Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: forest conservation act 1980 Page 1 of about 100,219 results (0.227 seconds)

Oct 16 1998 (HC)

The Goa Foundation and Another Vs. the Conservator of Forests and Othe ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999(2)BomCR695

..... and illegal constructions are mushrooming. the petitioner goa foundation has made a beginning in pointing out such illegal constructions in violation of crz regulations as well as forest (conservation) act, 1980 and has set the ball rolling exposing illegal constructions. the challenge to the locus of the petitioner to maintain this petition, therefore, cannot be accepted.27. ..... considered is whether the terms and conditions of licence as well as sanad have been violated.24. large scale deforestation resulting in ecological imbalance is the object behind the forest (conservation) act, 1980. the apex court in a series of judgments including ambika quarry works v. state of gujarat, : air1987sc1073a and rural litigation and entitlement kendra v. state of ..... of the ownership. this is how it has to be understood for the purpose of section 2 of the act. the provisions enacted in the forest conservation act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof.' 25. in samatha v. state of a.p. & ..... restore the hill to its original vegetation; that directions to the deputy collector (respondent no. 5) to first procure prior clearance under the forest conservation act, 1980, from the ministry of environment and forests before issuing any sanad for conversion of plots or lands. pending hearing of the petition, interim order from proceeding with any further construction work .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2009 (SC)

Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2009AIRSCW3656; JT2009(5)SC127; 2010(1)MhLJ705(SC); 2009(4)SCALE132; (2009)5SCC373; 2009(4)LC1805(SC)

..... record irrespective of the ownership. this is how it has to be understood for the purpose of section 2 of the act. the provisions enacted in the forest conservation act, 1980 for the conservation 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 ..... .n. godavarman thirumulkpad v. union of india and ors. : air1997sc1228 , this court adverted to the misconception entertained in certain quarters about the true scope of the 1980 act and the meaning of the word 'forest' used therein and held:the forest conservation act, 1980, was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the ..... hence cannot be considered for regularization at this juncture.5. accordingly, the state government may take up for implementation only such decision of pre 25.10.1980 period which could not be implemented because of forest (conservation) act, 1980 intervening and propose regularization of encroachments as per those decisions and in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down in those decisions. no encroachments not covered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1999 (HC)

Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2000Ker131

..... . p-42 in the o.p.) the decision to regularise the encroachments that had taken place prior to 1-1-1977. i.e. before the enactment of forest (conservation) act, 1980 on 25-10-1980 was taken in terms of letter dated 31-1-1995. it is the duty of the first respondent to ensure that all stipulated conditions are complied with before pattayam ..... decision of the state government to regularise the occupants that took place prior to 1-1-1977 was announced two years before the promulgation of the forest conservation act, 1980, the areas under occupation have ceased to be forest lands years back. they have been converted into agricultural lands and human settlements. it is appropriate to notice in this context that in idukki district ..... consideration of the proposal of the state government contained in the above mentioned d.o. letter, the central government hereby grants approval under section 2 of forest (conservation) act, 1980 for diversion of 28,588.159 hect. forest land in the idukki, pathanamthitta. thrissur, ernakulam and kollam districts for regularisation of pre 1-1-1977 encroachments and to assign land under the kerala land ..... letter no. 51289/fg/1/80 'dated 26-6-1986 on the above mentioned subject seeking prior approval of the central government in accordance with section 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980. 2. after careful consideration of the proposal of the state government, the central government hereby agrees in principle for approval for diversion of 28,588.159 hectares as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2005 (HC)

Dr. Jaykrushna Patnaik Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Di ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT743; 2005(II)OLR40

..... concurrence of the central government. in. t. n. godavarman case (supra) dealing with the scope of the expression 'forest' and speaking on the scope of the 'forest' in the forest conservation act, 1980 their lordships of the apex court have stated thus:-'the forest conservation act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein ..... 1 he took up the matter and after considering all the materials observed that the petitioner had acquired the land on 24.1.1985 i.e., after 25.10.1980 when forest conservation act, 1980 came into force. he further observed that the hon'ble high court by order dated 18.12.2000 in ojc no. 7498 of 2000 had put an embargo on ..... has rightly been denied tt permit.5. the short question that arises for consideration in view of the rival contentions of the parties is whether in view of the forest conservation act, 1980 and the order of this court dated 18.12.2000 passed in misc. case no. 12538 of 2000 arising out of ojc no. 7498 of 2000 directing not ..... record irrespective of the ownership. this is how it has to be understood for the purpose of section of the act. the provision enacted in the forest conservation act, 1980 for the conservation of forest 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 decision of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1995 (HC)

V.R. Thirumalaiswamy Gounder and ors. Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1996Ker213

..... of kerala rejectingtheir claim for execution of a lease in their favour on the ground that the lease in question is one hit by the forest (conservation) act, 1980, act 69 of 1980 and since the conditions of that act were not satisfied the government order ext. p1 earlier passed, could not be complied with or implemented.2. the firm had a lease in respect of certain ..... not be unjustified in holding that the firm has not shown that the land in question had ceased to be forest, for the purpose of the forest (conservation) act.in the result, on an anxious consideration of the relevant aspects, we hold that the forest (conservation) act, 1980 does apply to the lands in question and consequently the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted in ..... claim of the firm for leasing of the land to it without the prior approval of the central government, cannot be sustained.7. as we read section 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 it seems to us, that explanation is relevant only to clause (ii) of section 2 of the ..... was to take further action in the matter.3. before any effective action could be taken, the forest (conservation) act came into force on 25-10-1980. without reference to that act or applying his mind to the possible effects of that act, the divisional forest officer, nenmara issued ext. p2 notice to the managing partner of the firm calling upon him to remit a sum of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1997 (HC)

K.V. Shanmugam and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1997Mad338; 1997(2)CTC431; (1998)IMLJ417

..... fifth respondent in w.p. no. 8505 of 95 subject to the concurrence of the central government is therefore violative of the provisions of section 2(ii) of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 as interpreted by ihc aforesaid decisions.23. even at the out-set, i have held that both the petitioners are entitled to challenge the impugned order, more particularly ..... case. iii) the attempt of the petitioners are not genuine, since they have not challenged the other grants. iv) a joint reading of s. 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 and rule 39 of the minor mineral concession rules clearly shows that the government have not exceeded their limits in passing the impugned order, since it is open to the ..... quarrying operations, in the idling quarry lands.10. the second respondent, namely, union of india has also filed acounter-affidavit contending that as per s. 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980, prior concurrence of the central government has to be obtained.11. the third respondent has also filed additional counter-affidavit wherein he has furnished thedetails regarding actual mining area. ..... for the leases expired 10 years back.4. it is further contended that parliament has enacted porest (conservation) act, 1980. as per s. 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 (herein referred to as 'the act'), an application-for quarrying lease or renewal of the lease of forest land containing minor minerals can not be allowed without seeking prior approval of the central government. in view .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1989 (HC)

Parisar an Organisation and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR79

..... the other hand, was that the suit land was not a forest land and therefore the provisions of section 2(ii) of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 were not applicable.the expression 'forest land' had not been defined under the indian forest act, 1927 or under the forest (conservation) act, 1980. section 3 of the indian forest act, however, gives some clue to its meaning. section 3 empowers ..... 20, 1985 annexure 4 to the affidavit of respondent no. 3) to send a proposal for obtaining permission of the central government in accordance with the forest (conservation) act, 1980 in respect of the remaining portion of the land under survey no. 81 showed that despite notification disforesting the suit land in 1979, the land under survey ..... the statement of objects and reasons support our above view inasmuch as all these merely contemplate conservation, preservation and/or protection of forest. the name of the act is '(the) forest (conservation) act, 1980'. the preamble reads thus :'an act to provide for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.'whereas the statement of objects and ..... 1987 (exh. d page 37).7. another argument advanced by shri shivade for the petitioner was that after the passing of the forest (conservation) act, 1980, no forest land could be allowed to be used for non-forest purposes without the prior permission of the central government. in this case, prior permission of the central government was admittedly not obtained .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2000 (HC)

Goa Foundation and ors. Vs. State of Goa Through Secretary and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(3)BomCR813

..... merely because one of the ministries of the government of india had granted permission, that permission would not be permission for the purpose of the forest (conservation) act, 1980. that argument must be rejected. under the forest (conservation) act, 1980 though ultimately it is the government of india that grants permission, in terms of the rules framed, the matter must be considered by the committee ..... within the area of 4.44 hectares.5. on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the lease granted is contrary to the provisions of section 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980. the lease, therefore, will have to be cancelled. prayer (a) as sought for by the petitioners though styled as writ of certiorari, is in fact a ..... 4 was not restrained from proceeding with further development. respondent no. 4 could not proceed with any diversion or change of user without permission under the provisions of the forest (conservation) act, 1980. therefore the reliefs as prayed for.3. on behalf of respondent no. 4, one t. ramaswamy, general manager of mining division and its constituted attorney filed a reply ..... as placed therein. it is, therefore, clear that the permission was granted to respondent no. 4 under the industries (development & regulation) act, 1951. can this permission be said to be a permission under the forest (conservation) act, 1980? we will reproduce section 2 as it would be essential for the purpose of subsequent discussion. section 2 reads as under:--- '2. restriction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1997 (HC)

M/S. Gateway Hotels and Gateway Resorts Limited, Bangalore Vs. Nagarah ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1999(5)KarLJ63

..... .1. with the proclaimed object of protecting the wildlife and preserving the ecology, the respondents alleged the violation of the wildlife (protection) act, 1972, hereinafter called the 'wildlife act' and the forest (conservation) act, 1980, hereinafter called as the 'forest act', and filed the writ petition challenging the validity of various government orders culminating in the lease deed at annexure-f, contending that the ..... land was never afforested. in fact, it was leased out to respondent 3 in the year 1975 for afforestation as distinct from reafforestation. section 2(ii) of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 has therefore, no application in the facts of the case'.28. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ..... set aside. (2) the respondent-state and the appellants are at liberty to pray and seek the approval of the central government in terms of section 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980, which, if prayed or applied for, may be granted or refused strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. (3) till such time the approval is granted, ..... of the ownership. this is how it is to be understood for the purpose of section 2 of the act. the provisions enacted in the forest conservation act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of ownership or classification thereof. this aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2008 (HC)

Siddeshwara International Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Se ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2009KAR1356; 2009(3)KCCRSN99; 2009(4)AIRKarR367

..... record irrespective of the ownership. this is how it has to be understood for the purpose of section 2 of the act. the provisions enacted in the forest conservation act, 1980 for the conservation 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 ..... of land covered with trees and one usually of considerable extent. therefore, there cannot be any distinction between the government forest and private forest in the matter of forest wealth of the nation and in the matter of environment and ecology. the forest conservation act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately resulted in ecological imbalance and therefore, the provisions made therein ..... feet width on steep slops, at times on slope exceeding 45 degree duly clearing the thick forest growth on his patta land in violation of karnataka preservation of trees act 1976, forest conservation act 1980, environmental protection act 1986 and rules there in. it was stated by sri ks sai baba, conservator of forests, chikmagalur circle that this new road was opened up subsequent to his inspection of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //