http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: PRADEEP KRISHEN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: B.L. HANSARIA, S.C. SEN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Ahmadi, CJI      The petitioner,  an environmentalist actuated by public interest, has  filed this  petition under  Article 32 of the Constitution  of   India  challenging   the   legality   and constitutional validity  of an  order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh,  Department of  Forest, No. F.14/154/91/10/2 dated March  28, 1995, permitting collection of tendu leaves from Sanctuaries  and National  Parks  by  villagers  living around the  boundaries thereof  with the  avowed  object  of maintenance of  their  traditional  rights.  The  petitioner contends that  this act  of the  State Government  is ultra- vires the  provisions of  the Wild  Life  (Protection)  Act, 1972,  as   well  as  the  petitioner’s  fundamental  rights guaranteed by  Articles 14  and 1 of the Constitution and is even otherwise  inconsistent with  the  Directive  Principle contained in  Article 48A  and the  Fundamental Duty cast on every citizen  under  clause  (g)  of  Article  51A  of  the Constitution of  India. The petitioner further contends that the said order is mala fide and against public interest. The order complained of reads as under:           "Government of Madhya Pradesh                Department of Forest                     Mantralaya,           Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Immediate S.No. F-14/154/91/10/2 Bhopal, Dated 28th March ’95 To      The Chief Conservator of Forests (W.L.),      Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Sub:- Extraction of Forest produce from National Parks and      sanctuaries consequent o the amendment of the Wild-Life      (Protection) Act. Ref:- This  departments notification  of even No. dated 13th      Dec. 1994 The  following  order  is  being  circulated  by  the  State Government partly  modifying its  earlier order on the above subject:- 1.   Keeping in view the traditional rights of the villagers      living around  the boundaries  of those  National Parks      and  sanctuaries   in  respect   of  which   the  final

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

    notification U/s  26-A and 35 have not been issued, the      blocks/areas earmarked  for collection  of tendu leaves      would be reopened as done in the past. 2.    In  order to provide sufficient wages to the villagers      living in these areas, labour intensive works should be      provided to them to the maximum extent possible.                               In the name of the Governor                          and in accordance with the order                             Sd/-                        (S.K. PANWAR)                      Deputy Secretary,                Forest Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh"      According to  the petitioner  in the  State  of  Madhya Pradesh, 11  areas have  been declared as National Parks and 33 areas  as Sanctuaries  covering a  total area  of  nearly 16,790 sq.  Mks. i.e.  12.4% of the total forest area of the State admeasuring 1,35,396 sw. Mks. He refers to a news item published  in  ‘The  Sunday  Times’  dated  April  16,  195, headlines "Forest  cover shrinking in MP" and further refers to the  report of  the Comptroller  and Auditor  General  of India stating  that excessive  grazing, reckless  felling of trees and  forest fires are responsible for the depletion of the forest  area by  145 sw.  Mks. between 1991 and 1993. He further contends  that indiscriminate  felling of  trees has resulted in  a depletion  of the  forest area  in the entire country including  Madhya Pradesh,  causing concern  to  not only environmentalists,   but  also to  every right thinking citizen. He  has also referred to the criticism appearing in the media in regard to the issuance of the order dated March 28,  1995.  He  says  that  in  the  year  1498,  the  State Government  bad   taken  a   decision  to   ban   commercial exploitation of minor forest produce from the National Parks and  Sanctuaries   but  the  said  ban  was  lifted  by  the Department in  1992 when  it allowed commercial exploitation of minor  forest produce,  in particular,  tendu leaves from National Parks  and sanctuaries. A copy of the order lifting the ban  dated April  16, 1992, has been produced on record. He further  points out that thereafter, at a meeting held on August 18,  1994 by  the State  Wild Life  Advisory Board, a unanimous decision  was taken  whereby the  State Government was requested  to withdraw  the order  of  April  16,  1992, thereby continuing  the ban  on commercial  exploitation  of minor forest  produce from  National Parks  and Sanctuaries. Thereafter, by an order dated December 13, 1994, the earlier order of  April 16,  1992 was cancelled. Yet again, contends the petitioner,  the State  of Madhya  Pradesh succumbed  to pressure from  the business  lobby and  passed the  impugned order of  March 28,  1995, permitting  collecting  of  tendu leaves from  the National  Parks and  Sanctuaries in respect whereof no notification under Sections 26A and 35 of the Act has been issued.      The petitioner  contends that  while the impugned order dated March  28, 1995  permitting collection of tendu leaves has  been   issued  ostensibly  with  a  view  to  providing employment and reasonable livelihood to people living in the vicinity of  the National  Parks  and  Sanctuaries,  it  has ignored the  need to protect the flora and the fauna as well as wild life which are, so to say, nature’s laboratory where evolutionary process  of life  in all  forms takes place and which ought not to be interfered with. The presence of human beings, albeit  in earmarked  Parks, will not only adversely affect the flora and the fauna but will also scare away wild life.  That   is  because,   contends  the  petitioner,  the collection of  tendu leaves is a destructive process and can cause extensive  damage to ecology and regeneration of trees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

etc. Besides,  the destruction of organic matter is bound to affect the  structure of  the soil  and there  is  the  real apprehension of  forest ires. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this  petition with  a view to preserving the ecology, environment  and   wild  life  in  the  National  Parks  and Sanctuaries which are likely to be adversely affected by the implementation of the impugned order. On the above pleadings and contentions,  the petitioner  has raised two contentions which have been formulated as under:- (i)   Whether an  area declared  as a Sanctuary and National      Park under  Section 18 and Section 35, respectively, of      the Wild  Life (Protection)  Act, 1972 can be exploited      for the collection of minor forest produce in violation      of the restrictions contained in the said Act?                             And (ii) Whether  the State  Government has the right to exploit      minor forest  produce from the sanctuaries and National      Parks which  have been  so declared  for the protection      and   preservation    of   ecology,    flora,    fauna,      geomorphologies, natural or zoological significance?      This court  issued notice  on April  20,  1995  to  the respondents. On  behalf of  the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, one Muhammadan   Hashing,    Chief   Conservator    of   Forests (Production), Government  of Madhya  Pradesh,  has  filed  a counter affidavit contending that since no fundamental right of the  petitioner has  been violated,  the petition  is not maintainable under  Article 32 of the Constitution. So also, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order on the strength of Articles 14, 21, 48A and/or 51A (g) of the  Constitution of India. The deponent further contends that the  traditional rights  of the villagers living in and around the  boundaries of the National Parks and Sanctuaries in respect  of which  the final  notification under Sections 26A and  35 of  the Wild  Life Protection  Act, 1972 has not been issued,  cannot be  questioned till  the same  has been acquired; due  compensation has  been paid and the villagers have been  rehabilitated. He  has further contended that the State Government  has the  right  to  exploit  minor  forest produce under  the  Act.  While  conceding  that  the  State Government has,  by its  order  dated  September  16,  1982, forbidden  collection  of  minor  forest  produce  from  the sanctuaries in  the year  19822-83, it did permit collection of certain minor forest produce like Honey, Tamarind, Mango, Mail leaves,  Mail flowers  etc., by  the tribals  for their bona fide  use. By  order dated  September 1, 1983, and by a subsequent order  dated  May  7,  1990,  it  also  permitted collection of  tendu leaves, etc., from the Sanctuaries. The collection was then done departmentally. Again, by the order dated  April   16,  1992,  the  State  Government  permitted collection  of  forest  produce  from  Sanctuary  areas  and proposed National  Parks departmentally,  or through agents, and  the   local  people  were  permitted  to  collect  non- nationalised forest  produce for their bona fide use and for sale in  the local  market. The  above  orders  were  partly modified by  the order  of December  13, 1994,  whereby  the collection of  tendu  leaves  was  permitted  for  villagers living in  and around  the areas not notified as Sanctuaries and National  Parks under  Section 26  and 35  of  the  Act. Dealing  with  the  petitioner’s  contention  regarding  the depletion of  the forest area, figures have been quoted from the Forest  Survey cover  from 1987  to 1991 with a marginal decrease between  1991 and  1993. However,  the petitioner’s broad contention  in regard  to the  depletion of the forest cover in the State of Madhya Pradesh remains unassailed.      The deponent  further states that there are 11 National

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Parks and 33 Sanctuaries in the State of Madhya Pradesh, out of which  3 National  Parks are  finally notified  under the National Park  Act, 1955 and one Sanctuary is notified under the Act  as amended  in 1991,  but the final notification is yet to  be issued.  The remaining  8 National  Parks and  32 Sanctuaries were  notified from  time to  time under the Act prior to  its amendment in 1991. In these National Parks and Sanctuaries, proceedings  under Sections 19 to 25 of the Act were not  taken to acquire the rights of the people. That is why they  were not  finally notified.  The State  Government could not  have taken  away the  rights of  the tribals  and villagers dependent  on  minor  forest  to  produce  without acquisition of  those rights  after payment of compensation. It is  for this  reason that  the final  notification  under Section 26A could not be issued unless provision for payment of compensation and rehabilitation were simultaneously made. So also,  in regard to National Parks, the final declaration could not be issued under section 35 of the Act for the same reason.      Dealing with  the apprehension  of the  petitioner that setting fire to tendu bushes may set the forest on fire, the deponent states  that the  practice of setting fire to tendu bushes  has   been  completely   stopped  and  only  pruning operations are  permitted under  strict supervision  and  no pruning is  done by  setting fire  to bushes or trees in the forest. Since  pruning operations are expensive, the same is done by  the State  Government. Briefly  put,  the  deponent contends that  the State  Government  is  equally  concerned about protecting  the forest  from fire  as well as ensuring that the  ecology of the place and its bio-diversity are not adversely affected.  With a view to protecting the wild life and curbing  poaching  activities  in  the  forest  area,  a special cell  comprising police  and forest  officials under the control  of the Inspector General of Police has been set up to  supervise the  forest area.  There is,  therefore, no real danger  to the flora, fauna, trees and wild life in the National Parks  and Sanctuaries. It is, therefore, contended that  the   entire  petition   is  based  on  suspicion  and misconceived apprehension.      In his  rejoinder to  the said  counter affidavit,  the petitioner has raised the very same contentions, though in a somewhat elaborate  manner. It  is, however,  clarified that the petitioner  does not  challenge the right of the tribals living in  and around the National Parks and the Sanctuaries to collect  minor produce  for their personal bona fide use, but only  challenges the commercial exploitation thereof, in particular, the  tendu leaves  through contractors. since it is inconsistent with the object and spirit of the Act. It is said that  under the  impugned order,  only non-nationalised minor forest produce is covered and not nationalised produce and since  tendu  leaves  are  nationalised  products,  they cannot be  exploited. It  is, therefore  contended that  the petitioner’s grievance  has not  been correctly  appreciated and the  counter-affidavit is  wholly misconceived  and  has failed to  meet the  challenge. According to the petitioner, Sanctuaries which  were declared as such under Section 18 of the Act  prior to  its amendment would continue as such even after the  amendment and  their status does not get affected by the amendment and therefore, in respect thereof, a second notification under  Section 26A  is unnecessary and the non- issuance of  a  fresh  notification  cannot  take  away  the protection extended  by Sections  27 to 34 of the Act. This, in brief, is the stand taken in the rejoinder.      In the  present proceedings, three persons (i) Bali Ram (ii) Shyam  Lal and (iii) Munshi Lal, have filed I.A.No.3 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

1995 seeking  permission to  intervene. These three persons, who claim  to be  tribals, contend  that  they  are  vitally interested in the present proceedings as they largely depend in minor  forest produce  for their  survival. They  contend that they  collect tendu  leaves during the forty-day season on a token payment to the State Government and if the prayer sought in  the writ petition is granted, their interest will be greatly  prejudiced. They deny the allegation that during the process  of collection of tendu leaves, they disturb the flora and  fauna or  in any manner disturb the eco-system of the sanctuaries.  They also  deny that their presence is the prime cause for fires in the forest area. This, they say, is the handiwork  of racketeers  and contractors.  According to them, what  they earn from the tendu leaves is barely enough for their  sustenance and is not a big commercial venture as is sought  to be  made out  by the  petitioner. They  lastly contend that  they have  been enjoying  this  privilege  for generations and  the denial  of this  privilege to the small tribal  population  located  around  the  sanctuaries  would result in  ruination of  the entire  tribal population since their survival  is on  minor forest  produce only.  Briefly, they  contend,  that  while  the  petitioner  is  projecting himself to  be eco-friendly,  he has  totally overlooked the rights and  privileges  of  the  indigenous  tribals  living around the sanctuaries and surviving on minor forest produce like tendu  leaves, Mail  flowers, tamarind  and other  wild berries. etc.,  which are  nature’s bounty  to human-beings. They, therefore,  contend that  no fundamental  right of the petitioner,  for   that  matter   of  environmentalists,  is violated and  the  Court  should  refuse  to  entertain  the petition.      The historical  background provided  by the petitioner, which has not been assailed, shows that the State Government had, in  1992, prohibited  the collection  of  minor  forest product from  National parks  and Sanctuaries  but,  by  its subsequent order  dated 1.9.1983,  permitted  collection  of minor forest  produce, such  as, tamarind,  Mail leaves, and flowers, wild  fruits including mangoes, honey, etc., to the tribals for their bona fide personal consumption and not for commercial  exploitation.  Thereafter,  by  an  order  dated 7.5.1990,  the   collection  of   tendu  leaves   was   done departmentally.  By   the  order  of  16.4.1992,  the  State Government permitted  collection of tendu leaves, etc., from National Parks  and Sanctuaries  by  the  local  people  for selling in  local markets  and  for  their  bona  fide  use. Thereafter,  by   a  notification   dated  13.12.1994,   the notification  dated   16.4.1992  was   cancelled   and   the collection of all types of forest produce was totally banned with immediate  effect. Soon  thereafter,  by  the  impugned notification dated  28.3.1995, the  earlier notification  of 13.12.1994 was  modified,  in  that,  keeping  in  view  the traditional  rights  of  the  villagers  living  around  the National Parks  and Sanctuaries  in respect whereof no final notification was  issued under Section 26A and Section 35 of the Act,  the blocks/areas earmarked for collection of tendu leaves were  reopened. This  briefly shows  the vagaries  of Government orders issued from time to time.      We may  now notice  the relevant provisions of the Act. Enacted in  1972, it  was a  major step  in the direction of protecting wildlife  and birds.  Hunting of  various animals specified in  the First  Schedule  to  the  Act  is  totally prohibited while  hunting of certain other animals specified in Schedules  II, III  and IV  is permitted only on licence. Under the  Act,  the  Central  Government  is  empowered  to declare any  area of  adequate ecological,  geomorphologies,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

natural or  geological significance,  a Sanctuary.  In  such Sanctuaries, public  entry is  barred and  hunting without a licence is prohibited. The Act contemplates that a specified area can  be declared  a National  Park. National  Parks  so constituted  are   meant  for  protection,  propagating  and developing wildlife.  Trade and  commerce in  wild  animals, articles and  products of  such animals, except in specified conditions, is forbidden. Any violation of the provisions of the Act  may be  visited with  penalties of imprisonment and fine. Several authorities have been created under the Act to give effect  to the  provisions intended to protect wildlife and birds. By a subsequent amendment made in 1991, specified plants have  also been brought under the protective umbrella of the  Act. This,  broadly speaking,  is the purport of the enactment.      We may  now be  more specific.  The Act  was enacted by Parliament in  pursuance of  the resolution  passed  by  the requisite number  of States  under Article  252 (1)  of  the Constitution. It  was initially  brought into force in those States,  which   included  the   State  of  Madhya  Pradesh. Provision was made for extending it to other States. Section 2 contains  the dictionary  of the  Act. Several expressions used in  the Act, to wit, animals, animal article, big game, captive animal,  cattle, etc.,  have been  duly defined.  We may, however,  notice the definitions of the terms, National Park and Sanctuary.      "2(21)  "National  Park"  means  an      area   declared,    whether   under      Section  35   or  Section   38,  or      deemed, under  sub-section  (3)  of      Section 66,  to be  declared, as  a      National Park;      2(26)  "Sanctuary"  means  an  area      declared, whether under Section 26A      or Section  38,  or  deemed,  under      sub-section (3)  of Section  66, to      be   declared,    as   a   wildlife      sanctuary." Sections 3  and 4  contemplate the  appointment  of  certain officers for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 6 provides for  the Constitution of a Wildlife Advisory Board. Sections 7  and 8  set out  the functions  and duties of the Board. By  the 1991  Amendment, Section  8 was  amended  and clause (cc)  was inserted which added to the list of duties, the duty  to advise  the State Government in relation to the measures to  be taken  for harmonising  the needs of tribals and other  dwellers of  the forest  with the  protection and conservation of  wildlife. Chapter III deals with Hunting of Wild Animals.  Chapter IV,  inter alia,  deals with National Parks  and   Sanctuaries.  Section  18  empowers  the  State Government to  declare by  notification any  area  to  be  a sanctuary if  the area  is  considered  to  be  of  adequate ecological,  faunal,  floral,  geomorphologies,  natural  or zoological significance. Once a notification is issued under Section 18,  Section 20  bars the  accrual  of  new  rights. Section 24 provides for the acquisition of extant rights. We may now  notice the  relevant part of Section 26A introduced by way of an amendment which reads as under:      "26A. (1) When-      (a) a  notification has been issued      under Section 18 and the period for      preferring claims  has elapsed, and      all  claims,   if  any,   made   in      relation to  any land  in  an  area      intended  to   be  declared   as  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    sanctuary, have been disposed of by      the State Government; or      (b) any  area comprised  within any      reserve forest  or any  part of the      territorial   waters,    which   is      considered by  the State Government      to  be   of  adequate   ecological,      faunal,  floral,   geomorphologies,      natural or  zoological significance      for  the   purpose  of  protecting,      propagating or developing wild life      or  its   environment,  is   to  be      included in a sanctuary,      the State  Government shall issue a      notification specifying  the limits      of  the   area   which   shall   be      comprised within  the sanctuary and      declare that the said area shall be      a sanctuary  on and  from such date      as  may   be   specified   in   the      notification:      (3) No alteration of the boundaries      of a sanctuary shall be made except      on  a   resolution  passed  by  the      Legislature of the State."      We may  next notice  the relevant part of Section 35(1) which reads thus:      "35(1) Whenever  it appears  to the      State  Government   that  an  area,      whether within  a sanctuary or not,      is by  reason  of  its  ecological,      faunal, floral, geomorphologies, or      zoological      association      or      importance,    needed     to     be      constituted as  a National Park for      the    purpose    of    protecting,      propagating, or developing wildlife      therein or its environment, it may,      by   notification,    declare   its      intention to  constitute such  area      as a National Park.      Two reliefs  are claimed in this writ petition, namely, (i) to  quash the notification dated 28.3.1995 issued by the Government of  Madhya Pradesh;  and (ii) to direct the State Government to strictly enforce the provisions of Sections 27 to  33  of  the  Act  in  relation  to  National  Parks  and Sanctuaries notified under Sections 18 and 35 of the Act. As pointed out earlier, in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, he  stated in no uncertain terms that he was not questioning the  right of  the villagers (tribals) living in and around  the National  Parks and  Sanctuaries to  collect minor forest  produce therefrom for their personal bona fide use  but   questions  the   Government’s  right   to  permit commercial exploitation of such produce. That would mean the petitioner does  not object to the entry of villagers in the National Parks  and Sanctuaries  for the  limited purpose of collecting the  minor forest produce including tendu leaves. If that  be so, the apprehension that their entry into those areas would be cause for fire must recede in the background. Instances  of  forest  fires  in  Panna  National  Park  and Udayanti Sanctuary  were relied on, but there is no material on record  to show  that these  fires  were  caused  by  the villagers/tribals who  entered the  forest to  collect minor forest produce.  It is  further stated  that since 1989, the practice of setting fire to tendu bushes has been completely

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

and totally  stopped.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  any reliable evidence  in that  behalf, the apprehension must be stated to  be  rejected.  Even  otherwise,  in  the  counter affidavit  filed  by  the  State  Government,  it  has  been clarified that  every precaution  has been  taken to  ensure that no  such tragedy  takes place  and proper  arrangements have been  made so  that there is no danger to the flora and fauna and  wildlife in those areas. Therefore, we must allow the matter to rest at that.      We may  now mention  that according  to the petitioner, the State  of Madhya  Pradesh has  the largest  forest area, almost 30.5%  of its  total geographical  area,  vide  State Forest Report,  1993, out  of which  eleven areas  have been declared   National   Parks   ad   thirty-three   areas   as Sanctuaries, covering  approximately an  area of  16,790 sq. kms. Of these, only Orcha Sanctuary was declared a Sanctuary after the  1991 Amendment,  whereas the  rest were  declared prior to  the amendment  of Section 18 of the Act. According to the  State Government,  except the Kanha, Bandhavgarh and Madhav  National   Parks,  all   other  National  Parks  and Sanctuaries are  outside the  scope of  Sections 27 to 33 of the Act.  It is  the State’s  contention that  tendu  leaves collected by the tribals are sold to a co-operative which in turn sells  them to  the ‘Beedi’  manufacturers so  that the tribals can  survive from  the small  income  made  thereby. However, the  petitioner  laments  the  gradual  erosion  or destruction of  the forest area because of the damage caused by tribals.  Besides, their  presence disturbs  animal life, marine life,  birds and  reptiles, in addition to the damage caused to  the fauna  and flora. These allegations have been specifically  denied   in  the  State’s  counter  affidavit. Referring to the Forest Survey of India for 1987 to 1993, it is shown  that the actual forest cover has increased and not decreased; the  small reduction  from 1991 to 1993 is due to interpretational correction  and the actual depletion can be said to  be  only  145  sw.  kms.  According  to  the  State Government,  the   aforementioned  3   National  Parks  were notified under  the National  Park Act,  1955, and therefore they are  finally notified  Parks. The  remaining 8 National Parks and  32 Sanctuaries  out  of  the  existing  33,  were notified from  time to  time under the Act prior to the 1991 Amendment, while the remaining single Sanctuary was notified after the  1991 Amendment.  However, according  to the State Government, in  these 8  Nation Parks  and  33  Sanctuaries, proceedings under  Sections 19  to 25  of the  Act were  not conducted to  acquire the  rights of  those  living  in  and around them and therefore, they are not finally notified. In other words, unless the traditional rights are acquired, the final declaration  cannot be  used under  Section 26A of the Act.      It is  evident from  the  above  pleadings  that  since neither the  traditional  rights  of  those  living  in  the vicinity of  these parks and sanctuaries have been acquired, nor have  provisions  been  made  to  either  compensate  or rehabilitate them,  the final declaration under Sections 26A and 35  has not  been possible.  That is  the reason why the State Government had to permit collection of tendu leaves by the impugned notification dated 28.3.1995.      Now as  pointed out  earlier, since  Parliament had  no power to  make laws  for the  States except  as provided  by Articles 249  and 250  of the  Constitution, the States were required to  pas resolutions under Article 252 (1) to enable Parliament to  enact the  law. After  as many  as 11  States passed resolutions  to that  effect,  the  Act  came  to  be enacted to  provide for  the protection  of wild animals and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

birds and  for matters  connected therewith  or ancillary or incidental thereto. Even Articles 48A and 51A(g) inserted in the Constitution  by the 42nd Amendment oblige the State and the  citizen,  respectively,  to  protect  and  improve  the natural environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife off the country. The statutory as well as the constitutional message is  therefore loud  and clear and it is this message which we  must constantly  keep in  focus while dealing with issues and matters concerning the environment and the forest area  as   well  as  wildlife  within  those  forests.  This objective must  guide us  in interpreting  the laws  dealing with these  matters and  our interpretation must, unless the expression or  the context  conveys otherwise,  subserve and advance the  aforementioned constitutional  objectives. With this approach  in mind  we may  now proceed to deal with the contentions urged by parties.      Chapter IV,  inter alia,  deals  with  Sanctuaries  and National Parks. Section 18 before its amendment by Act 44 of 1991  provided   that  the   State   Government,   may,   by notification, declare  any area  to be  a  Sanctuary  if  it considers that  such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphologies,  natural or zoological significance for the  purpose of  protecting, propagating wildlife or its environment. After its amendment, it provides that the State Government may,  by notification  declare its  intention  to constitute any  area other than an area comprised within any reserved forest  or territorial  waters as a Sanctuary if it considers that  such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphologies,  natural or zoological significance for the  purpose of  protecting, propagating  or  developing wildlife or its environment. In substance, the thrust of the Section is the same except that earlier the State Government could straightaway  declare any  area to  be a  Sanctuary by issuing a notification but under the amended Section, it has to declare  its intention  to constitute any area other than an area  comprised within any reserved forest or territorial waters as  a Sanctuary.  When a notification is issued under section 18,  the Collector  is required  to entire  into and determine the  existence, nature and extent of the rights of any person  in or  over the land comprised within the limits of the  Sanctuary. After such a notification is issued under section 18,  the Collector  is required  to enquire into and determine the  existence, nature and extent of the rights of any person  in or  over the land comprised within the limits of the  Sanctuary. After  such a  notification is issued, no rights can  be acquired in or over the land comprised within the  said  limits  except  by  succession,  testamentary  or otherwise. Section  21 requires the Collector to publish the notification in  the regional  language in  every  town  and village in  or in  the neighbourhood  of the  area comprised therein specifying  the situation  and  the  limits  of  the Sanctuary and  calling upon  persons claiming  any right  to prefer the  claim before the Collector specifying the nature and extent  o such  right and  the amount and particulars of the compensation,  if any, and the claim in respect thereof. The Collector  is then  expected to  inquire into  the claim preferred by  any person  and pass  an  order  admitting  or rejecting the  same in  whole or in part. If such a claim is admitted in  whole or  in part,  the  Collector  may  either exclude such  land from the limits of the proposed Sanctuary or proceed  to acquire  such rights  unless the  rightholder agrees  to   surrender  his  rights  on  payment  of  agreed compensation, worked  out in  accordance with the provisions of the  Land Acquisition  Act, 1894 or allow the continuance of any  right of  any person  in or  over any lad within the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

limits of the Sanctuary. If he decides to proceed to acquire such land or right in or over such land, he shall proceed in accordance with  the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 27  bars the  entry of  any person  other than those specified in  clauses (a)  to (e)  thereof from  entering or residing in  the area  of the Sanctuary except in accordance with the  conditions of  permit granted  under  Section  28, Section 26A, which was introduced in the Act by the amending Act 44 of 1991, has already been extracted earlier. Sections 29 and  30 prohibit  the destruction  and  setting  of  fire within the  Sanctuary with  any weapon  unless  specifically permitted. Section  32 bans the use of injurious substances; Section 33  provides for  control of Sanctuaries; Section 34 requires registration  of certain  persons in  possession of arms. These are the provisions which relate to Sanctuaries. Section 35,  which we  have  extracted  earlier  deals  with National Parks  and sub-section  (3) thereof  provides  that where any  area is  intended to  be declared  as a  National Park, the  provisions of Sections 19 to 26A (both inclusive) except clause  (c) of Section 24(2) shall, as far as may be, apply to the investigation  and determination of claims, and extinguishment of  right, in  relation to  any land  in such area as  they apply  in the  said matters in relation to any land in  a Sanctuary.  It will  be seen  from this provision that the provisions which apply in relation to investigation and determination of claims, and extinguishment of rights in the case of Sanctuaries also apply, as far as may be, in the case of National Parks.      On  a   plain  reading  of  these  provisions,  it  is, therefore,  obvious   that  the   procedure  in   regard  to acquisition of rights in and over the land to be included in a Sanctuary  or National  Park has  to be  followed before a final notification  under Section  26A or  Section 35(1)  is issued by  the State  Government. In the instant case, it is not the  contention of the petitioner that the procedure for the acquisition  of rights  in or  over the  land  of  those living in  the vicinity of the areas proposed to be declared as Sanctuaries  and National  Parks under Section 26A and 35 of the  Act has been undertaken. It was for this reason that the order  of 28.3.1995  in terms stated that since no final notification was issued under the said provisions, the State Government was  not in  a  position  to  bar  the  entry  of villagers living  in and  around  the  Sanctuaries  and  the National Parks so long as their rights were not acquired and final notifications  under  the  aforesaid  provisions  were issued. It  is, therefore, not possible to conclude that the State Government  had  violated  any  provision  of  law  in issuing the notification dated 28.3.1995 in question.      The  matter,   however,  does   not  rest   there.  The petitioner contends  that the  forest cover  in the State of Madhya  Pradesh  is  gradually  shrinking.  As  pointed  out earlier, there  is a shrinkage to the extent of 145 sw. kms. between 1991  and 1993.  In our  country, the  total  forest cover is far less than the ideal minimum of one-third of the total  land.   We  cannot,  therefore,  afford  any  further shrinkage in  the forest cover in our country. If one of the reasons for  this shrinkage  is the  entry of  villagers and tribals  living  in  and  around  the  Sanctuaries  and  the National parks, there can be no doubt that urgent steps must be taken  to  prevent  any  destruction  or  damage  to  the environment, the  flora and  fauna  and  wildlife  in  those areas. If the only reason which compels the State Government to permit  entry and  collection of  tendu leaves  is it not having acquired  the rights  of villagers/tribals and having failed to locate any area for their rehabilitation, we think

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

that inertia  in this  behalf cannot  be tolerated.  We are, therefore, of  the opinion  that while  we do  not quash the order of  28.3.1995, we think that the State Government must be directed  to decide  on the  question of  completing  the process for issuing final notifications and then take urgent steps to  complete the procedure for declaring/notifying the areas as  Sanctuaries and  National Parks under Sections 26A and 35  of the  Act. We,  therefore, direct  that the  State Government shall  take immediate  action under Chapter IV of the Act  and institute  an inquiry,  acquire the  rights  of those who claim any right in or over any land proposed to be included  in  the  Sanctuary/National  Park  and  thereafter proceed to  issue a final notification under Section 26A and 35 of  the Act  declaring such areas as Sanctuaries/National Parks. We  direct the State Government to initiate action in this behalf  within a  period of  6 months  from  today  and expeditiously  conclude  the  same  showing  that  sense  of urgency as is expected of a State Government in such matters as enjoined  by Article  48A of  the Constitution and at the same time  keeping in view the duty enshrined in Article 51A (g) of  the Constitution. We are sure, and we have no reason to doubt,  that the State Government would show the required zeal to  expeditiously  declare  and  notify  the  areas  as Sanctuaries/National Parks.      We dispose  of the writ petition with these directions. We make  the rule absolute as per the directions given above with no order as to costs.