Saving forest land
Highlighting the role of forests in enabling citizens to ‘enjoy their right to live in a pollution-free environment’, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a state government could not permit ‘non-forest activities’ without the Centre’s prior approval on plots that were declared ‘forest land’ under the Forest (Conservation) Act. The same day, the Ministry of Environment and Forests told the Rajya Sabha that the Gujarat Government, in accordance with legal provisions, had regularised 11 encroachments made by industries and institutions on forest land. The ministry also stated that it had written to states and UTs to remove encroachments according to the existing laws and ensure that no further ones took place on forest land. The stark contrast between the apex court’s firm stand and the tendency of governments to work at cross purposes sums up the state of affairs.
Encroachment on forest land is an offence under the Indian Forest Act (1927), while the Forest (Conservation) Act, enacted in 1980, imposes stringent restrictions on the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. In 1990, the Centre had issued guidelines for the regularisation of pre-1980 ‘eligible’ encroachments. Though this relaxation is not applicable to encroachments made after the Act came into force in October 1980, illegal structures have been springing up on forest land in Haryana and other states over the past more than four decades. This could not have happened without the laxity or complicity of the authorities. State governments have often been guilty of adopting a lenient approach towards the encroachers, besides conveniently bending the law. It was only after a public furore that the Punjab Chief Minister scrapped the textile park project which was proposed to be set up in close proximity to the Mattewara forest.
The court’s latest ruling, while reiterating the provisions of the 1980 Act, makes the states accountable for any non-forest activity undertaken on forest land without the Centre’s nod. The Centre, on its part, should give the go-ahead only after factoring in all the pros and cons and also ensure that no state government takes unilateral decisions which impact the fragile forest cover.
