Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA versus DUTI SAHU AND ORS.
- Decided
- 13 January 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 1 S.C.R. 234 · 1997 INSC 25
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
p. 234, margin F
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated March 29, 1996 passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 1389/96. The admitted position is that the respondents are displaced persons and they sought for and were granted assignment of the land in reserved forest by the State Government on various dates between 1982 and 1985 for cultivation. OD;e of the conditions for the grant was that_ the trees standing on the land allotted to them "shall be the property of the State Governmene It is clear from Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 that it contemplates restrictions on the-dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose and postulates thus :
pp. 234–235, margin G
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in the 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 (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 any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or _to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the
p. 235, margin B
purpose of using it for reafforestation."
p. 235, margin E
Having overlooked these crucial statutory provisions, the High Court has directed, by the impugned order, at the behest of the respondents, by way of writ of mandamus, issuance of Timber Transit Permits to the respondents. The question is; whether the impugned direction issued by the High Court is correct in law? Except with prior permission of the Central Government, deforestation is impermissible. It is seen that it cannot be disputed that lands are situated within reserved forest area. In the lands assigned to the petitioner, the trees are standing. In terms of the grant made to them, the trees belong to the Government. Under those circumstances, for the reason that it is a reserved forest area since the grant was made only for the purpose of cultivation the respondents have no manner of right whatsoever to deforest the land and to cut and carry the trees belonging to the Government much less without the permission of the any authority.
pp. 235–236, margin F
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court stands set aside. No costs. T.N.A. appeal allowed.
p. 236, margin A