(1) The point arising in the present case is whether land which is notified u/s. 4 of the a. P. Forest act, but which is not described in the revenue accounts as "forest land," comes within the purview of section 2 (ii) of the forest (conservation) act, 1980. The facts in brief are as follows:
(2) The petitioner - company was granted a mining lease on 17 - 11 - 88in respect of six hectares of land in s. No. 508 of a. Kondur village in krishna district for a period of five years from 17 - 11 - 1988. The petitioner's firm started quarrying operations on 1 - 12 - 88, but on 15 - 4 - 89 the impugned proceedings have been issued by the assistant director of mines and geology, vijayawada suspeding the operations of the quarry lease. This order was passed on the basis that at the time when the lease was granted it was not noticed that land in s. Nos. 502 and 508 of this village were forest lands and that permission should have been obtained under the forest (conservation) act, 1980 from the central government. An interim order was passed by me on 27 - 4 - 1989 directing the forest settlement officer concerned, to submit a report after demarcating the land properly. The report has since been submitted by the forest settlement officer, nellore, dated 20 - 5 - 89. As per the said report, a notification u/s. 4 of the a. P. Forest act had been issued is g. O. Ms. No. 974 (fanda) department on 14 - 5 - 70 and published in the a. P. Gazette on 9 - 7 - 70. The notification was also published in the district gazette, krishna on 9 - 7 - 70. A proclamation was issued u/s. 6 inviting objections and the same was published in the district gazette, krishna on 9 - 7 - 79. Objections have been received and the same are under investigation by the forest settlement officer, nellore. It is clearly pointed out in the report that the extent of six hectares covered by s. No. 508 in question is included in the land covered by the notification u/s. 4 of the a. P. Forest act and that therefore, this land in proposed to be reserved as forest. So far as the revenue classification of the land in the revenue records is concerned, the survey number is described as "konda" (meaninga hill or hillock). This extent of six hectares forms part of larger extent of ac. 170. 00 out of a tolal extent of ac. 474 - 12 in s. No. 508 and the said extent of ac. 170. 00 is proposed to be reserved under the notification u/s. 4. The report no doubt states that prior permission of the central government under the forest (conservation) act, 1980, is not necessary as the land is merely proposed to be included in the reserve forest and there is only miscellaneous species of date plants in patches here and there and that the lease is for a short period.
(3) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner sri v. Rajagopalareddy has contended that under the provisions of the a. P. Forest act, the procedure is to propose land for being included in the reserve forest area by issuing a notification u/s. 4, issuing a proclamation u/s 6. And issuing a final notification u/s. 15 declaring the land to be reserved and that it is only then, that land can be said to be reserve forest land for the purposes of the forest (conservation) act, 1980. The learned counsel also relies upon a circular issued by the central government on 8 - 4 - 88 which stated that land notified u/s. 4 of the indian forest act, 1927 or other corresponding acts of any state and yet to be declared as reserve forest would fall under the provisions of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 if the land is described as "forest land" in the revenue records of the particular state.
(4) On other hand, the learned government pleader sri p. Sitaramaraju has contended that the forest (conservation) act, 1980 in sec. 2 refers not only to forests which are reserved, but also to other forest land and that even non - reserved forest land cannot be diverted for non - forest purposes. He points out that when once a notification is issued u/s. 4 of the a. P. Forest act, it is sufficient indication of the potentiality of the land being converted as part of a reserve forest land and that the description of the land as 'konda' in the revenue records is sufficient indication that the land can be treated as forest land for the purposes of forest conservation) act, 1980.
(5) The forest (conservation) act, 1980 is an act to provide for theconservation of forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The statement of object and reasons of the act read as follows: "deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental deterioration. Deforestation has been taking place on a large scale in the country and it had caused widespread concern.
(6) With a view to checking further deforestation, the presidentpromulgated on the 25th october, 1980, the forest (conservation) ordinance, 1980. The ordinance made the prior approval of the central government necessary for de - reservation of reserved forests and for use of forest land for non - forest purpose. The ordinance also provided for the constitution of an advisory committee to advise the central government with regard to grant of such approval.
(7) The bill seeks to replace the aforesaid ordinance. " it would benecessary to refer to the provisions of section - 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 and the explanation thereto: "sec. 2. Restriction on the de - reservation 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 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 non - forest purpose. Explanation:for the purposes of this section "non - forest purposes" means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereto for any purpose other than reafforestation. "
(8) A reading of the abovesaid provision would show that the provisionis applicable not merely to reserve forests, but also to "any forest land" and if the same is to be used for non - forest purposes, the permission of the central government becomes necessary, in view of the non - abstente clause in the opening part of section - 2 and the very purpose and intendment of the statute. The point for consideration is whether the land in the present case covered by the six hectares comes within the definition of section 2 (ii) of the central act.
(9) In m/s yashwant stone works vs. State the question arose in theallahabad high court in connection with a mining lease and the argument was that the provisions of the forest (conservation) act did not apply. In that context the division bench considered the relevant provisions of the state act and the central act and observed as follows: "reverting to the argument of the petitioner's counsel that as no notification under section 20 of the forest act, 1927, declaring the forest in question as "reserved forest" had been issued therefore, proir approval of the central government was required, we find ourselves unable to agree. Under sec. 2 of the 1980 act, there are two prohibitions. The first is that the state government would not be empowered to declare a reserved forest as ceasing to be so, and the second is that any forest land or any portion thereof cannot be used for non - forest purpose. The words important in cl. (ii) of sec. 2 are: "any forest lands". The word "foreat" has not been defined in the act. This word has been used in the general sense, which means all the lands bearing vegetative associations demarcated by trees of any size exploited or not, capable of producing wood of other forest products of exerting an influence on the climate or on the water regime or providing shelter for livestock and wildlife. " this definition has been given by food and agriculture organisation (f. A. O.) of the united nations. " (emphasis supplied) the division bench again observed a little later as follows: "it (act) applies to "any forest land" which is to be used for non - forest purpose. "any" is a word of very wide meaning and prima facie the use of this word excludes limitation or qualification. If the word "any" is also kept into account, there would be no difficulty is in finding that the term "forest" has not to be confined to "reserved forest" only. Section, 2 imposing restriction on the use of forest lands for non - forest purposes will apply to all the forests. " (emphasis supplied) it is therefore, clear that the provisions of section 2 (ii) of the act are applicable not only to reserve forest land but also to other forest lands. The next question to be decided is whether "any forest land" includes land of the nature granted on lease to the petitioner. In the above said allahabad case some forest values have been quoted from encylopaedia britannica, vol. 9, page 614 as follows: "it is essentially a community - technically known as an eco - system in which trees are dominant form of vegetation but in which other plants, animals, soil and the area all play an important role. Amongst the important services rendered by the forest are control of soil erosion, protection of water - sheds and amoliration of local climate. The forest canopy breaks the forest of the violent rainfall on the soil. The decaying leaves and twig make the soil more porous and, therefore, more effective reservoir for the storage of water. "
(10) It is also necessary to refer to the provisions of article 48 - a andarticle 51 - a (g) of the constitution of india. Article 48 - a prescribes that the state shall endeavour toprotect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Art. 51 - a (g) states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of india to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.
(11) In rural litigation and entitlement konda, dehradun vs. State ofu. P. And others the supreme court observed as follows
"i wish to observe that though expliotation of mineral resources in the interest of industrial growth of the country is necessary, yet such mines should be so worked as not to disturb the ecology and not to affect the livelihood and the living conditions of a very large number of the people. Advantage gained by working the mines for industrial growth and national development in a manner which may seriously prejudice the interests of a targe number of human beings and disturb the ecological balance, may very much be out - weighed by the serious consequences which are likely to follow. Industrial development is necessary for economic growth of the country in the largest interests of the nation. If, however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved by haphazard and reckless working of the mines resulting in less of life, loss of property, loss of basic amenities like supply of water and creation of ecological imbalance there may ultimately be no real economic growth and no real prosperity. It is necessary to strike a proper balance. In my opinion, the appropriate authorities at the time of granting leases should take all these factors into consideration and should while granting lease of mines for exploitation of mineral provide for adequate safeguards. Had appropriate safeguards been provided at the time of granting of leases, it would not indeed, have been necessary for us to direct the closure of so many mines and a good deal of sufferings of the people of the locality would have been avoided."
(12) It is also necessary to refer to notification dated 8 - 4 - 1988 reliedupon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, it was pointed cut that certain state governments were de - notify land which were notified u/s. 4 of the indian forest act, 1927 earlier for reservation. The question arose whether while undertaking such de - reservation, the state governments have to obtain permission from the central government. The notification refers to a judgment of the gujarat high court in civil application no. 1665/1987. The high court held that when the government records themselves show a particular land as forest land, then it is prima facie forest land and in that case, section 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 would apply.
(13) Basing on the abovesaid decision of the gujarat high court,the central government stated in the above said circular that eventhough the reservation of any land as 'forest land' has not become operative and there was only a preliminary notification proposing to reserve certain lands as forest land, still if the land was described as 'forest land' in the revenue records, the permission of the central government would be necessary for de - reservation of the land. The central government finally observed as follows: "in view of this clarification the areas which were notified under sec. 4 of the indian forest act, 1927 with the intention to be notified as reserved forests and which are recorded as "forests" in the records of the state government, can be denotified or diverted for other non - forest purpose only with the prior approval of the central government. All diversions of forest areas which were notified under sec. 4 of the indian forest act without prior approval of the central government after coming into force of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 are therefore, abinitio invalid. It is requested that all such diversions which may have been made in violation of the forest (conservation) act may be cancelled".
(14) Bearing the above aspects of a 'forest land' in view, i am of theopinion that merely because land is not described as 'forest land' in the revenue accounts, the same cannot bs treated as not bring 'forest land'. The matter has now to be decided keeping in mind the actual nature of the land and not merely by the description in the revenue accounts. It may be that any positive description of the land as 'forest laad' in the revenue accounts may help the court in treating the land as 'forest land', but in the absence of such description, the evidence of the actual nature of the land may aldo lead to the conclusion that the land is, in its true nature, 'forest land'.
(15) Such as inference can, in my view, certainly be raised on thefacts of this case, from two important circumstances. Firstly, the preliminary notification under section 4 of the a. P. Forest act showseven without a final notification under section 15that according to the export opinion of the forest department ot the state government, the land can be treated as 'forest land' and further be reserved as and when a notification is issued under section 15 as forest land extinguishing all private rights such as rights of way, water rights etc,, in the land. The second piece of material before the count is the description of the land as 'konda' (hill or hill - rock) in the revenue accounts. The view of the forest department of the state government that the land is 'forest land' for purposes of sec. 2 (ii) of the central act, is therefore, based on sufficient material and cannot be treated as invalid.
(16) It may be noted that revenue accounts are maintained mainly forthe purposes of collection of land revenue. If it is private land in which there is a forest, the land might be described as patta land with forest. If it is government poramboke land containing forests, it could be described as forest poramboke. If the land in question contains a hillrock, it may be described as a konda (hill or hillrock). It does not make any difference for revenue purposes for collection of taxes, i. E. , whether the land is described as a konda or a forest land. As already stated, the very fact that the land of six hectares in question is included in a total extent of ac. 170 - 00 u/s. 4 (1) of the a. P. Forest act gives a clear indication that at one time and even now the land has all the potentialities of forest land. It cannot, therefore, be said that the land does not come within the purview of section 2 (ii) of the central act.
(17) The opinion of the forest settlement officer that the land doesnot come within the purview of the central act cannot be accepted for, being a revenue official, he does not have the necessary technical expertise to know about the potentiality of the land for being proposed for reservation as forest land and it is only the officials of the forest department of the state government that are more competent to decide or give any opinion on the said question. The forest department has already expressed its opinion to reserve the land for forest purposes by issuing a notification under sec. 4 and what remains to be done is to see whether there are any private rights in the forest are to be extinguished or continued. Therefore, it is not permissible for an official of the revenue department to give any opinion which runs contrary to the expert opinion of the officials of the forest department. The counter - affidavit filed in the case also shows that according to the forest department, the land partakes of the character of forest land and that permission of the central government is necessary.
(18) For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails, and isdismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee rs. 200/ -.