ORDER S. K. Gangele, J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed for removal of encroachments. 2. The petitioners, who are residents of village Barodakalan, Tehsil Madhusudangarh, District Guna, pleaded that they are agriculturist. They have no personal interest in the matter and they filed the petition in public interest. 3. The land bearing survey nos.51,52, 60/1, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 in total area 107 Bighas 13 Biswas situate at village Kailashpura (Kundi Khoh), Tehsil Madhusudangarh, District Guna is a forest land and with the connivance of the officers of the forest department some persons namely Khayali Ram S/o Ram Singh and Bundel Singh S/o Ram Singh have made encroachment over the land. The forest department issued a temporary patta in favour of the aforesaid persons, however, the land could not be allotted on patta by the Forest Department. The villagers made objections to the Forest Department and a penalty was imposed against the aforesaid persons for encroachment. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed before the Civil Judge Class I Raghogarh, which was registered as Civil Suit No.32A/84. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dt.22.10.1991 after holding that the suit land is a forest land. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, a regular appeal bearing No.58-A/91" was filed. The appeal was also dismissed. The second appeal was filed before this Court, which was registered as S.A.No.278196. That appeal has also been dismissed. The petitioners pleaded that in spite of dismissal of civil proceedings, the aforesaid persons are still in possession over the land. The petitioners pleaded that the State Government sanctioned Rs.2,05,87,000/- for construction of a pond in the year 2003, but nothing has been done. 4. The respondents in their return admitted the fact that the land comprising survey nos.51,52, 60/1, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 in total area 107 Bighas 13 Biswas situated at village Kailashpura (Kundi Khoh), Tehsil Madhusudangarh, District Guna is a part of Forest Compartment No.775 and the demarcation had been done on the aforesaid land and it was found that two persons namely Babu Lal S/o Vijay Ram Meena and Sanman S/o Khyali Ram Meena were in possession over the land as encroachers. They had encroached over 2 hect. of forest land. They had encroached over 2 hect. of forest land. No action has been taken against them because their possession was prior to 24.10.1980, hence, the case was forwarded to the State Government for settlement in terms of Forest Department Policy date 4.2.1995. It is further submitted that two other persons namely Gajram Singh S/o Khayali Ram and Saudan S/o Khayali were also found in possession as encroachers over 2 Hect. each of forest compartment no. P775. 5. In regard to construction of the pond, it is submitted that Water Resources Department vide order dt. 1.1.2003 granted permission to construct the pond over the Compartment No.P-774, P776 of the Forest land and the proposal of construction of pond has been forwarded to the State Government because for the purpose of construction of pond over forest land same area of regular land have to be provided to the Forest Department. 6. From the facts of the case, it is clear that four persons have been found in possession over the forest land as encroachers over an area of 2 hect. each. The contention of the respondents in their return is that their encroachment could not be removed in terms of policy of the Forest Department dt.4.2.1995, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure R/1 and the department has written to the Government for settlement. 7. The Forest Department issued policy dt. 4.2.1995 in regard to settlement over the forest land prior to 24.1.0.1980 for receiving permission from the Government of India. It is mentioned in the aforesaid policy that the Government has decided to settle the encroachment of the persons who were in possession over the forest land prior to 24.10.1980 because major encroachers are the landless tribals and backward class persons. From the perusal of the aforesaid circular, it is clear that the Forest Department had requested to sanction permission from the Government of India for grant of sanction for settlement. Upto this date, no sanction has been granted. Apart from this, it is not mentioned by the respondents in the return that whether the persons, who had made encroachment over the forest land, are tribal or landless persons. Contrary to this, the petitioners pleaded that these persons are influential persons and they have political influence, hence, they have made encroachment over the forest land. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nature Lovers Movement Vs. Contrary to this, the petitioners pleaded that these persons are influential persons and they have political influence, hence, they have made encroachment over the forest land. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nature Lovers Movement Vs. Statement of Kerala and others (2009) 5 SCC 373 has held in regard to power of the State Government to permit use of any forest land for any non-forest purpose or assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person. The relevant finding in view of provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is as under:- “39. Undisputedly, the object of the 1980 Act is conservation of forests and to prevent depletion thereof. Therefore, the Court is bound to interpret the provisions of that Act (Sic in a way) which would further the object of the legislation. After enforcement of the 1980 Act, the State Governments were denuded of suo motu power to deal with reserved forest or forest land and permit use thereof for non-forest purposes. They could do so only after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. However, as large tracts of reserved forests and forest land had been occupied by landless poor, who also undertook cultivation for their sustenance many decades before the enactment of the 1980 Act, and there was demand from several quarters that old occupation of the forest land may be regularised, the Government of India, after taking note of the recommendations made in the Forest Ministers’ Conference and committee appointed by it, issued guidelines for grant of approval to the decision taken by the State Governments before the enforcement of the 1980 Act, i.e., 25.10.1980 to regularise encroachments made on forest land and/or use thereof for non-forest purpose. This necessarily implies that where the State Government had not taken any policy decision to regularise pre 25.10.1980 occupation/encroachment of forest land no order for regularisation of such occupation/encroachment’ can be passed without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the 1980 Act which, as mentioned above, contains a non obstante clause. 40. The question whether prior approval of the Central Government is required for use of any forest land or any portion thereof for non forest purpose came up for consideration in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi. 40. The question whether prior approval of the Central Government is required for use of any forest land or any portion thereof for non forest purpose came up for consideration in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi. The facts of that case were that 80 acres of land which formed part of reserved forest was allotted to the respondents for undertaking mining operations much before enactment of the 1980 Act. After enforcement of the 1980 Act, the State Government renewed the mining lease without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kodarma Forest Division restrained the respondents from continuing the mining activity on the ground that prior approval of the Central Government had not been obtained. The respondents challenged the said restriction by filing writ petition in the High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench). The High Court ruled that Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act was not attracted in the respondents case because the area had already been broken for mining activity. 41. This Court approved the decision of the High Court and held: (Banshi Ram Modi case SCC p. 644) “Reading clause (ii) of and Explanation to Section 2 of the Act it is clear that after the commencement of the Act no fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State Government or any authority without the prior approval of the Central Government. But if such permission has been accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the forest land is broken up or cleared then the section cannot apply. In the present case the State Government had not violated Section 2 in permitting the lessee by the amendment of the lease deed to win and remove felspar and quartz also in addition to mica because thereby no permission for fresh breaking up of forest land is being given. The result of taking the contrary view will be that while the digging for purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on mining operations for winning mica.” 42. The above judgment was considered in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat. The result of taking the contrary view will be that while the digging for purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on mining operations for winning mica.” 42. The above judgment was considered in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat. That was a case of renewal of lease for the minor mineral granted in Village Morai of District Valsad, State of Gujarat. The lease was granted on 8.11.1971 for a period of 10 years. Just before the expiry of the term of lease, the appellant applied for its renewal under Rule 18 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966. The Assistant Collector concerned rejected the application on the ground that the land is a part of the reserved forest and in terms of the 1980 Act renewal cannot be granted without approval of the Central Government. The appellant challenged the action of the Assistant Collector by filling writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat, which was dismissed. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in Banshi Ram Modi’s case and argued that the prior approval of the Central Government was not necessary because it was a case of renewal of the existing quarry lease. 43. After extracting relevant portion of the judgment in Banshi Ram Modi’s case, this Court explained and distinguished the same by making the following observations: (Ambica Quarry case, SCC p.221, paras 18-19) “18....It is true that this Court held that if the permission had been granted before the coming into operation of the 1980 Act and the forest land has been broken up or cleared, clause (ii) of Section 2 of 1980 Act would not apply in such a case. But that decision was rendered in the background of the facts of that case. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem). The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem). But in view of the mandate of Article 141 that the ratio of the decision of this Court is a law of the land, Shri Gobind Das submitted that the ratio of a decision must be found out from finding out if the converse was not correct. But this Court, however, was cautious in expressing the reasons for the said decision in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi. This Court observed in that decision that the result of taking the contrary view would be (SCC p.648, para 10) that while the digging for purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on mining operations for winning mica. That would lead to an unreasonable result which would not in any way subserve the object of the Act. There was an existing lease where mining operation was being carried on and what was due by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on some other minerals were available, he was giving right to collect those. The new lease only permitted utilisation or collection of the said other minerals. 19. In the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the appellants’ demands in these cases because the facts are entirely different here. The primary purpose of the Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent further deforestation. The Central Government has not granted approval. The primary purpose of the Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent further deforestation. The Central Government has not granted approval. If the State Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where the State Government should seek approval of the Central Government, the State Government cannot apparently seek such approval in a matter in respect of which, in our opinion, it has come to the conclusion that no renewal should be granted.” 44. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India, this Court held that once an area is declared as protected forest, it becomes forest within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Act and prior approval of the Central Government is a condition precedent for grant of lease under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The ratio of the judgment is contained in para 18, which is extracted below: (SCC p.125) “18. Once an area is declared as a protected forest, it comes within the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It becomes a forest land within the meaning of Section 2. The effect of this position is that no non-forest activity can be carried on in the said area except with the prior approval of the Central Government. Even the State Government cannot carry on any such non-forest activity in the said area without such prior approval. That the mining activity amounts to non-forest purpose is beyond dispute. Thus, the grant of mining leases/licences and their renewal by the State Government, without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government, in respect of the mines situated within the protected forest, after 1.1.1975 is contrary to law. All the mines listed in Appendix ‘A’ to the committee’s report do fall within the areas declared as protected forest while the mines listed in Appendix ‘B’ fall partly within and partly outside such areas. According to Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 too, no mining lease could have been granted or renewed within the forest ‘without clearance from the Central Government in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the rules made thereunder.’ Admittedly, no such prior approval or clearance of Central Government was obtained. According to Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 too, no mining lease could have been granted or renewed within the forest ‘without clearance from the Central Government in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the rules made thereunder.’ Admittedly, no such prior approval or clearance of Central Government was obtained. The Chairman of the committee Shri Justice M.L. Jain has recommended that 215 mines mentioned in Appendix ‘A’ to his report, which are situated wholly within the protected forest should be closed forthwith. There can hardly be any valid objection in law to the said recommendation. Similarly, with respect to 47 mines mentioned in Appendix ‘B’ to the report, the learned Chairman has recommended that they should be closed forthwith insofar as they fall within the protected forest. To this recommendation also, there can be no valid objection in law.” 45. In State of A.P. v. Anupama Minerals, the Court referred to the earlier judgment in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and held: (Anupama Minerals case, SCC p.118, para 2) “2...The purpose of the Act is conservation of forests and to prevent the depletion of forests. In other words the Act intended not only to protect the existing forests but also to conserve and protect the existing forests in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In view of the prohibition for grant of lease in the reserved forest area, grant of renewal in the face of the prohibited area will be in violation of law. Therefore, the authorities though had the power, but had duty while conserving the forest to refuse to grant renewal. In that view the Government’s refusal to grant renewal, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. If they consider that renewal could be granted, even then the prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory under Section 2 of the Act.” 46. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, this Court adverted to the misconception entertained in certain quarters about the true scope of the 1980 Act and the meaning of the word “forest” used therein and held : (SCC pp.269-70, para 4) “4. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, this Court adverted to the misconception entertained in certain quarters about the true scope of the 1980 Act and the meaning of the word “forest” used therein and held : (SCC pp.269-70, para 4) “4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word ‘forest’ must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, The term ‘forest land’, occurring in Section 2, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and, the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decision of this Court in Ambica Quarry, Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.” 47. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.” 47. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that the 1980 Act is applicable to all forests irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof and after 25.10.1980, i.e., date of enforcement of the 1980 Act, no State Government or other authority 3an pass an order or give a direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect of forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or organization which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government. 48. Another principle which emerges from these judgments is that even if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for non-forest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25-10-1980 without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government.” 9. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government has no power to grant lease of forest land to encroachers neither the government has any power of settlement. Hence, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:– 1. The respondents shall remove the encroachment of encroachers mentioned in the return over the land bearing survey nos. 51, 52, 60/1, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, and 72 in total area 107 Bighas 13 Biswas situated at village Kailashpura (Kundi Khoh), Tehsil Madhusudangarh, District Guna and report within a period of four week: from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Report be submitted to the registry of this court by the respondent No.4 Collector District Guna. 2. The prayer of the petitioners in regard to construction of pond is hereby rejected in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, the respondents are at liberty to make construction after following the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. .................. 2012 jk- fu 362 o 2012 RN 362