9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants were entitled to renewal of their quarry leases after the coming into operation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 2. Interpretation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 concerning the dereservation of reserved forests and the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. 3. Applicability of the principle that power coupled with duty mandates renewal of leases. 4. Relevance and applicability of previous judgments, particularly State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal and State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi & Others, to the present case. Summary: Issue 1: Entitlement to Renewal of Quarry Leases Post-1980 Act The appellants sought renewal of their quarry leases, which were initially granted before the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ("1980 Act") came into force. The Assistant Collector, Valsad, rejected the renewal applications on the grounds that the land fell under the "Reserved Forest" area, and the 1980 Act applied. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appellants' writ petitions challenging this decision, leading to the present appeals. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 2 of the 1980 Act Section 2 of the 1980 Act restricts the dereservation of forests or the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without the prior approval of the Central Government. The appellants argued that their leases were granted before the Act's commencement and that the land had been dereserved in 1971. However, the Court emphasized that the primary purpose of the 1980 Act was to prevent further deforestation and ecological imbalance, making it obligatory for the State Government to obtain Central Government approval for any such actions. Issue 3: Power Coupled with Duty The appellants contended that the authorities had a duty to renew the leases due to significant investments made in mining operations. They relied on the principle that when a public authority is vested with power, the expression "may" should be construed as "shall" to make it incumbent on the authority to exercise the power if the conditions are fulfilled. However, the Court held that this principle was eroded by the 1980 Act's mandate, prioritizing community obligations over individual rights. Issue 4: Relevance of Previous Judgments The appellants cited State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal, where the Court construed "may" as "shall" for lease extensions, and State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi & Others, where the Court allowed mining operations on already cleared forest land without Central Government approval. The Court distinguished these cases, noting that the present appeals involved requests for lease renewals, which would lead to further deforestation, contrary to the 1980 Act's purpose. The Court concluded that the ratio of these decisions did not apply to the appellants' demands. Conclusion The Court held that the respondents were correct in denying the lease renewals, as the 1980 Act's primary purpose was to prevent further deforestation. The appeals were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs. The interpretation of the Act must support its implementation, prioritizing ecological preservation over individual lease renewals.
|
