T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India

Petitioner: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad

Defendant: Union of India & ORS.

12 December, 1996

Supreme Court of India

Statutes Referred:

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (6 of 1980)

Wildlife Protection Act, 1978

Cases Referred:

Ambica Quarry Works and ORS. s State of Gujarat and ORS. (1987 (1) SCC

State of Bihar Vs BanshiRam Modi and ors. (1985 (3) SCC

Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs State of U.P (1989 supl. (1) SCC

Facts of the Cases

1. The petitioner T.N. Godavarman has filed a writ petition in 1995 at Supreme Court of India to protect the Nilgiris forest land from deforestation by the illegal ways for timber operations. So, keeping in mind, about the importance of protection and conservation of the forests throughout the country. So the court has recommended to conduct a proper hearing about the matter to examine the depth of the case in regard to the National Forest Policy.
2. So, according to the section-2, any activity within any forest in any state all over the country will be done with the approval of the central government and if not, the central government has the authority to cease the premises.

Issues Raised

1. Areas that fall under the category of ‘FOREST’ should be identified, any law that should classify such forest irrespective of the ownership of the land.
2. That areas should also be classified or identified which were earlier forests but at recent they were standed out to be degraded, denuded or cleared.
3. Areas covered with plantation trees should also segregated between government and private belongings.

Parties Contention

Petitioner

1. The petitioner T.N Godavarman has stated in his petition that the deforestation of the Nilgiri lands were conducted illegaly without any prior permission or approval of the central government for the development of the timber lands.
2. So the petitioner has filed a suit in the supreme court challenged the illegal acivities over the nilgiri lands. The whole activity was against the forest (conservation) act, 1980 which clearly states that the any activity over any forestation should done with the prior approval of the central government and the department of the forest else the premises will be ceased by the government officials.

Defendant

1. The defendant has declined the allegation against him that the activity happening at the land of nilgiri was against the law and order.
2. He has said in his defense that the land ownership is with him. The land on which he was doing the destruction work of the forest that said land belongs to him. And according to the land and property act, an individual has the full right to do anything on his premises until the activity does not violates anyone rights and disturbs the comfort of other citizens.
3. So, in his statement he clearly states that the land was owned by him and he can do anything what he wants to do. And the activity was also for the purpose of development as the timber plant will also provide positive impact on the environment.

Judgement

• The court has observed that the land belongs to the defendant and he has full right over his property or premises but the activity that was happening at the premises was illegal as according to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the deforestation of the plantations was considered as illegal without the prior permission of the central government or the forest department of the concerned district or area whether the property belongs to government or an private individual.
• With the above decision, in addition to it the court has also observed that there should be a complete ban on the cutting of any kind of trees without the approval to maintain the proper ecological balance and to preserve the bio-diversity.
• The cutting or felling of trees shall be applicable on everyone whether the railways, roadways or the waterways need it. The state government has the authority to cut trees that too with reasonable measures to ensure the proper the ecological balance. No other private individual was allowed to cut the trees.
• Further more. The court has constituted different committees comprising of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee the functioning of the committees to ensure proper functioning of the system.

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir
2. State of Himachal Pradesh and the Hill Areas of the U.P and West Bengal
3. State of Tamil Nadu

• These are the states who were directed by the committees formed by the court for the maintenance of the forests and to protect the mother nature.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law that was followed in the above case, that whether land is owned by an individual or it is a government property, the deforestation will not be acceptable by the system as it was degrading the environment and will also create ecological imbalance in the nature which was already stated under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Comment

It was made clear that the environment should not be compromised at any cost whether the matter of development or anything else. The cutting of trees should only be done with approval of state government and forest department who should take proper reasonable measures which would also ensure the ecological balance and maintain the bio-diversity. It was also proved that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 stuck down the Property rights Act.

Conclusion

To conclude the case, the court taken the appropriate decision as it is very important to protect the environment whether it’s the matter of development or anything else. With that the area determination has also been done which will help to segregate the ownership of the lands having plantation on it.

By Krishna Das