Latest news with #ForestConservationAct1980
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC nixes retrospective green nods, but loophole still open
The Supreme Court on May 16, in the Vanashakti Vs Union of India case, struck down two of the Union government's office memoranda (OMs) and a notification that allowed retrospective environmental clearances to projects that began construction without prior approval -- but experts point out that retrospective forest clearances (which are very common) do almost the same damage. For example, the minutes of the latest Forest Advisory Committee meeting, held on April 15, available on Parivesh website, has several cases of ex post facto forest clearances considered by the Committee. These include: ex post facto clearance for regularisation of diversion of 11.562 ha of forest land for establishment of Integrated Steel Plant in Odisha; a similar clearance for diversion of 0.8935 ha reserved forest land for construction of a substation and electrification of 33 KV transmission line through Melghat Tiger Reserve; and approval for diversion of forest land for setting up of mobile towers in parts of Kashmir. FAC has provisions to penalise the violators who seek ex post facto clearance. For example, in the case of the steel plant in Odisha in which construction on the embankment and construction of a boundary wall had already taken place, FAC imposed a penalty for violation which is equal to net present value (NPV) of forest land per hectare for each year of violation from the date of actual diversion as reported by the inspecting officer with maximum up to five (5) times the NPV plus 12% simple interest from the date of raising of such demand till the deposit is made. NPV is the valuation or cost of forests diverted determined based on ecological role and value of forests which is graded based on quality and type of forests. The project proponent shall maintain/develop the green belts within the project area(wherever feasible) in consultation with the state forest department, the minutes dated April 16 added. HT reported on January 6 that FAC has granted post-facto approval for a Commando Battalion Camp in Assam's protected forest area, while simultaneously levying a penalty for violations of forest conservation laws. The approval pertained to the diversion of 26.1 hectares within the Geleky Reserved Forest, along the volatile Assam-Nagaland border in Sivasagar forest division and diversion of 11.5 ha of forest land in favour of Assam Police Housing Corporation for establishment of a second Commando Battalion Camp at Damchera. The case has a controversial history. Hindustan Times first reported on April 25 that MK Yadava, then Assam's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (now special secretary, forests, Assam) approved these two major forest diversions for police installations without prior forest clearance. 'Such regularisations stem from a 2018 guideline issued to states and UTs on activities which constitute violations of provisions of Forest Conservation Act 1980 and rules made thereof regarding common guideline to be followed by FAC/regional committees while considering such violations. The 2018 guideline laid down a graded approach depending on the violations. But the question is whether penalties prescribed or directed by Centre are a deterrent or not. Considering the number of such instances, it does not seem so,' said a legal expert who did not wish to be named. The Handbook on Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications issued under Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 1980 also has details of how ex post facto forest clearances should be dealt with. 'Proposals seeking ex-post-facto approval of the Central Government under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 are normally not to be entertained. The Central Government will not accord approval under the Act unless under exceptional circumstances that may justify the case,' it states. In case of public utility projects of the government, the penalty s is 20 % of the general NPV penalty. State government will initiate disciplinary action against the official concerned for not being able to prevent use of forest land for non-forestry purpose without prior approval of Centre etc, the 2018 guidelines state. 'But it is important to remember that the Forest Conservation Act 1980 only allows prior forest clearance. There is no provision for ex post facto clearances. Only the guidelines make way for it. But, once a forest area is cleared and a project has started construction, the damage is already done,' he added. On May 21, Debadityo Sinha, Managing Trustee, Vindhyan Ecology & Natural History Foundation, also a legal researcher sent a representation to union environment ministry about an Office Memorandum dated March 29, 2022 (not covered by Vanashakti judgement) which allows for fencing of the project site by boundary wall using civil construction, barbed wire or precast/ prefabricated components ; construction of temporary sheds using pre-fabricated / modular structure, for site office/guards and storing material and machinery ; and provision of temporary electricity and water supply for site office/guards only. Sinha has said the 2022 OM is inconsistent with the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Notification, 2006 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and with the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Vanashakti Vs Union of India case dated May 16. 'It is important to note that permitting these construction activities—whether permanent or temporary—without an environmental clearance (EC) leads to a change in land use and alters the physical and ecological conditions of the site, before any EIA studies have been conducted,' Sinha wrote to MoEFCC. Provisions of ex post facto clearances are however extremely important to the industry. Office bearers of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries expect the government to seek a review of the Supreme Court's judgement. 'We feel the government should file a review petition on the judgement. This is because the judgement will impact small mines and livelihoods of people in tribal areas,' said BK Bhatia, director general, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI). The Union environment ministry did not respond to a query on the court's judgment and whether there will be curbs on retrospective forest clearances. But, on May 26, the government issued an office memorandum stating, 'The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 16.05.2025, in W.P. 1394/2023 titled Vanashakti vs. Union of India and connected struck down the above mentioned Notification S.O. 804(E) dated 14/03/2017 and SoP dated 07/07/2021. The copy of the order which is self-explanatory is enclosed herewith for compliance.'
Indian Express
21-05-2025
- General
- Indian Express
The case behind CJI Gavai's first judgment, which proclaimed Pune land transfer as illegal
In a landmark judgment on May 15, also the first day after Justice B R Gavai took over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI), a Supreme Court bench comprising the CJI, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran concluded that the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and builders had converted precious forest land into space for commercial use under the garb of resettling people. What is the case and what is its connection with Pune? An area measuring 32 acres and 35 guntha at Survey No. 20 of Kondhwa Budruk village in Pune was on March 1, 1879 notified as a reserved forest under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Forest Act, 1878. Thereafter, a portion of the land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntha was de-reserved by the state government on January 5, 1934 and the rest of the land remained as forest land. In 1960, a different plot of land in Survey No. 37 of Kondhwa Budruk village owned by a family, the Chavans, was acquired by the state government to construct the Dr Bandorwala Leprosy hospital. The Chavan family was not paid any compensation and instead they requested the land in Survey No. 20 as an alternative for their resettlement and the tehsildar on May 13, 1968 released the land to the Chavan family for cultivation for one year on the condition that they will neither lease, mortgage, sell or excavate it without the approval of the Collector. The one-year contract was never renewed. However, the state government in 1969 decided that the forest land given on lease for cultivation should be permanently released for cultivation to the leaseholder after de-reservation. Meanwhile, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force from October 25, 1980 and it stated that no forest land could be de-reserved or used for any non-forest purposes without the permission of the Union government. The Chavan family made an application to permanently release the land in 1988. Bureaucracy's action On June 19, 1991, the then District Collector found that the members of the Chavan 'family' were using only 3 acres and 20 gunthas for cultivation. The Collector therefore recommended that the area under actual cultivation be allotted to them in view of the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1969 while recommending that the possession of the remaining land be handed over to the Forest department. On November 30, 1994, the Divisional Commissioner recommended to the state government that the entire land should be allotted to the Chavan family and observed that there was no necessity to obtain the Union government's prior approval for allotment of the land, which is a reserved forest. Revenue minister's intervention The then state minister for revenue was of the opinion that the land was granted by the government for agricultural purposes and that the Chavan family was using the land continuously for the same purpose. Therefore, the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 were not applicable in the case. He, therefore, sought legal advice from the Law and Judiciary department of the Maharashtra government. On July 27, 1998, the deputy secretary, Law and Judiciary department, gave his opinion that there was no necessity to obtain prior sanction of the Union government if the forest land was already broken up and acquired before the Forest Conservation Act 1980 came into force. Accordingly, the state revenue minister sanctioned the allotment of the land and the state government issued an order on August 4, 1998 to that effect. On August 28, 1998, the District Collector issued a land allotment order subject to conditions that it will not be mortgaged, donated, sold, partitioned or exchanged, leased and bring the land into cultivation within a period of two years while clarifying the land can only be used for agriculture purpose. The builder's entry On October 30, 1999, the Divisional Commissioner gave permission to the Chavan family to sell the land to the promoter of Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (RRCHS) to use it for the construction of private residences. It was revealed that the Chavan family had done transactions with promoters of the housing society on December 19, 1998 before they were given permission to sell. On July 8, 2005, the District Collector gave permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes, which is the construction of residential buildings. The Pune Municipal Corporation on February 27, 2006 issued a commencement certificate and sanctioned the building plan. On July 3, 2007, the Union environment and forest ministry gave environmental clearance for the construction of a residential, shopping and IT complex on the land. Nagrik Chetna Manch challenges In 2007, city-based NGO Nagrik Chetna Manch challenged the allotment of reserved forest land to private persons and its use to construct multi-storeyed buildings in violation of the Forest Conservation Act 1980. Thus, the court directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to enquire and submit a report in the matter. The state revenue and forest department issued a notice on July 2, 2008 to the RRCHS and members of the Chavan family informing them about the state government's decision to review its order of allotting the land to the 'Chavan family'. It also served a notice to the RRCHS notifying the possession of the land would have to be taken back. Meanwhile, the RRCHS challenged the state government decision in the court. CEC recommendations On November 27, 2008, the CEC recommended the cancellation of allotment of 11.89 hectare of reserve forest land in Kondhwa Budruk for agriculture purposes and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of the RRCHS and construction of buildings. It urged to restore the land back as a forest. It also recommended prosecuting senior functionaries and officials of the Maharashtra government responsible for the allotment or use of the reserve forest land in violation of provisions of the Forest Conservation Act. These senior functionaries included the then state revenue minister who approved the land allotment; the then Pune Divisional Commissioner who granted permission for sale of the land in favour of a private person for the construction of buildings; the then deputy conservator of forests, Pune, who issued no objection certificate not only here but in many other cases, facilitating the illegal use of forest land for private gain; and the developer, who entered into various development agreements for the purchase and use of the land for construction of buildings. It also recommended that a special investigation team (SIT) be constituted to examine the details of all reserve forest land under the control of the revenue department of Pune that had been allotted to be used without approval under the Forest Conservation Act. It recommended that all such allotments should be cancelled and those involved in such cases should be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust. Documents forged The RRCHS submitted a gazette notification dated March 9, 1944 to show that the land was not forest land and prayed for the proceedings to be disposed of. The state government said the gazette notification submitted in court was a fabricated document. Thus, the court ordered the CID on May 9, 2024 to inquire into it. On August 16, 2024 the CID submitted that the gazette document placed by the RRCHS was forged and not genuine. Court verdict The allotment of reserve forest land in Kondhwa Budruk for agriculture purposes and permission for its sale to the RRCHS was illegal, the SC ruled. The environment clearance by the Union environment and forest department was quashed. The land in possession of the revenue department should be handed over to the forest department within three months, the SC said. The chief secretaries of all states and administrators of all Union Territories have been directed to constitute SITs for examining as to whether any of the reserved forest land in possession of the revenue department has been allotted to any private individuals or institutions for any purpose other than forestry. State governments and UTs have been directed to take steps to take back forested land from persons or institutions in possession of these plots and hand over the same to the forest department. If retrieving this land is not in larger public interest, state governments and UTs should recover the cost of the land from the persons or institutions to whom they were allotted and use the amount for development of forests. Impact on Pune land A small portion of the reserved forest land has been developed by the RRCHS. In this case, the SC has allowed for the cost of land to be recovered if possession is not possible. 'The Supreme Court verdict might sound like forest area is protected, but in the case of Pune, the RRCHS has developed a section of the land, so it is likely the developed portion would exist by recovering land costs. This judgment has come after decades,' said civic activist Vijay Kumbhar. Moreover, the court has not accepted the recommendation of the CEC completely and has not issued directions to prosecute all those who were involved in illegally converting forest land for residential purposes, he added.
