JOSEPH KURIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Substantial questions of grave import concerning protection of forests, arise for determination in the above writ petition. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing Ext.P6 proceedings of the fifth respondent and -Ext.P7 letter of the third-respondent, as violative of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. As per the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has been declined permission to irrigate his plantation by taking water from the Periyar river through the Reserve Forest Land.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he along with his brothers are the owners of 70 acres of land comprised in survey Nos. 426/1-2, 407/1, 407/2, 429 and 430 (re-survey Nos. 104/4, 103/3, 114/7, 97/4, 97/7, 112/8 and block No. 23) of Malayattoor Village. The property lies along the northern side of Periyar river and is separated by a strip of forest land of about 150 mtrs width (Axattukadavu tea plantation reserve). For the purpose of irrigating the said property the petitioner was taking water from the river through the forest land. As per Ext.PI agreement dated 9.7.1954 entered into between the petitioner and the then Government of Travancore-Cochin, the petitioner was permitted to take water through the forest land by cutting channels through the forest. The agreement was subsequently renewed by Ext.P2 up to the year 1999. According to the petitioner, he has put up a pump house, has cut water channels through the Reserve Forest and has been taking water to his property for irrigation purposes, ever since, A rough sketch Ext.P3 produced by the petitioner shows the location of the property, the pump house and the channels.

(3.) On 10.7.1998 the petitioner approached the fourth respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, for a further extension of the lease, since the lease was to expire on 31.3.1999. The petitioner was informed that further extension of the lease could be given only with the prior permission of the third respondent, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India and, therefore, he waited. Subsequently, the petitioner received Ext.P6 communication dated 6.2.2003 directing him to make alternative arrangements for the irrigation of his land and to surrender vacant possession of the land in his possession to the forest department before 28.2.2003. Ext.P6 was issued in view of the proceedings of the third respondent dated 30.12.2002 refusing to give permission for extension of the lease, that was sought for by the petitioner. The said proceedings, addressed to the Principal Secretary, Government of Kerala, Forests and Wild Life Department, is Ext.P7. Ext.P7 contains a further direction not to forward proposals catering to the individuals' Interests for approval under Section 2 of the Act in future. The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging Exts.P6 and P7 contending that they were violative of the provisions of the Act. The complete ban of even forwarding of proposals for consideration under Section 2 of the Act is attacked as absolutely uncalled for.