LAND LAW INCLUDING CEILING & KERALA

LAND LAW PROJECT

CONSERVATION OF
FORESTS

Submitted by:
SHARIKA.R

973

VIIth Semester

1
 LIST OF CASES CITED

 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , AIR 1997 SC 1228

 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , AIR 1997 SC 1233

 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , AIR 1998 SC 769

 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , AIR 1999 SC 43

 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1

 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2009) 5 SCC 373

 State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR 1985 SC 814

 Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1073

 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 2187

 Upendra Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 Pat 263

 Divisional Forest Officer v. S Nageswaramma, (1996) 6 SCC 442

 Pyari Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2004 All 70

 SC Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Development Authority, (1997) 11SCC 605

 Lafarge Umium Mining Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 338

 KM Chinnappa v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 724

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC PAGE

 Introduction 4

 Conservation Initiatives in Colonial Era 5

 Forest Policies after Independence 7

 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 9

 The National Forest Policy, 1988 10

 Joint Forest Management 11

 Godavarman cases 12

 Under the Judicial Scanner 13

 Conclusion 16

 Bibliography 17

3
 1. INTRODUCTION
In an era where the sole concern is economic growth to the near-exclusion of all else, that eco-
friendly and sustainable development has taken a backseat fails to be a surprise. However, as if
apocalyptically, there appears to be an increasing realisation that if the present trend of
indiscriminate consumption of natural resources needs to be abated. In this regard, the
indiscriminate cutting down of trees for the advancement of mankind raises a grave concern with
regard to its protection. Forest being a natural wealth needs to be preserved.

India has its own reservations towards forests and they have occupied an important position from
ancient times. The Ancient Indian scriptures such as the Mahabharata and the Ramayana give
picturesque descriptions of forest life in dandakaranyaa and nandavana, the Ramayana using
Sanskrit words like ‘Vana’ and ‘Aranya’ while referring to forests. On the other hand kings like
Ashoka and Shivaji issued orders encourage the planting of trees along the roads and on camping
sites and prohibiting the cutting of fruit trees. In general, before the advent of British rule in
India, the regulation 'of people's use of forest was mainly done through local customs and laws.
These discouraged the cutting of trees like banyan and so on viewing its social, cultural and
ethical associations with the society.1

In the modern scenario, forestland in India is a tract of land that is legally proclaimed to be forest
under the forest laws. Forestry as a land use category is the second largest land use category after
agriculture in India. The Directive Principles of the State Policy in the Constitution of India
under Art.48A entrusts upon the State the duty to safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country. It is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life as envisaged by Art.51 A of the
Constitution. In this context, an attempt is made to review colonial and post-colonial forest
policies and statutes enacted. In India the conservation of forest has been ensured through
legislative acts, judicial pronouncements and executive orders. Although strides have been made
by legislative steps taken to ensure forest conservation the contribution of Indian Judiciary
towards the same have been paramount.

1
Sharad Kulkarni, Forest Legislation and Tribals: Comments on Forest Policy Resolution, 22, Economic and
Political Weekly 2143, 2148 (1987).

4
 2. CONSERVATION INITIATIVES IN COLONIAL ERA

The British after their advent in India remained totally indifferent to the needs of forest
conservancy. But by the middle of the 19th C, the British saw a 'fierce onslaught on India's forest’
and realised that forests were indeed a significant and exhaustible resource, and thus woke up to
the need to conserve it.2 The colonial State found forest laws essential to establish firm State
control over this very essential resource for defence as well as expansionist purpose. In 1856,
Lord Dalhousie emphasised the need for a definite forest policy:
“.... owing largely to the increasing difficulty of obtaining adequate supplies of timber for the
great extension of railway lines then being undertaken, as a result of the systematic destruction
of forest areas for cultivation, of uncontrolled felling and absence of all protection of forests, the
Government of India were forced to take energetic steps to protect from further destruction the
forests that still survived...” 3
The critical turning point in the history of Indian forestry was the building of the railway
network. The requirement of railway expansion saw an unprecedented assault on the more
accessible forests. Consequently the Imperial Forest Department was formed in 1864 with the
German forester, Brandis as the Inspector General of Forests who laid down the foundation of
scientific and organized forestry.
Forest Act of 1865:
This act was first attempt in the direction of regulation of forest produces by the forest dwellers
and asserting the State monopoly over the forest by bringing certain tracts of land under the State
control as and when it required. The Act empowered the State to declare any land covered with
trees or brush-wood as state forest and to make rules regarding the management of the same by
notification, provided that such notification should not abridge or affect any existing rights of
individuals or communities.4 But the downside was that it made no provisions regarding the
rights of users.5 The socially regulated practices of the forest people were to be restrained by law
under the Act.

2
E.A Smythies, India’s Forest Wealth (London, 1924)
3
Ibid
4
s.2, Forest Act, 1865
5
S.S Negi, Himalayan Forests and Forestry 246 (2002)

5
Thus, in the name of scientific management, the Act was an attempt to obliterate centuries of
customary use of the forests by rural population all over India.6
The Forest Act, 1878:

The Act of 1865 was amended in 1878 by which the very nature of common property was
changed and forests were brought under the direct State control. This comprehensive Act
categorised the forests into: ‘reserved’ and ‘protected’ forests. The payment of compensation
was to be made for the rights over reserved forests whereas the rights over the protected forests
were to be regulated through settlement reports. The Act even empowered the government to
acquire land over which rights were claimed by persons.
Forest Policy Resolution-1894:
Dr. Voelckar, Superintendent of Forests, submitted a report to the Government on ‘Improvement
of Indian Agriculture’ in which he stressed the need for formulating a forest policy with a
definite objective of serving agricultural interests. Consequently the first Forest Policy was
enunciated in 1894 which laid down 'Public Benefit' as the sole objective of the administration of
public forests. Government owned / Public forest was classified with reference to their primary
functions as follows: 1) Forests the preservation of which is essential on climatic or physical
grounds; 2) Forests which afford a supply of valuable timber for commercial purpose; 3) Minor
forests containing somewhat inferior kinds of timber and managed for the production of wood,
fodder, grazing and other produce for local consumption and 4) Pasture lands.7
The Indian Forest Act, 1927:
The Act of 1878 was later on replaced by a very comprehensive Act called the Indian Forest Act,
1927. The Act provided enabling provisions to make rules and regulations which make it quite
distinct from the other acts of that time. This has not only further regulated the people’s right
over forest but also codified all the practices of the forest officials. This Act has put some control
on the shifting cultivation, which was considered as biggest reason of forest depletion, with
certain special provisions. It further categorised the forests as ‘reserved’, ‘village’ and
‘protected’ forests.8

6
Madhav Gadgil & Madhav Gadgil, Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India
(1sted, 1995).
7
Forest Policy, 1894
8
Indian Forest Act 1927, available at www.envfor.nic.in, last seen on 10/10/17

6
 3. FOREST POLICIES AFTER INDEPENDENCE

While on the one hand, people-to-forest interactions are influenced by what is legally allowed or
restricted, on the other hand, the dependence of people on forests in their day-to-day lives has at
times driven changes in legislation to accommodate such links. Such modifications to the
existing legislations and the need for more comprehensive statutes on the same were felt after
Independence.
The Government of India Act, 1935 transferred ‘Forest’ from the Federal legislative list (Union)
of the Seventh Schedule to the provincial legislative list (State) finding a mention as its 22nd
Item.9 Thereafter several provinces came up with their own laws to regulate forests.
The National Forest Policy of 1952:

The need for the formulation of the national forest policy became imperative after the attainment
of Indian independence. The National Policy 1952 was formulated out of the need for a
reorientation of forest policy in light of the changes that had taken place since the enunciation of
the 1894 policy on forests. Forestry in India, whether state or privately owned, was classified
into four categories of ‘Protected Forests’, ‘National Forests’, ‘Village Forests’ and ‘Tree
Lands’. The policy for the first time laid stress on having at least one third of the land area under
forest cover and the need for wild life conservation. The percentage was determined to be at 60
per cent for the hill regions and 20 per cent for the plains. However, its primary area of emphasis
remained on sustainable timber production, without much emphasis on management of non-
commercial species and non-wood forest products. This policy also stated the need for checking
denudation on the hills, soil erosion and invasion of sand from deserts and coastal areas.

The Policy ranked the ‘national interest’ in forests higher than the interests of local communities
and was apparently based on certain paramount needs of the country.10 The thrust of the policy is
evident from the following extract: “village communities in the neighborhood of a forest will
naturally make greater use of its products for the satisfaction of their domestic and agricultural
needs. Such use, however, should in no event be permitted at the cost of national interests. The

9
Government of India Act, 1935, available at www.lawmin.nic.in, last seen on 24/09/17.
10
Kant & Berry, Institutions, Sustainability and Natural Resources: Economics of Sustainable Forest Management
99 (2005).

7
accident of villages being close to a forest does not prejudice the right of the country as a whole
to receive the benefits of a national asset.”11 The policy thus went well beyond merely evincing
the intention of not securing rights for the forest-dependents and contained a clear statement of
intent to prevent them from accessing such forests if the need arose.

But even after the enunciation of the National Forest Policy of 1952, matters did not change
materially on the ground. On the contrary, large forest areas were cleared for rehabilitating
displaced persons, as a result of partition of the country and also for other purposes. This resulted
in the shrinkage in forest area in different parts of the country.

The National Commission on Agriculture of 1976:

The National Commission on Agriculture appointed in 1970 by the government. Finally, the
Commission came out with its Report in 1976 part IX entitled ‘Forestry’ of which made two
note-worthy recommendations: “Institutional changes should be brought about in the
management for production forestry, and man-made forests be raised on an extensive scale with
the aid of institutional financing.
The existing system of harvesting of major and minor forest produce through the intermediary
contractor must be replaced by taking it up either directly by the SFD’s or by a network of forest
labour co-operative societies, or by a combination of both.”12

Both these recommendations were in total contrast to the tradition that had existed in the Indian
forestry for over a century and directly flowed from the increasing threats to the existing forests.
These recommendations are based on recognising the protective and aesthetic functions of the
forests which include regulation of grazing and shifting cultivation, satisfying the domestic needs
of the people for various forest products, undertaking large scale industrial plantations, carrying
out forestry operations, adoption of social forestry and preference to socially backward and
unemployed in providing employment. It also recommended that functionally all forest lands
should be classified into protected forests, productive forests and social forests.

11
The National Forest Policy, 1952.
12
Report of the National Commission on Agriculture 1976, available at www.agriculture.gov.in, last seen on
2/09/17.

8
The Committee recommended uniform forest laws so that incompatibility in forest laws among
the states is removed and there is no multiplicity of legally sanctioned authorities concerned with
forestry matters. It recognised the need of stringent, preventive and punitive provisions, so that
resources are not wasted, when allocated for development in a certain direction. Based on the
recommendations of the NCA, the Government of India took the following important steps:

1. Creation of Forest Corporations by various State Govts for harvesting the forest produce
and thereby eliminating the middleman as a contractor.
2. Establishment of Indian Institute of Forest Management.
3. Initiating the programme of social forestry on village and forestlands.
4. Formulating a new National Forest Policy, 1988.
5. Creating a separate Ministry of Environment and Forests in 1984 etc.

The Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976 transferred ‘Forests’ from the State List
under the 7th Schedule to the Concurrent List finding a place in Entry 17A which brought them
within the purview of the Centre.13 Thereafter in exercise of its new-found powers, the Union
Government enacted the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

4. THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980

An attempt to slow down the rapid deforestation and depletion of forest cover taking place in the
country was made in 1980 with the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980. The act
was designed to have a sweeping approach towards issues related to forest conservation and
similar issues, proof of this can be found in the wording of the statement and objects and reasons
of the act, which reads, “An act to provide for the conservation of forest and for matter
connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto”.14 The emphasis was to stop diversion of
forest areas for other purposes. Stringent rules and regulations were put in the place to govern
forest lands for non-forest purposes. In addition to the Act 1980, the State governments have
their own laws, rules or regulations on forests. The Act laid down that no State Government or
any other authority without the approval of Central Government will pass any order directing:

13
s.57, The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976
14
Dr. Madhuri Parikh, The Forest Conservation in India and the Role of Indian Supreme Court: A Critical Analysis,
13, IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science.

9
 (i) That any reserved forest shall cease to be reserved
(ii) That any forest land may be used for non-forest purpose

This Act was amended in 1988 to stipulate the leasing of forest land to a person or any agency
not owned by the Government and clearing of trees which have grown naturally in any forest
land or for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation will require the approval of the Central
Government.15 A punitive clause has also been added in this Act. “When any offence under this
Act has been committed by any department of government, the head of the department or the
person who at the time when the offence was committed was responsible shall be deemed guilty
of the offence and shall be liable to be punished.” 16
Supplementing this Act, the Ministry of
Environment and Forests has also come up with the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 and 2003
which was followed by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Rules, 2014.

5. The present policy–NATIONAL FOREST POLICY, 1988

Acting upon the recommendation of the National Commission on Agriculture the Forest Policy
1988 was formulated. The basic objectives of Act stated: “the principal aim of forest policy
must be to ensure environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance including
atmospheric equilibrium which are vital for sustenance of all life forms, human, animal
and plant. The derivation of direct economic benefit must be subordinated to this principal
aim”. For the first time tribal and rural needs were taken into consideration and recognition was
given to them. This was limited by only one caveat, that the rights and concessions should
always remain related to the carrying capacity of the forests. 17 The policy after enumerating the
essentials of forest management, mentions a strategy which included area under forest
afforestation of state forests, rights and concessions, diversion of forestlands for non-forest
purposes, shifting cultivation, damage from encroachment, forest extension, forest education,
forest research, financial support for forestry etc. This policy also maintained that national goal,
should be to have a minimum of one-third area of total land area under the forest or tree cover.18

15
S.2 The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with Amendment made in 1988.
16
RN Choudhry, Law of Forests in India (3rd ed., 2010).
17
Antara Roy & Sroyon Mukherjee, The Forest Rights Act, 2006: Settling Land, Unsettling Conservationists, 1,
NUJS Law Review
18
Mr. Videh Upad hyay, Lecture Notes on Legal and Policy Frameworks related to Forest Conservation

10
 6. JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT

Another major contribution of the 1988 Policy was that it paved the way for the Ministry of
Environment and Forest to issue a set of guidelines on Joint Forest Management (JFM) to be
practised by the State Forest Department with local people. The state forest departments support
local forest dwelling communities to protect and manage forests and share the costs and benefits
from the forests with them. Here the communities organize themselves into a JFM Committee to
protect and manage nearby forests, guided by locally prepared byelaws and micro plans. The key
element in JFM is that communities have the power to manage the use of forests by members
and also exclude non-members. Thus involvement of communities in conservation of forests and
wildlife is of paramount interest. JFM has the potential to meet local subsistence needs, of fuel
wood, fodder, other non-timber forest produce, small timber and timber etc., to provide
livelihood through sale of produce, while at the same time, preventing degradation of the forests
that provide local, national and global environmental benefits. Almost all the States have now
issued notifications pertaining to JFM in line with the Central Government circular.

Central MoEF Guidelines:

June 1, 1990: these guidelines provided the basis for initiating Joint Forest Management in
forest lands. The initial focus in the 1990 guidelines was on degraded forest areas.

February 21, 2000 (Guidelines for Strengthening the JFM Program): MoEF issued guidelines
on, for strengthening JFM, covering following aspects: (i) It proposed “legal backup to the JFM
committees” (ii) To promote participation of women, certain threshold criteria were proposed for
JFMCs (iii) Expansion of JFM beyond degraded forests, “Extension of JFM in good forest areas”
(iv) Recognize Self-initiated group (v) Contribution for Regeneration of Resources.

December 24, 2000 (Third set of guidelines): Signing of MoU outlining the short term and long
term roles and responsibilities, pattern of sharing of usufructs; Suggesting a relationship with
Panchayats; Proposing Capacity building for managing Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs).19

19
Joint Forest Management: A Handbook, available at www.mpforest.gov.in, last seen on 10/10/17.

11
GODAVARMAN CASE: High-Water Mark in Forest Protection

In 1995, the case of Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India20 came before the Supreme
Court through a PIL filed against the destruction of forests by influential commercial bodies and
lobbies. The judgement is a remarkable illustration of the concept of sustainable development.
Clearing the misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 and the meaning of the word "forest" used therein, the Court held that the term “forest
land”, occurring in s.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. The
court went on to direct the following: (1) Prior approval of the Central Government is required
for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with s.2 of the Act, all
on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior
approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. (2) There shall be a complete ban on
felling of any kind of trees in the tropical wet ever- green forests in Arunachal Pradesh. (3) There
shall be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-
Eastern States to any other State of the country with the exception of certified timber required for
defence purposes. (4) Each State Government should constitute an Expert Committee to identify
areas which are forests, denuded forests and areas covered by plantation trees and to assess the
sustainable capacity of forest qua saw mills.

The case came back within four months for review of the follow up action as directed by the
Court.21 The Court herein proceeded to constitute a High Powered Committee to oversee the
strict and faithful implementation of its orders in the north-eastern areas. In Godavarman22case,
the SC asked for measures such as relocation of industries, identification of ecologically
sensitive areas, consultations with leading institutions and NGOs having expertise in forest
ecology etc. In the 1999 Godavarman23case, the court detected absence of faith on the part of
government agencies and prohibited cutting of trees, even those considered as diseased till
further orders.

20
AIR 1997 SC 1228.
21
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1233.
22
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 769.
23
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 43.

12
The Godavarman24 judgement that decided to levy net present value (NPV) for non-forest use is
a landmark. The point in issue is whether before diversion of forest land for non- forest purposes
and consequential loss of benefits accruing from the forests should not the user agency of such
land be required to compensate for the diversion. If so, should not the user Agency be required to
make payment of Net Present Value (NPV) of such diverted land so as to utilize the amounts so
received for getting back in long run the benefits which are lost by such diversion? The Court
proceeded to issue guidelines for determination of NPV: (1) Except for government projects like
hospitals, dispensaries and schools referred to in the body of the judgment, all other projects
shall be required to pay NPV though final decision on this matter will be taken after receipt of
Expert Committee Report. (2) The amounts are required to be used for achieving ecological
plans and for protecting the environment and for the regeneration of forest and maintenance of
ecological balance and eco-systems. The payment of NPV is for protection of environment and
not in relation to any propriety rights. (3) The NPV has to be worked out on economic principles.

7. UNDER THE JUDICIAL SCANNER

The provision of prior approval provided under FCA 1980 as a condition precedent for now
forestry activities in the forest area, has transformed the Central Government into the guardian of
forest protection. The obvious assumption is that the guardian will act only in the interests of
safeguarding the forest environment, and will be ever vigilant pre-empting any assault on forests.
The provisions of FCA have been subjected to judicial scrutiny on many occasions.

In Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala,25 the issue under consideration was whether s.2
of Forest Conservation Act was prospective in nature. Answering in the affirmative, Apex court
held that a state legislation conferring titles is valid as their occupation was before the date of
enforcing Forest Conservation Act. In the same breath the Court explained that that FCA is
prospective in operation and not applicable to the use of forest for non-forest purpose prior to
that date.

24
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI, (2006) 1 SCC 1.
25
(2009) 5 SCC 373.

13
In State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi,26 licensee was mining for mica under a license granted
before the commencement of FCA, the licensee came across two other minerals-feldspar, and
quartz. The state government permitted him to mine these two minerals. The forest department
objected, as there was no prior approval from the Central Government. According to the court,
the action of the state government did not violate FCA as the new minerals were found in an area
already broken up and cleared for mining, although, this may not be the case for mining in a
virgin area.

In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat,27 the Supreme Court made it categorically clear
that renewal of a license after FCA came into force can be made only on getting prior permission
from the Central Government. Stressing the need for prior approval, the court further held that:
“The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in these
cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals.”

There appeared to be a clear divide between forest officials and mining authorities. The former
acts as champions of forest protection whereas the latter plays the role of a messiah of
development. The Patna High Court in Upendra Jha v. State of Bihar,28 settling a dispute
between the two approved the stand of the forest department on the rule of prior approval and
renewal of a licence. The court observed: “Now even if any part of reserved forest or forest land
was part of any lease-hold and such reserved forest had been broken or forest had been cleared
on the basis of that lease granted prior to coming into force of the Act, no renewal of that lease
or fresh grant in respect of that area can be given by the State Government without prior
approval of the Central Government, because any such renewal or a fresh grant of such area is
bound to lead to further deforestation and cannot help reclaiming back the areas where
deforestation have taken place.”

In Divisional Forest Officer v. S Nageswaramma,29 it was held that renewal of lease is not a
vested right of the lessees. “By the date of the expiry of the lease, the authorities were denuded of
the power to grant renewal of the mining lease. The renewal was in violation of Section 2 of the

26
AIR 1985 SC 814.
27
AIR 1987 SC 1073.
28
AIR 1988 Pat 263.
29
(1996) 6 SCC 442.

14
Forest Conservation Act since, admittedly, the prior approval of the Central Government was
not obtained.”

Even though FCA does not envisage ex post facto approval, and only provides for ‘prior’
approval. In extraordinary circumstances where non-forest activities were already undertaken
with the tacit approval of the tribal population of the locality who are the direct beneficiaries of
the activities, ex post approval may perhaps be justified.

Similarly in Lafarge Umium Mining Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India,30 the court found that
environmental clearance for mining had already been given. In the public hearing before
clearance, the people in the area in an autonomous district of Meghalaya made a conscious and
impassioned plea for the mining as the venture would bring them unprecedented benefits. Later,
it was found that part of the mining site is forest, but mining had started. The court had to
endorse the ex post facto approval given in the given circumstances. This case acts as a guide for
forest clearance.

In K.M Chinnappa v. Union of India,31 the issue whether the state government was entitled to
exclude an area from obtaining prior approval was discussed. The apex court was categorical in
disapproving this exclusion allowed by the state government. The question was whether the
permission to continue mining in an area subsequently declared as a national park was valid.
FCA makes prior approval mandatory inspite of the right to get renewal under the mining Rules.
The Central Government had not accorded prior approval. Hence, the exclusion of mining
company’s land from the need to get prior approval was impermissible.

Thus through a plethora of decisions it has been settled that in general circumstances, being a
non-forest activity, mining in forest areas can be allowed only with the prior approval of the
Central Government. Renewal of a license is also not automatic and can be rendered only with
prior approval.

30
(2001) 7 SCC 338.
31
AIR 2003 SC 724.

15
 9. CONCLUSION

We find that several comprehensive policies and statutes were framed by the lawmakers of the
country, in view of the mass clearance of forestlands. But, the provisions of forest law were mere
letters until the judicial interpretation gave life and blood to them. The myth created by the black
letter law tradition that judges do not make law but merely find it or interpret is not true in the
field of environmental law in Indian context. They do make law as is evident from the
Godavarman cases. But the paramount concern is effective implementation of the same. An
approach to conservation and management that goes beyond small areas and administrative
boundaries and focuses on a landscape and natural boundaries is needed. It is significant to note
that, the stress and emphasis given to the conservation of forests has left the tribal and forest
dwellers at sea. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 has been an attempt in this regard. But their interests still remain
neglected, major problem being the lack of knowledge of their own rights. Hence the need of the
hour is conceptualisation of an approach which would effectively balance out these conflicting
interests and giving them shape through law and policy.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 R.N Choudhry, Law of Forests in India

 P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India

 A.K Poddar, Forest Laws and Policies in India

 Dharmendra S. Sengar, Environmental Law

 Shyam Divan& Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy

17