'Environment More Important Than Your Civil Rights; Once A Forest, Always A Forest Unless De-notified', Says Supreme Court

"Environment is more important than your civil rights. Your civil rights are subordinate to the environment. Once a forest, it is always a forest unless it is denotified. The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 also says that", the Supreme Court orally remarked on Tuesday.Underlining the "public trust principle", the Court said, "It is only because of such strict interpretation and exposition by this court that the forest cover is increasing"The bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, A. S. Oka and C. T. Ravikumar was hearing the pleas which raised the issue regarding forest and non-forest land in reference to interplay between provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the land which forms part of development plan under the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971. In the order of 3.5.2013 impugned in the connected appeals, the NGT passed an interim Order restraining all non-forest activities in the lands notified under section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. On appeal, the Supreme Court, at the time of issuing notice, allowed the appellants therein to carry out the business of hosting marriages in the meanwhile. In the impugned order of 16.5.2016 passed on another Original Application, the NGT observed that so far as the aforementioned order of the Apex Court is concerned, the Supreme Court in given facts and circumstances of the case has permitted the Appellant therein to carry out business of hosting marriages pending the decision in the said Appeal. Further, in the impugned order of 16.5.2016, the NGT proceeded to direct the authorities to initiate action prohibiting non-forest activity in accordance with law.On Tuesday, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh made submissions for the petitioners.Justice A. M. Khanwilkar observed, "Environment is more important than your civil rights. Your civil rights are subordinate to the environment. Once a forest, it is always a forest unless it is denotified. The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 also says that""It is not reservation under town planning scheme. Town planning is a materialistic approach. This is a different scheme, it is an environmental approach. Environment must prevail over all else...35 (Indian Forest Act) is invoked because everybody feels that this area is required to be preserved. Whether private or government land, everything is covered by virtue of this notification. If government land, then section 4 (Indian Forest Act), if otherwise then section 35 notification. The entire area is covered as forest area. Suppose the whole area is government land which is covered by section 4 and some private land is in the centre of that area and for this no notification is issued, does it cease to be a forest? Because of the pressure, some dispensation will issue notification under 35. Because it is a forest area. And it needs to be recognised as forest area", said Justice Khanwilkar.Continuing, the judge expressed, "'Forest' is not defined. So it has to be understood in common parlance- that this area has been understood as forest area and it has to be so preserved for all times to come...The public trust principle! It is only because of such strict interpretation and exposition by this court that the forest cover is increasing!"Mr. Singh said, "Yes, Your Lordships, because of the concept of Intergenerational equity. That we have to look at not just this generation but the generations to come"On Tuesday, after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for the state of Haryana) and the petitioners, the bench agreed to also consider an IA by the state seeking permission to act upon the Punjab Land Preservation (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2019 after due publication in the official gazette. Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup also represented some petitioners.The Supreme Court had on March 1, 2019 asked the Haryana government not to act under the Amendment made to Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta were apprised of some amendments in the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 permitting the construction in the forest area and PLPA region. The bench was told that, even after the order was passed by the Apex court for removal of certain structures in Kant Enclave, the state of Haryana has made certain amendments in Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, in order to get rid of the said order. The bench reportedly criticised the state for such a move. It observed that "It is really shocking.You are destroying the forest. It is not permissible. You are not supreme and supreme is the rule of law". The Haryana Legislature had, the previous week, passed amendments to The Punjab Land Preservation Act, apparently opening up thousands of acres to real estate and other non-forest activity that were protected under it for over a century. As per PTI reports, the Chief Minister M. L. Khattar said the Punjab Land Preservation (Haryana Amendment)...

'Environment More Important Than Your Civil Rights; Once A Forest, Always A Forest Unless De-notified', Says Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

Tags