on the different schemes initiated for social and economic benefit of the tribal communities in Wayanad district and the outcome of such schemes, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court;
(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the 9th respondent to prosecute all those who are responsible for allowing non forestry activity in the land covered by Ext. P2 notifications, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court ”
2. Grounds raised in support of the prayers are as hereunder:
“ A. Tourism is a non forestry activity and any such activity in the land covered by Ext. P2 require prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 . Therefore, the activities now carried on by the 8 th respondent in the forest land covered by Ext. P2 are illegal and is liable to be interdicted.
B. Protection and improvement of environment and safe guarding of forest is a directive principle of State policy. Further, the respondent cannot carry on any non forestry activity in the forest land without complying payment of NPV and prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 . The land in the possession of the 8 th respondent is a reserve forest and no non forestry project can go on without complying with the provisions of law. Therefore, the tourism activity, which would have adverse effect on forest is liable to be interdicted.
C. It is submitted that the tribal community are the most vulnerable people and the projects are commenced in their name, spending large amounts. However, the tribal communities are not benefited and only the middle men are benefited. Various projects commenced and left not functioning. Tribal empowerment is not forthcoming. As can be seen from Exts. P7, P8 and P9, payment of NPV was exempted on the ground that the forest land would be assigned to the landless tribals under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. Since, the tribal community people cannot approach this Hon'ble Court, it is just and necessary to appoint a Commission to enquire and file a comprehensive report on the different schemes intended for socio-economic improvement of tribal communities at Wayanad district, the outcome of such schemes and also suggest remedial programmes.
D. The petitioner had pointed out the violations in Ext. P10 representation; however, no action is taken by the 9 th respondent. It is necessary that directions may be issued to the 9 th respondent to prosecute all those who are responsible for allowing non forestry activity in the land covered by Ext. P2 Notification.
E. The
