DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

Role of Forest Conservations Act, 1980 in Infrastructure Projects

SUBJECT

Infrastructure law

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Ms. Bhagyalakshmi mam

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE:

K.Meghana

ROLL NO:

2018039

SEMESTER

XTH

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With due respect I thank my teacher Ms. Bhagyalakshmi mam, who gave me this golden
opportunity to do this wonderful project on Role of Forest Conservations Act, 1980 in
Infrastructure Projects which also helped me in doing a lot of research and I came to know
about a lot of things.

The project is extremely interesting to work on as it will give us the opportunity to have a
detailed insight of learning about Infrastructure law. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank you for helping immensely in almost every possible way to get our project proposal
prepared. I am extremely thankful to you as you have prepared me for looking at the matters
of life widely with open minds. This project is one of the sources of giving us knowledge
about Infrastructure law.

Last but not the least, we express our overall gratitude to our institution, which actually
provided me the chance of having the academic requirement to prepare such a project.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….04
2. Regulation of the use of forest areas for infrastructure development …….05
3. General approval under FCA – Development of Critical public and
Strategic defence infrastructure …………………………………………...05
4. Forest clearance …………………………………………………………...06
5. Rural litigation and entitlement kendra, Dehradun V. state of UP ………..07
6. Compensatory Afforestation ………………………………………………10
7. Infrastructural projects including Roads, Railway lines, Border roads,
Residential / building construction ………………………………………...11
8. Approved projects will impact national parks, tiger reserves ……………...13
9. Problems in implementation of the FCA, 1980 …………………………….15
10. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….19
11. Bibliography ………………………………………………………………..20

3
 INTRODUCTION

Forests are a vital asset to every nation as it regulates and impacts the local climate and
temperature. Forests can be considered as the life support system on earth. Indian Forests
have been declining for a number of reasons over the past few decades since the British era.
One of the main reasons is the fast economic development that has been taking place since
colonial rule. Thus, for the sake of retention of the environment and maintenance of
ecological balance, it is imperative that forests are conserved.

The first-ever legislation for forest management came up in 1865. The 1865 Act attempted to
establish the Colonial State’s monopoly over forests as forests are considered to be a source
of revenue. However, in 1868 a more comprehensive piece of legislation was chalked out.
According to the 1868 legislation the Colonial government was empowered to replace
valuable tracts of forests in order to build the Indian railways. After years of exploitation
finally, after independence, the Indian Legislature enacted the Forest Conservation Act
in1980. The practice of Forest conservation is the planning and maintenance of forested areas
for the sake of the balance in the environment and sustainable development for future
generations. The Forest (Conservation) ordinance was promulgated by the President of India
on 25th of October 19801

Objective of the study: -

The use of forest areas through LFAL for the construction of toll road infrastructure and
geothermal exploration activities in the perspective of sustainable development, the main
problem that will be answered through this paper is the regulation of forest area for
infrastructure development through LFAL can guarantee the sustainability of the function of
forest area.

Research question: -

 How far we can do justice for both environment and infrastructure projects in forest
areas

1
THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980, Central Act No. 69, Acts of Parliament, 1980.

4
  Whether this infrastructure is really threat to environment if yes then how to
overcome this problem

Research methodology :-

The present research study is mainly a doctrinal and analytical.

Keeping this in view, the researcher has gone through different books, journals, Web
references, E-journal, reports etc. The relevant material is collected from the secondary
sources. Materials and information are collected both legal sources like books.

REGULATION OF THE USE OF FOREST AREAS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT :-

There are no laws and regulations that specifically regulate the use of forest areas for
infrastructure development. The existing legislation regulates the use of forest areas for
development purposes outside the forestry sector. However, substantially it is within the
scope of forest area use for development purposes outside the forestry sector.

“The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 prohibits the use of any forest land for non-forest
activities without prior approval of the central government. This process is known as the
‘forest clearance’, or FC process, in common parlance. In May 2019, the environment
ministry issued a circular to all state governments that the FCA, 1980, will not apply for
doubling of track and gauge conversion projects,’ if the land is railway land and was under
non-forest use prior to 1980.2 Projects involving the construction of new lines would still
need to apply for forest clearance.”

GENERAL APPROVAL UNDER FCA – DEVELOPMENT OF CRTITICAL PUBLIC

AND STRATEGIC DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE :-

The Provisions under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is an absolute
mandate and the highlight of this Act itself. The Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, on the
other hand, provides regulatory procedures for prior approval of the Central Government
required to be obtained for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. According to the
rules and the subsequent amendments, the Central Government is empowered to grant

2
THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980, Central Act No. 69, Acts of Parliament, 1980.

5
General Approvals for diversion of forest area for specific purposes. Such a purpose can
range from critical public utility services to strategic defence infrastructure purposes. Public
Initiatives for critical development need general approval. Initiatives like School, hospital,
Minor irrigation canal, Electric and telecommunication lines, Power substations etc. require
general approval.3 All kinds of exceptions will be discussed in the later half of this article.
Infrastructure investments are needed, according to economists, to promote growth and
economic activity. History shows us that only those countries that made a substantial
investment in public infrastructure such as roads and power projects have moved ahead 

In the Social Action for Forest and Environment (SAFE) v. Union of India, the National
Green Tribunal accepted the contention of the State via an affidavit filed by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate change. The contention was the construction of the wall
within Raja Ji National Park. The main issue raised was whether such a construction was in
accordance with the provisions of the FCA, 1980 or not. The NGT decided that the approved
management plan lies within the meaning of ‘work relating to or ancillary to conservation
development and management of forest and wildlife. Thus, such activity doesn’t necessarily
require any forest clearance as under Section 2 of the Act.

An important question arose as to whether central government’s prior approval is essential

when the license has already been granted for mining. In connection to the same another issue
arose was whether approval is required while an existing license is getting renewed. Both
these issues were resolved in the Landmark case of, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad etc. v.
UOI & Ors. In this case, it was held that all provisions of FCA, 1980 applies to all types of
forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or any other classification thereof. The
dictionary meaning of forest has to be referred to while keeping the statutory implications in
view. Thus, the Central Government’s approval is required in the above two cases as well.
Since the forest is under concurrent list the Central government will intervene in every step.4

FOREST CLEARANCE

For any road project where a forest area is required to be taken under road construction,
clearance for diversion of forest land (for non-forestry purpose) is necessary from the
Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate change (MOEFCC) under Forest Conservation
Act, 1980. In J&K state, diversion of forest-land is done under Jammu & Kashmir Forest

3
P. Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India (Lexis Nexis, 4th Edition)
4
https://blog.ipleaders.in/insight-forest-conservation-act-1980.

6
Conservation Act, 1997. MOEFCC has ten Regional Offices (ROs). The ROs are authorized
to clear linear projects, irrespective of the area or type of forest involved, with the
recommendation of the Regional Empowered Committees (RECs)

Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC) The “Validity of Environmental Clearance” is for

five years in the case of highway projects. This period of validity may be extended by the
regulatory authority concerned to a maximum period of seven years provided an application
is made to the regulatory authority by the applicant.

Permission from State/Central Ground Water Authority

For the construction of highway, if water requirements are met through ground water, prior
permission is required from State/Central Ground Water Board.

Permission of Irrigation Department/Water Resource Department For the construction

of highway, if water requirements are met through River/Canal, etc., prior permission is
required from Irrigation Department//Water Resource Department.

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, DEHRADUN V. STATE OF

UP5

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Mussoorie hill chain of the Himalayas includes Doon Valley. The Doon Valley had a lot
of resources. Numerous rivers originate in the Mussoorie hills, completing the valley region
are natural flourishing. However, in the 1950s, it has become a location for limestone mining,
as well as the valley began to degrade as a result of the use of explosives, tree cutting, and
severe mining. Throughout 1955 and 1965, the Doon valley’s limestone mining methods
grew more dispersed. Detonation was used to remove minerals, which resulted in a lack of
flora in the valley. Mudslides, flooding, water shortages, extreme heat, and agricultural
decimation had robbed the valley of its beautiful nature by the early 1980s. The Uttar Pradesh
State Department of Mines outlawed mining in the state in 1961. However, in 1962, the state
legislature approved several mining licences for a period of 20 years, and quarrying resumed.
As contracts for restoration were available in 1982, the state banned them due to
environmental damage. Mining firms have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the
government’s decision. The Allahabad high court approved mining in the Doon valley,

5
1985 AIR  65 1985 SCR (3) 169

7
favouring economic gain above environmental concerns. In 1983, a regional Dehradun NGO,
the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), filed a protest letter with the Supreme
Court against India’s environmental poverty. This complaint was filed as a writ petition with
the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court
ordered that all present mining operations in the valley be evaluated. The court also ordered
the state government to build a website for the region’s agriculture.

ISSUES :-

 Does mining in the Dehradun Valley violate the Forest Conservation Act of 1980?

 Is there any evidence that mining operations have harmed the ecosystem in the area?

 Is it true that quarries resulted in permanent water springs?

CONTENTIONS RAISED

The petitioner

Ecological degradation in “Doon Valley would obstruct regional residents ability to live their
lives, infringing on their basic right to a healthy ecosystem Article 21 of the Constitutional
provisions includes the right to a healthy environment as element of the right to life.

The state’s permission for mining was withdrawn when the people rejected lease repayment.

Because forests are on a protected list, central govt approval must be required for mining
operations as well.

The respondent

The Supreme Court ought to be aware of the troubling problem, which are the state’s
administrative installations under the Environmental Protection Act. If Respondents claimed
that now the Mines Act of 1952 covered all mining and construction processes should be a
subject for the state to decide.

Mining activities ought not be stopped since they are vital to the interests of the nation and
protect the government‘s foreign revenue position. Mine closures will result in the layoff of
mine employees and labourers.

JUDGEMENT

8
The Apex Court held that if it’s a case of first grant or even renewal Section 2 of the FCA,
1980 is a condition precedent.

Instructions were given by the Court:

1. Mine lessees whose activities were halted by the court will be granted first preference
for leases in newly opened limestone mining regions, according to court orders.

2. Orders that the central department of Environment’s Eco-Task Force recover and
replant the mining-damaged area, and that, employees affected by mine shutdown be
given first preference for employment under the Eco-Task Force’s activities and
services.

Further, in the famous case of M C Mehta v. Union of India (2004), the Court re-emphasized
that renewal is to be treated as a fresh grant. Therefore, a mining project cannot commence
without prior permission of the Government of India.

In State of Kerala v. Sunil Kumar, “the SC reiterated that if a State Government didn’t
want to lease a part of the forest land, seeking prior approval is out of the question.

In A Chowgle and Co. Ltd v. Goa foundation the Apex Court held that in order for the
diversion of forest land for some other purpose, Central Government approval is required
before the execution of such a purpose in accordance with Section 2 of the FCA. Any lease
obtained without approval is null and void. Another important issue resolved was that the
Court also held that the Central Government’s approval cannot be applied retrospectively;
this means that the approval cannot be a ratifying act.

In Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala and Ors, the Kerala Government tried to
grant a lease to unauthorised encroachers of forest land without obtaining Central
Government’s approval. The nature of Section 2 was questioned as to whether it is
prospective or retrospective in nature. The Court stated that under no circumstances will any
state government be permitted the use of forest area for non-forest purposes.

In Upendra Jha v. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court observed that a state government
cannot allow the de-reservation of a reserved forest without following the mandate under
Section 2 of the FCA.

9
Section 3A of FCA, 1980 provides for the penalty for the violation of mandate under Section
2. Section 3A lays down that anyone violating or abetting the violation of Section 2 will face
imprisonment for up to 15 days. Section 3 confers upon Central government the power to
constitute an advisory committee that will advise and assist the government regarding the
grant of approval under section 2 as well as other forest-related matters.

In Muklesh Ali v. the State of Assam, the Apex Court clarified that the directions issued by
the Apex Court itself for disciplinary and criminal proceedings against forest officers who
commit a breach of duty are prospective in nature.” “Section 4 of the FCA, 1980 confers
powers upon the Central Government to make rules in order to facilitate the implementation
of the provisions under this Act.”

COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION :-

As per guidelines issued under the FCA, 1980 Compensatory Afforestation is one of the most
important features of this Act” and “the Central Government has to keep in view the
implementation of reforestation while approving proposals for de-reservation or diversion.

It is mandated under the FCA, 1980 that forest land can be diverted for infrastructural
development activities like mining, road construction, and railway lines. Since this kind of
development requires the clearance of forest areas, the law mandated compensatory
afforestation in order to make up for the loss of biodiversity. The Statute stipulates that
compensatory afforestation has to be carried out on non-forest land equal to the forest land
being diverted.

the Union of India to impose a condition in the mining lease and a similar condition in the
environmental clearance and the mining plan to the effect that the mining lease holders shall,
after ceasing mining operations, undertake re-grassing the mining area and any other area
which may have been disturbed due to their mining activities and restore the land to a
condition which is fit for growth of fodder, flora, fauna, said “the SC, while directing the
Central Government to do so within three weeks by the end of January.”

10
INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS INCLUDING ROADS, RAILWAY LINES,
BORDER ROADS, RESIDENTIAL/BUILDING CONSTRUCTION :-

Infrastructure projects which require diversion of forest land will have to seek approval as
under the FCA, 1980. About 14 categories fall under what kind of developmental projects
require a permit under this Act.

Linear projects proposals such as roads, railway lines, transmission lines, etc. are required to
undergo a comprehensive assessment in order to weigh the environmental risks involved and
the consequences of the removal of forest area. After a satisfactory assessment of the impact
of such linear projects, it is found that there are grave environmental risks that cannot be
corrected through compensatory afforestation then the Central Government is at the liberty to
reject the user agency’s want and disallow the starting of such projects. No other work on
forest land is to be taken up till the State Government or UT government orders for diversion
after obtaining prior approval as according to the provisions of the FCA, 1980.

The guidelines provided in 2003 were mainly to facilitate a phased preparation and
processing of proposals. When a linear project is set to start, a Forest Division or State-wise
subject map indicating alignment of the entire project must be submitted. The map must
highlight the portions of the project passing through forest land, therefore, requiring
clearance. The management plan of the project must also include a write up on the salient
features of the project. For instance, some of the 13 projects now exempted from the process
pass through notified tiger reserves and national parks. 6 There will now be no scrutiny of
their impact on the movement of wildlife, or on the break-down of forests.

In cases of creation of Border Security related infrastructures such as Border Roads, Fencing,
Border Outposts, Surveillance, Floodlights and Power Infrastructure etc. if a forest clearance
is required then also the central government has the responsibility to check the necessity of
the situation and then grant approval for such projects.

Development of infrastructure along the international border areas is crucial for keeping our
borders intact and to uphold the sovereignty of the country. Given the present scenario of
obtaining approval for non-forestry use of forest land, many a times, strategic and security
projects of national importance get delayed resulting in setback to development of such
infrastructure at critical locations. Whether, such projects should be exempted from obtaining

6
P. Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India (Lexis Nexis, 4th Edition)

11
prior approval of Central Government under the provision of the Act and allow the States to
permit non-forest use of forest land for implementation of such strategic and security projects
that are to be completed in a given time frame.

It is further noted that in case of mining leases, the application of Sub-Section 2(ii) and 2(iii)
of the Act together create confusion in many respects. Subsection 2(iii) provides for
assignment of lease, whereas Sub-Section 2(ii) provides for use of forest land for non-forestry
purpose. As per the present provision for permission under Sub-Section 2(iii), only the NPV
of the forest land is payable. Further during the process of considering such permission there
is less scope for due diligence. Whereas for permission under Subsection 2(ii), a very detailed
examination of a proposal using the Decision Support System and various methodologies
prescribed in rules/guidelines and in pursuance of some court orders are adopted. In addition
to the NPV of the forests, other compensatory levies such as Compensatory Afforestation
(CA) money, CA Land, safety zone plantation, etc. are payable. Thus, a mining leaseholder
may take permission under Sub-Section 2(iii) and hold a large chunk of forest area just by
paying the NPV money. It is also not clear whether such permission under Sub-Section 2(iii)
will be construed as ‘forest clearance’ or not, and ‘environment clearance’ under
Environment (protection) Act, 1986 will be allowable as per Hon’ble Supreme Court to avoid
a fait accompli situation, in cases where Sub-Section 2(iii) permission has been taken but the
lessee has not even applied under Sub-Section 2(ii). Originally, Sub-Section 2(iii) was meant
to be applied to lease related to purpose such as plantation (where breaking or clearing of
land is not the purpose) and not to other lease whose purpose is to break / clear the forest land
such as mining lease. But later, Sub-Section 2(iii) was started to be applied to mining and
such other types of leases also.” Therefore, it is proposed to delete the Sub-Section 2(iii) of
the Act and clarify that sub-section 2 (ii) can be invoked for any kind of lease assignment
having an intention of using for non-forestry purpose.

India’s environment ministry has exempted 13 pending railway projects, worth Rs 19,400
crore ($2.8 billion) and spread over 800 hectares of land, from the process of seeking forest
permits, according to official documents. These clearances could adversely impact a national
park, a tiger reserve, a tiger corridor and wildlife sanctuaries across the states of Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka7

7
https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/13-railway-projects-exempted-from-forest-approvals-
risking-wildlife-sanctuaries

12
APPROVED PROJECTS WILL IMPACT NATIONAL PARKS, TIGER RESERVES

At least four of the 13 approved projects will fragment a national park, a tiger reserve, a tiger
corridor or a wildlife sanctuary. “If the 261 km Katni-Singrauli line is doubled, 33 km will
pass through the Sanjay Dubri National Park in Madhya Pradesh, and will also disturb the
tiger corridor connecting Bandhavgarh with the national park.

In July 2017, the National Tiger Conservation Authority told the railway ministry that 250
km of railway lines, including the Katni-Singrauli line, pose a high degree of threat to critical
tiger habitats, according to a presentation made to the railway ministry in 2017. 8 The doubled
Hospet-Tinaighat-Vasco line will pass through Goa's Bhagwan Mahaveer Sanctuary and
Karnataka's Dandeli sanctuary while the Lucknow-Pilibhit gauge conversion will increase
traffic and construction inside the Pilibhit tiger reserve in Uttar Pradesh.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CASE

The Test Case: Rules Tweaked for Akola-Khandwa Line At the root of these approvals is
the Akola-Khandwa gauge conversion project. In 2017, when the Akola-Khandwa project
came to the environment ministry for forest clearance, the railways said that the project did
not need a fresh forest clearance since the gauge conversion would happen on land that was
in their possession before 1980. The project, which involves converting the 176-km metre-
gauge line into a broad-gauge line, received the approval of the environment ministry in
January 2017, as India Spend reported in September 2018. Of the 176 km, 18 km passed
through the critical tiger habitat at Melghat tiger reserve, home to more than 50 tigers, and 40
km passed through forested areas. The project would divert 161 hectares of forest land from
the tiger reserve and the estimated cost was Rs 2,000 crore ($310 million). In December
2017, the environment ministry clarified that even if the railways owned the land, they would
need to apply for forest clearance since fresh forestland was to be diverted, according to a
government order. This clarification was based on the opinion of the Ministry of Law and
Justice, the order said. In late 2018, the approval for the Akola project was challenged before
a Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Supreme Court, which asked the
National Board of Wildlife to review the project’s clearance given its impact on a tiger
reserve. The NBWL sent the proposal back in February.

8
Shyam Diwan& Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India, Oxford University Press

13
Given the back-and-forth on forest clearances for railway land, the railway ministry referred
the matter to the Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal, who sided with the railway
ministry. Issued in April 2018, AG Venugopal said that the Railways Act, 1989, gives the
railways the power to execute necessary works even if it alters the course of any rivers,
brooks, streams or other water bodies.

Further, Venugopal stated that while both Acts contained ‘non-obstante’ provisions, which
allow these to override other laws prevailing at the time, “the Railways Act would prevail in
a case of conflict since it was enacted after the FCA. For railway land under non-forest use
before October 25, 1980, falling within the right of way of existing metre-gauge/broad-gauge
lines, prior approval under the FCA would not be necessary, Venugopal concluded. The
opinion of the AG is not a correct statement of laws as it does not take into account breaking
up of land, and every single court direction that has said that the Forest Conservation Act will
apply if there is a fresh requirement of forest land, Dutta, the environmental lawyer, said.
Lastly, a ministry's circular or office order cannot be above a central legislation. On June 18,
2018, roads minister Nitin Gadkari chaired a meeting, with railway minister Piyush Goyal,
the forests director-general Siddhanta Das and Member of Parliament from Akola, Sanjay
Dhotre. Despite reservations raised by environment ministry officials, work on the gauge
conversion should start immediately, based on the advocate-general’s decision

The environment ministry confirmed that they had agreed with minister Goyal. We had a
discussion with the railway ministry on the right of way issue. We had clarified earlier that
they have right of way over land in their possession prior to 1980. But they asked us to
reiterate this to all states and we have done that and we have resolved their problem, said CK
Mishra, secretary at the environment ministry. Still, the National Board of Wildlife revoked
permission for the Akola project in February, citing the National Tiger Conservation
Authority's views that the railway line would run through a tiger reserve, impacting sensitive
ecology.

Currently the state government has put the project on hold following its rejection by the
National Board of Wildlife.” Still, over the past two years, the railways has cited this case
that the meter gauge line has existed inside the Melghat tiger reserve since before 1980 and
should not need additional forest clearance to seek exemptions from forest clearance for other
projects.9
9
Potočnik I, Pentek T, Pičman D, Papa I, Poje A: Filling in the clearance of a forest road cross-section in Beech
forest. Croat. J. For. Eng 2008, 29(1):53–62

14
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION

One of the negative effects of road construction is the loss of forest area. The ecological
balance in forests is adversely affected by rock fall and forest road construction work. 10 The
proliferation of human-made clearings may have important impacts on wildlife populations. 11
The clearance of a forest road cross-section affects both the forest and the road. One of the
first steps in forest road construction is the clearing of trees. At this phase, trees and other
large vegetation within the construction boundaries are cut down. In addition, hazardous roots
and unsafe trees adjacent to the area should also be cut down. Forest road construction often
results in the most environmental impact to adjacent ecosystems because earth movement and
other activities can disturb whole watershed. Heinrich indicated that excavators
Correspondence have been commonly used in environmentally sensitive areas to reduce
impact on forest vegetation, provide adequate drainage systems, protect stream crossings, and
improve stabilization of cut and fill slopes. Forest roads are built through the excavation of
soil and rock. Rock fall occurs during construction and is caused by excavated rock pieces on
embankment slopes and the blasting of block rock masses. In Turkey, the traditional use of
bulldozers causes loss of land and damage to trees and forest habitat.

PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FCA, 1980

Just like every other statute, there are a few problems that arise during the implementation of
the FCA.  

1. It is debated that this Act has merely facilitated the shift of power of approval from
the State government” to the central government. The scope of its objective is limited
to just conserving the remaining forests. The measures under this Statute doesn’t
really account for rejuvenation of the lost forest.

2. According to the FCA, 1980 only a centralised authority is obligated to grant approval
for forest clearance. The developers seeking approval and state authorities do not
seemingly have any as such responsibility to protect forests. 

3. It is also a well-known fact that political demands and undue pressure contribute to
the ineffectiveness of this Statute. 

10
Luce CH, Wemple BC: Introduction to special issue on hydrologic and geomorphic effects of forest roads.
Earth Surf Process Landforms 2001, 26:111–113
11
Laurance SW, Stouffer PC, Laurance WE: Effects of road clearings on movement patterns of understory
rainforest birds in central Amazonia. Conserv. Biology 2004, 18(4):1099–1109

15
 4. Another problem with regard to effective implementation of this legislation is the lack
of integration of this statute with other relevant forest legislation, for example, the
Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Statute also misses out on the implications under
sectoral legislation like laws on mining projects and other infrastructural industries.

5. An unresponsive bureaucracy also partially contributes to the ineffectiveness of this

Act. 

SAVE MON REGION FEDERATION AND ORS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS…
NGT, APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2012

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

In the current Appeal, Save “Mon Region Federation an organization comprising of residents
of Monpa indigenous network in Tawang locale of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. Lobsang
Choedar a Social Activist, Senior Buddhist Lama and Chief Advisor of the said Federation,
have pounced upon award of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 19.4.2012 to the
development of 780 Mega Watts (MW) Nyam Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project (NJC-HEP)
in Tawang area of Arunachal Pradesh.

Truly, 780 MW HEP visualizes development of 10.2m high and 15m long blast on eco-
delicate stretch of Naymjang Chhu River bowl close to Zemithangin locale Tawang of
Arunachal Pradesh. The task includes 23.45km long and 6.2m. Distance across Head Race
Tunnel (HRT) requiring broad burrowing in geographically delicate scene and includes eight
(8) de-silting loads and with underground Powerhouse having 6x130MW Pelton Turbines.
The HRT sidesteps around 35kms stretch of waterway among torrent and the force to be
reckoned with. The Appellant adds that the undertaking additionally includes development of
hostage hydropower task of 7.5MW, Khangteng HEP to give power during development of
780MW Nyamjang Chhu venture.

It is additionally not contested that absolute land proposed to be gained for the undertaking is
around 254.55ha, out of which 10.08ha is private land and 244.46ha is network land with all
out-submergence region of 39.34ha, and 89.5271ha of woodland land has been considered for
redirection proposition under the Forest Act.12

ISSUES

12
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

16
The appeal is filed on the issue of grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 19.4.2012 to
the construction of 780 Mega Watts (MW) Nyam Jang Chhu Hydroelectric Project (NJC-
HEP) in Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh and also challenging the legality of existing
order.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APELLANT SIDE

The Appellants have tested the award of EC (Environment Clearance), principally on the
accompanying grounds:

(1) Faulty Scoping Process:

a) Concealment of data, accommodation of bogus and misdirecting information in Form-I,

b) Lack of utilization of psyche by the EAC at checking stage, since it ignored wrongness for
siting torrent at the spot utilized by Black necked Crane for wintering, avoidance of ToR for
sway appraisal of hostage little hydel power 7.5MW Khangteng HEP and auxiliary
frameworks, inappropriate rejection of significant TORs from Model TOR for North-Eastern
activities, nonattendance of solution for combined effect evaluation and riverine bowl
concentrates in Tawang River Basin, and nonappearance of TORs identifying with effects of
Catchment Area Treatment (CAT) and Compensatory Afforestation (CA).

(2) Faulty public discussion measure, because of the fact that the EIA report was not
according to TOR, low quality of EIA Report, ridiculous hearing.

(3) Lack of utilization of brain by the EAC and MoEF during evaluation of task and from that
point by MOEF.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

Respondent No. 1-“Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of

India got gives together with answers dated 26.7.2013 and dated 11.1.2016. In conclusion,
MoEF depended upon the record and battled that the EAC had altogether investigated the
proposition for award of EC being referred to and upon assessment suggested the task for
perusing leeway, and formal proceeding for the undertaking was led according to
arrangements of the EIA Notification, 2006 and immediately EAC completely analyzed the
natural issues prior to suggesting the venture for award of EC and, from there on, the
Ministry appropriately allowed EC to the task in the wake of following due system according

17
to arrangements of the EIA Notification, 2006. Respondent No. 1 MOEF, set before us
duplicates of the Minutes of EAC Meetings hung on 20-21 July, 2015 and 24-25 August,
2015, wherein the report on ‘conveying limit investigation of Tawang River bowl’ through
North-Eastern Hill University got in June, 2015”

LEGAL ASPECTS

The case revolves around two statutes –

1. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980–

i) This Act aims at - To protect the forest, its flora, fauna and other diverse
ecological component. And to protect the integrity, territory and individuality
of the forests

2. “Environment Clearance Regulations of 2006 –

 The main objective of environmental clearance is to reduce the environmental

damages that have been taking place for years due to industrialization, as
people do not care for the environment where their own interest is lost.
 Environmental Clearance solely monitors and restricts all public and
environmental damages that may be caused due to upcoming projects.”

JUDGEMENT

The facts demonstrate that hydel power venture gives eco well-disposed inexhaustible
wellspring of energy and its advancement is vital, nonetheless, we are of the considered view
that such improvement should be ‘reasonable turn of events’ without there being any
unrecoverable misfortune to climate. We are additionally of the view that reviews done
should be open for public interview to offer an occasion to influenced people having
conceivable stake in climate to communicate their interests following such examinations.
This would encourage target choice by the EAC on every single natural issue and open a path
for maintainable advancement of the district. To do equity in the issue, along these lines, we
pass the accompanying headings:

I) The EC dated 19.4.2011, is suspended till the time the investigations as coordinated are
completed, public conference subsequently done, “the EAC thinks about result of such open

18
discussion, does a new evaluation of proposition for award of EC, makes suggestion to the
MOEF&CC, and the MOEF&CC follows up on such proposals as per law.

ii) The MOEF& CC will cause to be made a different investigation of E-stream prerequisite
for assurance of living space of the Black necked Crane and for preservation of the Black
necked Crane through the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, as quickly as could
reasonably be expected and make such examination report alongside Tawang River Basin
study accessible for ‘public discussion’ and will hold ‘public counsel’ in consistence of the
previously mentioned bearing as per law.

iii) The EAC will immediately, make new examination of the proposition for award of EC
and take proper choice for making proposals to the MOEF&CC, who will take choice
immediately as per law.

iv) The Appeal stands discarded with no organization as to costs.

CONCLUSION

The FCA, 1980 is short and put together. It has undergone various amendments over time.
The 2003 rules are a supplement” to the main Act. “However, it must be noted that its
implementation is still problematic. A number of notable judgments reveal that FCA, 1980
has been a success to some extent when it comes to the judicial interpretation of Central
government’s approval. Another positive point that was observed throughout was the
involvement of the central government and the fact that the forest area is treated as a national
asset. The guidelines placed by the FCA, 1980 are also crisp and clear. The vacuum in
legislation still exists as discussed above.

The FCA, 1980 was drafted by keeping in view the need for Infrastructural development.
However, only exceptional public initiatives will be permitted to flourish in forest areas. The
position of the law is clear that forest areas cannot be used for Non- forest purposes. In
conclusion, it can be said that the concept of compensatory afforestation as introduced in the
FCA, 1980 is an important practice that ensures sustainable development. It is one of the
salient features of this Act. The Indian legislation still needs to buck up and check the
implementation of the law and strict penalties must be imposed.

Courts play an important role in defining the scope of powers and sections of final
agreements, as well as whether the environment and development are compatible. The most

19
important thing is to find a common ground amongst the two, i.e., progress on one side and a
tainted-free atmosphere on the other.

A cycle in which progress may be sustained endlessly by focusing on the potential of a man’s
existence while also living in peace with environment and deferring the post-trial phase of
life-sustaining eco-structures. Its typical neighbourhood consists of the synchronisation of
developmental and mundane goals. As “a result, the only viable solution is acceptable
progress, and persuasive exercises should be pursued to that end.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY :-

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/insight-forest-conservation-act-1980/
2. https://www.dgms.net/HANDBOOK_GUIDELINES18_03_2019.pdf
3. https://journalsofindia.com/changes-proposed-in-forest-conservation-act-1980/
4. https://prsindia.org/
5. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/explainer-what-are-the-
proposed-amendments-to-the-forest-conservation-act-about/article36840926.ece
6. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/forest-conservation-act-1980/

20