http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DUTI SAHU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment dated March  29, 1996 passed by the division Bench of Orissa High Court  in O.J.C.  No. 1389/96. The admitted position is that the  respondents are  displaced persons and they sought for and  were granted  assignment of  the land  in  reserved forest by the State Government on various dates between 1982 and 1985  for cultivation.  One of  the conditions  for  the grant was  that the  trees standing  on the land allotted to them "Shell  be the  property of the State Government" It is clear from  Section 2  of the  Forest Conservation  Act 1980 that it  contemplates restrictions  on the  dereservation of forests or  use of  forest land  for non-forest  purpose and postulates thus:      "Notwithstanding anything contained      in any other law for the time being      in  force  in  a  State,  no  State      Government or other authority shall      make,   except   with   the   prior      approval of  the Central Government      any order directing-      (i)  that any reserved (with in the      meaning of the expression "Reserved      forest" in  any law  for  the  time      being in  force in  that State)  or      any portion  thereof shall cease to      be reserved;      (ii) That  any forest  land or  any      portion thereof may be used for any      not-forest purpose;      (iii) that  any forest  land or any      portion thereof  may be assigned by      way of  lease or  otherwise to  any      private person or to any authority,      corporation, agency  or  any  other      organisation not  owned, managed or      controlled by Government;

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

    (iv) that  any forest  land or  any      portion thereof  may be  cleared of      trees which have grown naturally in      that  land   or  portion,  for  the      purpose    of    using    it    for      reafforestation."      Having overlooked  these crucial  statutory provisions, the High  Court has  directed, by the impugned order, at the behest of  the respondents,  by way  of  writ  of  mandamus, issuance of  Timber Transit  permits to the respondents. the question is:  whether the  impugned direction  issued by the High court s correct in law? Except with prior permission of the Central  Government, deforestation  is impermissible. It is seen  that it  cannot be  disputed that land are situated within reserved  forest area.  In the  lands assigned to the petitioner, the  trees are  standing. In  terms of the grant made to  them, the  trees belong  to the  Government.  Under those circumstances,  for the  reason that  it  is  reserved forest area since the grant was made only for the purpose of cultivation  the   respondents  have   no  manner  of  right whatsoever to  deforest the  land and  to cut  and carry the trees belonging  to the  Government much  less with  out the permission of the any authority.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. the  order of  the High Court stands set aside. No costs.