AP VERDICT FAVOURS ENVIRONMENTALISTS

-Saturday, april 25 1992, the times of india, new delhi
The Times of India News Service

- C Lokeswara Rao

HYDERABAD, April 24: Environment activists have won a significant decision in Andhra Pradesh High Court. A division bench comprising Mr. Justice Mohammed Sardar Ali Khan and Mr. Justice D. Reddeppa Reddy has quashed state government order of 1990, which circumvented an earlier decision to protect forests.

The quashed government order had been hanging over the Chintalapudi forest in East Godavari district, one of the few dense forests in the state. The 200-hectare Chintalapudi forest is a key segment of the thick forests covering 1400 hectares.

The quashed order directed forest officials not to interfere in the felling of trees and issue of transit permits. The order was issued by the Channa Reddy government but the chief minister stayed it following protests by environmentalists and politicians.

The order of 1990 was issued in response to a plea by a timber contractor Mr. V. Shankara Reddy, who sought exemption from an earlier order issued by the NTR government in 1988. The order was meant to protect private forests in scheduled areas and prevent tribals from being exploited by non-tribal timber merchants.

Mr. Sankara Reddy is a non-tribal timber merchant with a power of attorney and has fought many legal battles to retain his right over the forests.

He challenged the order of 1988 which nullified his power

of attorney. And when the high court upheld the order, he went to the Supreme Court.

After the government changed in 1989, he approached them with a fresh plea for exemption and offered to withdraw his case in the Supreme Court. Dr. Channa Reddy’s government issued the order but stayed its implementation following protests.

Mr. Sankara Reddy renewed his efforts after Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy became the chief minister. The high court first imposed a stay and now a bench has quashed the order.

In upholding the petition filed by Sakti, a voluntary organisation working for tribals, the court made some important observations. Rejecting objections about the locus standi of the petitioner. The Bench observed that the Constitution attached vital importance to the maintenance of proper environmental and ecological conditions.

Also, a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had noted in an earlier case that what had to be seen for the purpose of locus standi was whether there a substantive breach of law or the Constitution as changed and not the antecedents of the person who conveyed the information to court.

The court quoted extensively from a Supreme Court judgement to make the point that the government could not empower itself to proceed contrary to the law. An illegality could not be cured because it was undertaken by the government.

The court noted that in the present case Mr. Sankara Reddy was only a power of attorney who was trying to cut trees for his own benefit. The object of the legislation was to save private forests in scheduled areas from denudation.

- by K.Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocate, High Court of A.P.,
ALTR Publications - 1996

Page - 83:

"Chapter III-A, Section 28-B, Sub-sections (2) and (3) and G.O.Ms.No.185, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology (Forests-Ill) Department, dt9-7-1990 -After the amendment of Section 28-B(2) by G.O.Ms.No.210, EFEST (Forest-Ill) Department, dt. 20-7-1988, no person claiming under the owner Including General Power of Attorney holder has got any power to cut the trees In the forest and GPA holder cannot represent the pattadars (owners) - Exemption under Section 28-B(3) cannot be granted in favour of any person - Exemption thereunder could be only with regard to any forest or class of forests - Under amended Section 28-B permission to cut the trees to any owner can be granted only by District Collector and not the State Government-Permission granted by State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 185, dt. 9-7-1990 is violative of provisions of Section 28-B of the Act.

Held: By virtue of the amendment to Section 28-B(2) no person claiming under the owner, either by virtue of a contract or any other transaction entered Into on or before the first day of January, 1970 has got any power to cut the trees or to do any act likely to denude the forest or diminish its utility as a forest. In fact, any other person apart from the owner including General Power of Attorney holder, has been completely eliminated from the scene under the amendment to Section 28-B(2).

Under sub-section (3) of Section 28-B the Government may exempt any forest or class of forests or class of trees grown therein from all or any of the provisions of Section 28-B. No exemption could be granted in favour of any person as such. It IB only with regard to any forest or class of forests exemption could be granted.

Under the amended Section 28-B It Is the District Collector who has been authorised to grant permission to cut the trees to any owner and not the State Government. Therefore, the permission accorded by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 185, dated 9-7-1990 is rendered nugatory in view of the provisions of Section 28-B of the Forests Act V.ShankarReddy and another vs. State of A.P. and others; 1992(2) A.L.T.514 (D.B.).

Memo No.769/Assign.III9i) 90 Dated: 25-01-1990

Sub:- Tribal Welfare - Mining Lease - Preference to Scheduled Tribes in respect of Mining
leases - Reg.
Ref:- Minutes of the meeting held in the Chambers of Chief Secretary to Government on
27-10-89 at 3.30 p.m.

A copy of the minutes of the meeting held o the Chambers of Chief Secretary to Government on 27-10-89 is sent herewith to the Commissioner of Land Revenue for taking necessary action.

K.VENKATA SIVAIAH
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

5. So for as the mining leases licences already granted to the non-tribals in the Scheduled areas are concerned, all such lease licences should be determined with reference to the provisions of amendment requiation (i) of 1970 and the G.O.Ms.No.971 Revenue (B) Department, dated 7-10-1969 the formar of which prohibits the transfer of any immovable property held by a tribal or non-tribal in the Scheduled areas to any Government land in the Scheduled areas in favour of Non-tribals for the purpose of mining operations also tentamounts to the assignment of Governemnt land so far as the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.971, Revenue (B) Deprtment, Dated 7-10-1969 is concerned. Therefor, all such leases/licenses granted in the scheduled areas to the non-tribals after 7-10-1969 are to be revoked as they are prime facio contrary to the existing laws.

(Action: Social Welfare Dept.. Industries Dept., and Rev.)

- Indian Express – November 11, 1990

Express News Service

Kakinada, Nov.10: In spite of instructions from the Chief Secretary the Department of Mines is reluctant to cancel the mining leases issued to non-tribals in scheduled areas.

Several activists and officials working with the tribals had brought it to the notice of the Chief Secretary and he promptly took up the matter with the secretaries of departments on October 25, 1989 and issued instructions to the departments to cancel the licences given to non-tribals in scheduled areas.