http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/01/1996

BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1100            1996 SCC  (2) 471  JT 1996 (1)    79        1996 SCALE  (1)133

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Counsel have been heard at length in this appeal      The established  position is  that the Collector of the Union Territory,  Daman, as a step towards promoting tourism leased out  a site  in  the  reserved  forest  area  to  the respondent for  putting up  a snack  Bar and a restaurant to cater to  the needs  of tourists visiting the forest. It was the Conservator  of Forests  who raked  up  the  matter  and objected to  the grant  of such  lease affecting the reserve forest. The  lease was for a period of five years, renewable in terms.  The objection  of the  Conservator of Forests was legal in  as much  as  there  was  restriction  on  the  de- reservation of  forest of  use of forest land for non-forest purposes,  as  envisaged  under  Section  2  of  the  Forest (Conservation) Act,  1980.  Whenever  any  forest  land  was required to  be put  to non-forest use, the State Government or other  authority was required to put the matter for prior approval of  the Central  Government and  then make an order directing forest  land to  be used  for non-forest purposes. Section 2 as is relevant is set out below:      "Section   2:    Restriction   on    the      dereservation  of   forests  or  use  of      forest land  for  non-forest  purpose  -      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 forest (within the      meaning of the express ‘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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    thereof may  be used  for any non-forest      purposes;      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;      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      reforestation."      Since the  area leased out to the respondent was within a Union  Territory, the Collector apparently entertained the view that observance of the procedure under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)  Act, 1980,  was  not  necessary,  the administration being  of the  Central  Government.  But  the Conservator of  Forests strongly  held the opposite view and put to stop further activities of the respondent.      The respondent  was thus  led to move the High Court of Bombay in  writ  proceedings,  contending  mainly  that  the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was in fact meant to involve State Governments,  or other  authorities nominated  by them and that the Act was not meant to apply to Union territories as they  themselves were governed by the central Government. In other  words, it  was maintained  that an  Officer of the Central Government  moving in the matter need not seek prior approval of  the Central  Government under  Section 2 of the Act.      This assertion  and interpretation  as accepted  by the High Court,  in our  view, was  in the  teeth of  the  clear applicability of  the Act  extending to  the whole  of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Act was obviously meant to  apply to  Union Territories as well and not to the States alone.  And in  the context,  the  expression  ‘other authority’, as is evident from the above reproduction of the provision, is  all comprehensive  and  far  wide  so  as  to include  any  authority  concerned  with  the  matter.  Such authority instantly being the collector was thus required to seek approval  of  the  Central  Government  before  passing orders under  Section 2,  consonant with  the orders  of the Central Government.  Nothing of  the kind was done here. The High Court  on that  basis, erroneously though, approved the action of  the  Collector  who  had  acted  solely,  without seeking the prior approval of the Central Government.      We cannot  agree with  such view  of the High Court and therefore have  felt the  need to  substitute its order with the present one for it appears to us that it is essential to marshal the  priorities; instantly  on one side those of the tourist  department   and  on   the  other   of  the  forest department. For  this  purpose,  Section  3  of  the  Forest (Conservation) Act,  19 80 has envisaged the constitution of an Advisory Committee to advise the Government in the matter of grant of approval under Section 2 and on any other matter connected with  the conservation  of  forest  which  may  be referred to  it by  the Central Government. We assume that a Committee of  the kind  has been  constituted.  All  current streams of  thought lead  towards protection  of environment and preservation  of forest  wealth. On the other hand there are demands  in justification  of other  use telling  on the forests. A  balance would  have to  be struck, in a cool and dispassionate manner.      As a way out, therefore, we direct that the proposal as mooted by the Collector and approved by his action, together

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

with the  objection of the Conservator of Forests be sent by the former  to the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)  Act, 1980  read with the rules framed thereunder. The  Central Government  may on  receipt of such proposal  by  the  Collector  act  in  accordance  with  the provisions of  the aforesaid  Act and  the rules  and  after obtaining advice  from  the  Advisory  Committee  pass  such orders thereon,  which may  be warranted  in the  facts  and circumstances,  informing  the  Collector  accordingly.  The Collector shall  thereafter  abide  by  the  orders  of  the Central Government. Let the entire exercise be over within a period of  three months  from today.  The appeal would stand disposed of with these directions. No costs.