Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2008 DIGILAW 65 (SC)

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

2008-01-11

ARIJIT PASAYAT, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, S.H.KAPADIA

body2008
ORDER : 1. List the Bhure Lal Matters on 25.1.2008. 2. Adjourn the matters originally listed for 25.1.2008 by a month. I.A.No.2016/2007 in W.P.(C)NO.202/1995 : 3. Learned Solicitor General for India and the learned Amicus Curaie will file their memorandums in sealed covers by Tuesday the 15th January, 2008. 4. Orders reserved. 5. I.A.No.2143 : (Report of the CEC reg. the non-utilization of funds received towards the Net Present Value (NPV), Compensatory Afforestation etc. and the proposed mechanism for its utilization) : 6. Taken on board. 7. Issue notice to Mo.E.F. returnable within four weeks. I.A.No.1784 in 703 In W.P.(C)No.202/1995 : 8. This matter relates to the regularisation of pre-1980 encroachment in the Doyang Reserve Forest in the State of Assam. Learned counsel appearing for the State seeks permission to withdraw the application stating that a recent statute takes care of the situation. We express no opinion in that regard. 9. The application is dismissed as withdrawn. I.A.No.979 in I.A.Nos.443, 1204, 1245, 1357 and 2110 in WP(C) No.202/1995 : 10. These matters relate to the identification of the "forest like areas" in the various districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Now the guidelines have been issued as to how these areas are to be identified. Learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that steps would be taken to identify "forest like areas" in all the districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh within a period of four months and such areas would be handed over to the Forest Department except the private areas, if any. I.A.NOs. 991, 1004, 1185, 1273, 1280, 1294, 1443, 1611, 2018 and 2073 in W.P.(C)no.202/1995 : 11. Learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh shall produce the Government of Uttar Pradesh Gazette Notification No.766214 Kha-20(243)-70 dated December 1970, within a period of three weeks. 12. The State may also file its reply, if any, within a period of three weeks. 13. List on 15.2.2008. I.A.No.1354 in 1154 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 : 14. The Army wanted to construct a road in the forest area in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The proposal was examined by the C.E.C. and C.E.C. was of the view that initially the proposal was not feasible as it would cause more damage to the forest and ecological balance and the MoEF has suggested an alternative proposal and it was accepted by the Army. The proposal was examined by the C.E.C. and C.E.C. was of the view that initially the proposal was not feasible as it would cause more damage to the forest and ecological balance and the MoEF has suggested an alternative proposal and it was accepted by the Army. The C.E.C. was also of the view that the Army would set up a task force for assessing damage to the forest. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hope that the Army will carry out the work without causing any damage to the forest area and also would do some afforestation work. 16. The application is disposed of accordingly. I.A.Nos.1358 in I.A.No.992 in W.P.(C)no.202/1995 : 17. Mr. Komor Uddin Ahmed, wanted to set up a saw-mill in his private property on the ground that he has got 7 acres of land in Dhubri District in Assam and the trees forming his 7 acres of land would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the saw-mill which he proposed to start in his property. The matter was examined by C.E.C. It may be recalled that as there was a large scale felling of trees in these areas, the saw mills in these parts of Assam were allowed to be located in the industrial area so that there may not be any illegal transport of timber. Under the above circumstances, it is not feasible to allow an individual to start a separate saw-mill in his private property. Moreover the timber which may be produced in his 7 acres of land may not be sufficient to sustain the saw-mill and it is likely that there would be some illegal supply of timber to this saw-mill. Hence, permission is declined and the application is rejected. I.A.Nos.1362-1363 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 : 18. As requested by Learned ASG, list after six weeks. I.A.Nos.1373, 1389 and 1696 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 : 19. List after four weeks. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks in I.A.No.1696. I.A.No.1383 in W.P.(C)no.202/1995 : 20. As requested by learned ASG, eight weeks time is granted for filing a reply. 21. List after eight weeks. I.A.No.1433 and 1477 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 : 22. List after eight weeks. SLP(C)No.25068/2005 : 23. A copy of the petition be given to the learned Amicus Curaie. SLP(C) No.21322/2007 : 24. Delay condoned. 25. Issue notice to CEC and MoEF. As requested by learned ASG, eight weeks time is granted for filing a reply. 21. List after eight weeks. I.A.No.1433 and 1477 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 : 22. List after eight weeks. SLP(C)No.25068/2005 : 23. A copy of the petition be given to the learned Amicus Curaie. SLP(C) No.21322/2007 : 24. Delay condoned. 25. Issue notice to CEC and MoEF. A copy of the petition be given to the learned Amicus Curaie. SLP(C)No.22718/2007 : 26. A copy of the petition be given to learned Amicus Curaie. I.A.No.2142 in 2071 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 : 27. No orders.