- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The court considered multiple Interlocutory Applications (IAs) arising out of reports submitted by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). Two reports were central to the present order:
- A CEC report dated 28 April 2006 concerning exemption from payment of Net Present Value (NPV) for diverting forest land to relocate villagers from national parks and sanctuaries.
- A CEC report dated 27 April 2006 seeking urgent permission for repairs of the Gangao Dam located within the Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh.
The court formally took the reports on record, registered them as separate IAs, and issued directions both on the substance of the requests and on various ancillary applications relating to forest management, encroachment removal, mining leases, and other matters. The order is therefore largely procedural, addressing immediate relief and scheduling further hearings or affidavits where necessary.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Amicus Curiae
- Submitted that once land is placed in the Forest Department’s “land bank” after mining operations, it cannot be withdrawn without complying with the Forest (Conservation) Act.
State Government and Lease-holders
- Disputed the amicus curiae’s position regarding withdrawal of land from the land bank, contending that different procedures apply.
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)
- Sought time to file an affidavit clarifying its official position on the land-bank procedure and the legal requirements for removing land once placed therein.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court’s analysis was brief and primarily administrative:
- On the CEC report concerning relocation of villagers, the court allowed the MoEF to approve diversion of forest land without immediate payment of NPV, noting that a final decision would await the Expert Committee’s forthcoming report on NPV.
- On the CEC report for repair of Gangao Dam, the court agreed that heavy rains had caused damage requiring urgent attention. It granted permission for repairs subject to detailed safeguards, including:
- Locating labour camps outside forest areas and using local labour where possible.
- Strict limits on road work specifications and prohibition of black-topping.
- No tree felling, blasting, or extraction of soil or stone from protected areas, save limited salvaging approved by field officers.
- Advance disclosure of personnel, equipment, and timelines.
- Restricting work to daylight hours and banning night-time vehicular movement.
- Funding anti-poaching measures and boundary-wall construction up to ₹10 lakhs by the project proponent.
- Empowering forest authorities to suspend work upon violation of conditions.
- The court declined to impose the usual 5% project-cost payment for the dam repair “for the present.”
- It ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to explain via affidavit why repairs had not commenced despite damage occurring in July 2005.
- Additional IAs were either dismissed, adjourned, or remitted to the CEC for fresh hearing, reflecting the court’s ongoing supervisory role in forest-related matters.
Holding and Implications
ORDERED:
- MoEF may provisionally approve diversion of forest land for relocation of villagers without payment of NPV, subject to future determination by an Expert Committee.
- Urgent repairs to Gangao Dam in Panna Tiger Reserve are permitted under stringent environmental safeguards and without the immediate 5% project-cost levy.
- Multiple ancillary IAs were disposed of through dismissal, adjournment, or referral to the CEC for further examination.
Implications: The order grants immediate practical relief for conservation-related infrastructure and relocation projects while preserving the court’s oversight pending expert evaluation of NPV and other environmental safeguards. No new legal precedent was created; the directives are confined to the specific facts and applications before the court.
Order
Recommendation of CEC regarding exemption from payment of NPV for relocation of villagers from national parks/sanctuaries
1. The report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) dated 28-4-2006 is taken on board. It shall be registered and numbered as an IA.
2. Considering the report, we direct that subject to final orders that may be passed on the report of the Expert Committee constituted in IA No. 566 regarding NPV, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) may approve diversion of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act for relocation of villagers from national parks/sanctuaries without, for the present, payment of NPV.
3. The application should come up along with the report of the Expert Committee.
CEC Report regarding permission sought by the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department for urgent repairs of Gangao Dam situated in Panna Tiger Reserve, M.P
4. The report of CEC is taken on board. It shall be registered and numbered as an IA.
5. We have perused the report of CEC dated 27-4-2006 regarding the repairs of Gangao Dam situated in Panna Tiger Reserve, M.P We grant permission to carry out repairs of the said dam located within the Panna Tiger Reserve subject to the following safeguards/conditions:
(i) The labour camp will be located outside the PTR/forest area in Village Bhusor or at any other convenient place approved by the FD, PTR. As far as possible only local unskilled labourers will be used from the villages around the PTR. Adequate arrangement for the supply of fuel wood from outside the boundary of the PTR to the labourers in the camp shall be made.
(ii) The repairs of the existing road will be undertaken as per the specification approved by the Field Direction, PTR. In no case, black topping of the road will be permitted.
(iii) Felling of trees, blasting of any type, digging of soil, or removal of stone from the PTR/adjoining forest area shall not be permitted. However, salvaging of stones from the damaged structure and use of silt obtained by de-silting the reservoir may be permitted by the FD, PTR.
(iv) The details of the staff, the number of unskilled/skilled labourers, vehicles, machinery, etc. to be used in the repair works along with the time-frame for the repair will be made available in advance to the FD, PTR for his approval.
(v) The repair works shall be carried out only between dawn to dusk. There shall be no movement of vehicles during the night.
(vi) For regulating the movement of vehicles, staff, labourers, etc. and to control poaching in the impact area of the PTR, the construction of the boundary wall along with the entry gate, a forest post, appropriate anti-poaching measures, fire patrolling, etc. will be undertaken at the cost of the user agency. The funds for this purpose, not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, will be made available by the project authorities to the FD, PTR.
(vii) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the project work will be liable to be suspended by the FD, PTR, with prior approval of the Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department.
Qua carrying out the aforesaid repairs, for the present, it would not be necessary to impose/pay 5% of the project cost.
6. According to the report, following heavy rains and floods during the year 2005—July 2005—parts of the dam got damaged which require immediate heavy repairs. The nature of the repairs required are mentioned in the report. The Uttar Pradesh Government is directed to file an affidavit as to what steps were taken from July 2005 for carrying out the repairs and why till date repairs have not been effected. The affidavit shall be filed within four weeks.
7. List the IA in the month of August 2006.
IA No. … in IA No. 703 of 2000 (filed by amicus curiae in Court)
8. The IA is taken on board.
9. Issue notice to the State of Kerala. On behalf of the Union of India, Mr A.D.N Rao, learned counsel, accepts notice.
10. CEC would look into the matter and file its report, particularly, in respect of what has appeared in The Hindu dated 24-1-2006 that the encroachments from forest land which had taken place in the recent i.e in October 2005, shall not be removed/disturbed. Meanwhile, the State Government is restrained from interfering with removal of illegal encroachments in forest land in the State.
IA No. 203
11. None is present for the association. In view of Para 4 of the Report of CEC dated 17-2-2006, the IA is dismissed.
IAs Nos. 208-09
12. The applicant be heard afresh and thereafter recommendations made by CEC.
IAs Nos. 1560-61, 1562-63, 1564-65
13. In view of the order passed in IAs Nos. 208-09, these IAs are disposed of.
IAs Nos. 1557-58
14. The applicant be heard afresh by CEC and report made thereafter. The IA is disposed of.
IAs Nos. 210, 270-72 and 288-90
15. None is present before us for the applicants nor was anyone present before CEC. The applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
IAs Nos. 241-42, 245, 268-69
16. Issue notice to the applicants.
IAs Nos. 1516, 1541 to 1556
17. CEC shall examine and report. Meanwhile, the applicants may also approach CEC which may look into the matter and, if justified, permit the applicants to operate the saw plant.
IA No. 1535
18. CEC shall file its response to the application within four weeks. Mr Naveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel, accepts notice for the State of Rajasthan. The State shall also file its response within four weeks.
19. List the application in the second week of July, 2006.
IAs Nos. 1539 and 1540
20. To be listed after the pronouncement of judgment in Contempt Petition (C) No. 83 of 2005.
IA No. 1348 in IA No. 1036
21. Further time is sought to file response. Let it be filed within four weeks. Adjourned.
IAs Nos. 1378-80 in IAs Nos. 1246-47
22. Permission is sought to withdraw IA No. 1378. This application, filed by Ekta Parishad, Gandhi Bhavan, Bhopal in public interest, seeks enquiry in regard to grant of mining leases to various parties. Before we consider the prayer for withdrawal of the application, we deem it necessary to direct the applicant to file an affidavit as to what led the applicant to file the application and what is the reason for seeking its withdrawal. The affidavit shall be filed within four weeks.
IA No. 1349 in IAs Nos. 1246-47
23. The submission of Mr Salve, learned amicus curiae, in this matter is that once any mine is put in the land bank and transferred to the Forest Department, the same land cannot be pulled out of the land bank without complying with the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act. It is sought to be disputed by the State Government as also by the lease-holders. On this issue, Mr A.D.N Rao, learned counsel appearing for MoEF, states that he would like to file an affidavit placing on record the stand of the Ministry. Let that affidavit be filed within four weeks. The affidavit shall also explain the procedure for placing the land in the land bank of the Forest Department. The State Government shall also file its affidavit, within four weeks, stating the procedure followed in placing the land in question in the land bank.
24. The IA is adjourned.
IA No. 1350
25. No response has been filed to the recommendations of CEC. The recommendations of CEC are, accordingly, accepted and IA disposed of.
SLP (C) No. 18973 of 2005
26. The respondent is reported to have expired. Learned counsel for the State of Manipur prays for time to take steps to bring the legal heirs on record.
27. IA is adjourned.
WP (C) No. 498 of 2003
28. List after the summer vacation.
Court Masters
Alert