- (1.) Counsel have been heard at length in this appeal.
(2.) The established position is that the Collector of the Union Territory. Daman, as a step towards promoting tourism leased out a site in the reserved forest area to the respondent for putting up a snack Bar and a restaurant to cater to the needs of tourists visiting the forest. It was the Conservator of Forests who raked up the matter and objected to the grant of such lease affecting the reserve forest. The lease was for a period of five years, renewable in terms. The objection of the Conservator of Forests was legal inasmuch as there was restriction on the de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purposes, as envisaged under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980. Whenever any forest land was required to be put to non-forest use, the State Government or other authority was required to put the matter for prior approval of the Central Government and then make an order directing forest land to be used for non-forest purposes. Section 2 as is relevant is set put below: "Section 2 " Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing: i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression' eserved forest' in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof shall cease to be reserved: ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purposes: iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government: iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion for the purpose of using it for reforestation."
(3.) Since the area leased out to the respondent was within a Union Territory, the Collector apparently entertained the view that observance of the procedure under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980 was not necessary, the administration being of the Central Government. But the Conservator of Forests strongly held the opposite view and put to stop further activities of the respondent.;