Holding

The Court held that under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, "forest" means all statutorily recognised forests irrespective of ownership, and any non‑forest activity in such areas, including saw‑mills and mining, requires prior Central Government approval, making unauthorized activities violative of the Act.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and clarified that the term "forest" includes all statutorily recognised forests irrespective of ownership. It held that any activity such as operating saw‑mills, veneer or plywood mills, or mining within forest areas is a non‑forest purpose and requires prior approval of the Central Government, otherwise it is a prima facie violation of the Act. Accordingly, the Court issued sweeping interim directions: a complete ban on felling trees in specified regions, closure of saw‑mills within 100 km of certain forests, a ban on inter‑state movement of timber from the North‑Eastern states, and the constitution of expert committees by each State to identify forests, assess sustainable capacity and monitor compliance. Specific provisions were also laid down for Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu regarding felling, timber utilisation and saw‑mill locations. The petition was ultimately disposed, with several interim applications also dismissed.

Issues considered

The proper definition and scope of the term "forest" under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Whether prior Central Government approval is required for activities such as saw‑mills, veneer, plywood mills and mining in forest areas.
The legality and constitutional validity of imposing bans on tree felling, timber movement and operation of wood‑based industries.
The obligations of State Governments to constitute expert committees and report on forest status and timber‑based industries.

Legislation cited

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. 2

Subjects

Forest Conservation Actdefinition of forestenvironmental lawdeforestationsaw‑mill closuretimber movement banexpert committeescentral government approvalecological balance

Judgment

A T.N. GODAVARMAN THJRUMULKPAD ETC.
,
\ \~'
v. •
· UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 12, 1996

B [J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Forest Conservation Act, 1980: Section 2.

Applicability and Object of Act-Held object is to check deforestation
C which ultimately results in ecological imbalance-Therefore, the provisions
made therein for the conservation of forests and for niatters connected
therewith apply to all forests i"espective of the nature of ownership or
classification thereof-Expression 'forest' covers all statutorily recognised
forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose
of Section 2(i) of the Acr-Expression 'forest land' includes not only 'forest'
D but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record imspective of
the ownership-l'rior approval of the Central Govemmrmt is required fa,r any
non-forest activity within the area of any ''forest''-Running of saw "!ills of
any kind including veneer or ply-wood mills, and mining of any mint+al are
non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval
E of the. Central Government.
<
Ambica quarry Works and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1987] 1
SCC 213; Rural Litigatiori and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989]
Supp. 1 SCC 504; Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussorie Deh-
radun Development Authority and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 749/95 decided on .
F 29.11.1996 and State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Ors., [1985] 3 SCC
643, referred to.

Environmental Law-Protection and Conservation of forests-Direc-
tions by Supreme Court of India for maintenance of ecological balance and
G preservation of bio-diversi~omplete ban on felling of any kind trees in the
tropical wet ever green forests of Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal
Pradeslt-All saw mills, veneer mills and ply-wood mills in Tirap and 4 -
Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a distance of 100 kms. from its
border, in Assam, should also be closed immediately-Felling of trees in all
forests to remain suspended except in accordance with the Working Plans of
H the State Governments as approved by the Central Government-Complete
982
T.N.GODAVARMAN1HIRUMULKPAD. v. U.0.1. 983

ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North- A
• Eastern State to any other State of the Country-Ban not applicable to the
movement of certified timber required for defence or other Government
purposes.

Direction to each State Government (i) to constitute Expert Committee
to identify forests and forests which stand now degraded (ii) to file report B
regarding number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills operating; their
licensed capacity and proximity to forests; (iii) to constitute Expert Committee
to assess sustainable capacity of the forests qua saw mills and optimum
distance from the forest qua that State at which the saw mills should be
located; (iv) to constitute Committee to oversee compliance of Supreme c
Court's order and file status reports.

Environmental Law-Directions to State of J&K, Himachal Pradesh,
Tamil Nadu, Hill Regions of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal--Ban on felling
of trees-Exceptions to and conditions for applicability of exceptions
specified. D

Environmental Law-Protection of forests-Direction by Supreme
Court for closure of saw mills and wood based industry-Furtner direction
that the workers employed in such units will continue to be paid their full
emoluments due and shall not be.retrenched or removed from service for this E
reason.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Appeal No.
202 of 1995 etc.
'
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. F

Ashok Desai, Attorney General, N.N. Goswami, H.N. Salve, Rajiv
Dhawan, Shanti Bhushan, A.S. Nambiar, T.L.V. Iyer, A.K Ganguli, P.S.
Potti, M.S. Nargolkar, Jayant Das, S.N. Choudhary, Avadhbihari Rohtagi,
K. Amareshwari, D.P. Gupta, A.D.N. Rao, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Anil G
Katiyar, V. Krishnamurthy, A. Mariarputham, Dayan Krishnan, Ms. B.
Sunita Rao, Ms. N.N. Saikia, Ms. U. Hazaricka, S.R. Hegde, P.H. Pari;kh,
· E.R. Kumar, Indu Verma, KJ. John, Mahendar Vyas, P.K. Manohar,
Arvindh, V. Balachandran, T.V.S.N. Chari, Nikhil Nayyar, G. Prakash,
Gopal Singh, S.M. Jadhav, J.P. Verghese, S.R. Setia, V. Balaji, A.T.M.
Sampath, V.G. Pragasam, S.K. Agnihotri, Raj Kumar Mehta, H.S. Munjral, H
984 SUPREME COURT REP ORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, B.S. Chahar, Ashok Mathur, Ms. H. Wahi, Ms.
S. Hazarika, Ms. Nandini Mukherjee, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abba Jain, Ms. S. •
Janani, Kailash Vasdev, Prem Malhotra, Shakeel Ahmed Syed, D.N. Muk-
herjee, D.S. Mehra, B.B. Singh, AK. Srivastava, T. Anil Kumar, A
Venkateshwara Rao, Aruneshwar Gupta, J.S. Manhas, J.S. Attri, U.U.
Lalit (AC.), Ms. Purnima Bhat, Ms. Meenak~hi Sakhardanda, Altaf Nayak,
B R. Sasiprabhu, A.V. Palli, Zafar Shah, Atul Sharma, Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms.
Kavita Wadia, S.K. Bhattacharya, S.K. Dhingra and Ms. Ranu for the
appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
c In view of the great significance of the points involved in these
matters, relating to the protection and conservation of the forests
throughout the country, it was considered necessary that the Central
Government as well as the Governments of all the States are heard.
Accordingly, notice was issued to all of them. We have heard the learned
D Attorney General for the Union of India, learned counsel appearing for
the States and the parties/applicants and, in addition, the learned Amicus
Curiae, Shri H.N. Salve, assisted by Sarvashri U.U. Lalit, Mahender Das
and P.K. Manohar. After hearing all the learned counsel, who have
rendered very able assistance to the court, we have formed the opinion that
E the matters require a further indepth hearing to examine all the aspects
relating to the National Forest Policy. For this purpose, several points
which emerged during the course of the hearing require further study by
the learned counsel and, therefore, we defer the continuation of this
hearing for some time to enable the learned counsel to further study these
r
points.
F
However, we are of the opinion that certain interim directions are
necessary at this stage in respect of some aspects. We have heard the
learned Attorney General and the other learned counsel on these aspects.

It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in certain
G quarters about the true scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for
short the 'Act') and the meaning of the word "forest" used therein. There
is also a resulting misconception about the need of prior approval of the
. "

Central Government, as required by Section 2 of the Act, in respect of
certain activities in the forest area which are more often of a commercial
H nature. It is necessary to clarify that position.
T.N.GODAVARMANTI-llRUMULKPAD. v. U.0.1. 985

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check A
further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and
therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and
for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of
the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest: must
be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers B
all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected
or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation
Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include
11
forest 11 as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded
as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is
how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The C
provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conserva-
tion of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to
all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification
thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of
this court in Ambica quany Works and 01'. v. State of Gujarat and 01~., D
[1987] 1 SCC 213, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.
[1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 504, and recently in the order dated 29th November,
1996 in W.P.(C) No. 749/95 (Supreme Cowt Monit01ing Committee v.
Mussorie Dehradun Development Auth01ity and ors.). The earlier decision
of this court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and ors., [1985] 3 SCC
643, has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent E
decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerg-
ing from the decisions of this court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the
perception of any State Government or authority. This, has become neces-
sary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan
., even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such F
area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this court. It is reasonable
to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the
correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the
necessary remedial measures without any further delay.

We further direct as under : G

I. General :

1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious
that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non- H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with Section 2
of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout
the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must
cease forthwith. It is, therefore, dear that the running of saw mills of any
kind including veneer or ply-wood mills, and mining of any mineral are
B non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior ap-
proval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima
facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every
State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such ac- .
tivities forthwith,

C 2. In addition to the above, in the tropical wet ever-green forests of
Tirap and Changlang in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there would be a
complete ban on felling of any kind of trees therein because of their
particular significance to maintain ecological balance needed to preserve
bio-diversity. All saw mills veneer mills and ply-wood mills in Tirap and
D Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a distance of 100 kms, from
its border, in Assam, should also be dosed immediately. The State Govern-
ments of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam must ensure compliance of this
direction.

E 3. The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in
accordance with the Working Plans of the State Governments, as approved
by the Central Government. In the absence of any Working Plan in any
particular State, such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system
exists, the felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest
Department of the State Government or the State Forest Corporation.
F
4. There shall be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and
timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to any other State of
the country either by rail, road or water-ways. The Indian Railways and the
State Governments are directed to take all measures necessary to ensure
G strict compliance of this direction. This ban will not apply to the movement
of certified timber required for defence or other Government purposes.
This ban will also not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of
tree;rlanted in any area which is not a forest. ...
5. Each State Government should constitute within one month an
H Expert Committee to :
T.N.GODAVARMAN1HIRUMULKPAD. V. U.0.1. 987

(i) Identify areas which are "forests'', irrespective of whether they A
• are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and ir-
respective of the ownership of the land of such forest;

(ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand'degraded,
denuded or cleared; and
B
(iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the
Government and those belonging to private persons.

6. Each State Government should within two months, file a report
regarding :- C
(i) the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills actually
operating within the State, with particulars of their real ownership;

(ii) the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and
sawing; D
(iii) their proximity to the nearest forest;

(iv) their source of timber.

7. Each State Government should constitute within one month, an E
Expert Committee to assess :

(i) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State qua saw mills
and timber based industry;

(ii) the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained F
in the State;

(iii) the optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, at which
the saw mill should be located.
G
8. The Expert Committees so constituted should be requested to give
its report within one month or'·being constituted.

9. Each State Government wol)id constitute a Committee comprising
of the Principal Chief Conservator ' of Forests and another Senior Officer
-l to oversee the compliance of this order and file status reports. H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A II. FOR THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR:

1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in any "forest", public
or private. This ban will not affect felling in any private plantations com-
prising of trees planted by private persons or the Social Forestry Depart-
ment of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and in such plantations, felling will
B be strictly in accordance with law. ·

2. In 'forests', the State GoYernment may either departmentally or
through the State Fores! Corporation remove fallen trees or fell and
remove diseased or dry standing timber, and that only from areas other
C than those notified under the Jammu & Kashmir Wild Life Protection Act,
1978 or any other law banning such felling or removal of trees.

3. For this purpose, the State Government will constitute an Expert
Committee comprising of a representative being an IFS officer posted in
the State of Jamrnu & Kashmir, a representative of the State Government,
D and two private experts of eminence and the Managing Director of the
State Forest Corporation (as Member Secretary) who will fJX the qualitative
and quantitative norms for the felling of fallen trees, diseased and dry
standing trees. The State shall ensure that the trees so felled and removed
by it are strictly in accordance with these norms.

E 4. Any felling of trees in forest or otherwise or any clearance of land
for execution of projects, shall be in strict compliance with the Jamrnu &
Kashmir Forest Conservation Act, 1990 and any other laws applying there-
to. However, any trees so felled, and the disposal of such trees shall be
done exclusively by the State Forest Corporation and no private agency will
F be permitted to deal with this aspect. This direction will also cover the
submerged areas of the THEIN Dam.

5. All timber obtained, as aforesaid or otherwise, shall be utilised
within the State, preferably to meet the timber and fuel wood requirements
of the local people, the Government and other local institutions.
G
6. The movement of trees or timber (sawn or otherwise) from the
State shall, for the present, stand suspended , except for the use of DGS
& D, Railways and Defence. Any such movement for such use will -

(a) be effected after due certification, consignment-wise made by
H the Managing Director of the State Corporation which will include
T.N.GODAVARMAN1HIRUMULKPAD. v. U.0.1. 989

certification that the timber has come from State Forest Corpora- A
tion sources; and

(b) be undertaken by either the Corporation itself, the J ammu &
Kashmir Forest Department or the receiving agency.

7. The State of Jammu & Kashmir will file, preferably within one B
month from today, a detailed affidavit specifying the quantity of timber
held by private persons purchased from State Forest Corporation Depots
for transport outside the State (other than for consumption by the DGS &
D, Railways and Defence). Further directions in this regard may be con-
sidered after the affidavit is filed.
c
8. No saw mill, veneer or plywood mill would be permitted to operate
in this State at a distance of less than 8 Kms. from the boundary of any
demarcated forest areas. Any existing mill falling in this belt should be
relocated forthwith.
D
III. FOR THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND THE
HILL REGIONS OF THE STATES OF UTTAR PRADESH AND WEST
BENGAL:

1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in any forest, public or
private. This ban will not effect felling in any private plantation comprising E
of trees planted in any area which is not a 'forest'; and which has not been
converted from an earlier "forest". This ban will not apply to permits
granted to the right holders for their bonafide personal use in Himachal
Pradesh.

2. In a 'forest', the State Government may either departmentally or F
through the State Forest Corporation remove fallen trees or fell and
remove diseased or dry standing timber from areas other than those
notified under Section 18 or section 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act,
1972 or any other Act banning such felling or removal of trees.

3. For this purpose, the State Government is to constitute an expert G

. . Committee comprising a representative from M0 EF, a representative of
the State Government, two private experts of eminence and the MD of the
State Forest Corporatio.n (as Member Secretary), who will fix the qualita-
tive and quantitative norms for the felling of fallen trees and diseased and
standing timber. The State shall ensure that the trees so felled and removed H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A are in accordance with these norms.
4. Felling of trees in any forest or any clearance of forest land in
execution of projects shall be in strict conformity with the Forest Conser-
vation Act, 1980 and any other laws applying thereto. Moreover, any trees
so felled, and the disposal of such trees shall be done exclusively by the
B State Forest Corporation and no private agency is to be involved in any
aspect thereof.

IV. FOR THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU:

1. There will be a complete ban on felling of trees in all 'forest areas.
C This will however not apply to:-
(a) trees which have been planted and grown, and are not of
spontaneous growth, and

(b) are in areas which were not forests earlier, but were cleared
D for any reason.

2. The State Government, within four weeks from today, is to con-
stitute a committee for identifying all "forests".

E 3. Those tribals who are part of the social forestry programme in
respect of patta lands, other than forests, may continue to grow and cut
according to the Government Scheme provided that they grow and cut
trees in accordance with the law applicable.

4. In so far as the plantations (tea, coffee, cardamom etc.) are
F concerned, it is directed as under:
(a) The felling of shade trees in these plantations will be -

(i) limited to trees which have been planted, and not those which
have grown spontaneously;
G
(ii) limited to the species identified in the TANTEA report;

(iii) in accordance with the recommendations of (including to the
extent recommended by) TANTEA; and

\H (iv) under the supervision of the statutory committee constituted
T.N.GODAVARMANTillRUMULKPAD. v. U.0.1. 991

by the State Government. A
.a
(b) In so far as the fu~l trees planted by the plantations for fuel wood
outside the forest area are concerned, the State Government is directed to
obtain within four weeks, a report from TANTEA as was done in the case
of Shade trees, and the further action for felling them will be as per that
report. Meanwhile, eucalyptus and wattle trees in such area may be felled B
by them for their own use as permitted by the statutory committee.

(c) the State Government is directed to ascertain and identify those
areas of the plantation which are a "forest" and are not in active use as a
plantation. No felling of any trees is however to be permitted in these areas,
and sub-paras (b) and (c) above will not apply to such areas.
c
(d) There will be no further expansion of the plantations in a manner
so as to involve encroachment upon (by way of clearing or otherwise) of
11
forests 11 •
D
5. As far as the trees already cut, prior to the interim orders of this
court dated December 11, 1995 are concerned, the same may be permitted
to be removed provided they were not so felled from Janmam land. The
State Government would verify these trees and mark them suitably to
ensure that this order is duly complied with. For the present, this is being
permitted as a one time measure. E
6. Insofar as felling of any trees in J anmam lands is concerned
(whether in plantations or otherwise), the ban on felling will operate
subject to any order made in the Civil Appeal Nos. 367 to 375 of 1977 in
C.A. Nos. 1344-45 of 1976. After the order is made in those Civil Appeals
on the I.As. pending therein, if necessary, this aspect may be re-examined. F

7. This order is to operate and to be implemented, notwithstanding
any order at variance, made or which may be made by any Government or
any authority, tribunal or court, including the High Court.

The earlier orders made in these matters shall be read, modified G

~ . wherever necessary to this extent. This order is to continue, until further
orders. This order will operate and be complied with by all concerned,
notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made
\
hereafter, by any authority, including the Central or any State Government
or any court (including High Court) or Tribunal. H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A We also direct that notwithstanding the closure of any saw mills or
other wood-based industry pursuant to this order, the workers employed
in such units will continue to be paid their full emoluments due and shall
not be retrenched or removed from service for this reason.

We are informed that the Railway authorities are still using wooden
B sleepers for laying tracks. The Ministry of Railways will file an affidavit
giving full particulars in this regard including the extent of wood consumed
by them, the source of supply of wood, and the steps taken by them to fmd
alternatives to the use of wood.

I.A. Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202
C of 1995 and I.A. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
171 of 1996 are disposed of, accordingly.

List the matter on February 25, 1997 as part-heard for further
hearing.
D T.N.A. Petition disposed of.

I
'
.-