1 Indian Forest Act, 1927

Introduction
The Indian Forest Act, 1927, has 86 Sections in XIII chapters. The Act provides for the formation of village
forests, and provisions related to reserved and protected forests. It also provides for the protection of
forests, i.e., penalties and procedures in contravention.

History
The Indian Forest Act, 1927, was passed by the Legislature and assented to on 21 September 1927. This
Act came into force on 21 November 1927 as Act Number 16 of the year 1927.

Objectives and Applicability of the Act

The Act extends to the whole of India. It applies to the territories which, immediately before the 1st
November, 1956, were comprised in the States of Bihar, Bombay, Coorg, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa,
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal; but the Government of any State may by notification in the
Official Gazette bring this Act into force in the whole or any specified part of that State which this Act
extends and where it is not in force. It is an Act to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit
of forest-produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest-produce.

Section 26: Acts Prohibited in Such Forests

(1) Any person who—
(a) makes any fresh clearing prohibited by Section 5, or
(b) sets fire to a reserved forest, or, in contravention of any rules made by the State Government
in this behalf, kindles any fire, or leaves any fire burning, in such manner as to endanger such a
forest;
or who, in a reserved forest—
(c) kindles, keeps or carries any fire except at such seasons as the Forest-officer may notify in this
behalf,
(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass;
(e) causes any damage by negligence in felling any tree or cutting or dragging any timber;
(f) fells, girdles, lops, or burns any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages,
the same;
(g) quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or
removes, any forest-produce;
(h) clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or any other purpose;
(i) in contravention of any rules made in this behalf by the State Government hunts, shoots, fishes,
poisons water or sets traps or snares; or
(j) in any area in which the Elephants’ Preservation Act, 1879 (6 of 1879), is not in force, kills or catches
elephants in contravention of any rules so made; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with
both, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may
direct to be paid.

Indian Forest Act, 1927 1

 (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit—
(a) any act done by permission in writing of the Forest-officer, or under any rule made by the State
Government; or
(b) the exercise of any right continued under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15, or created by
grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government under Section 23.
(3) Whenever a fire is caused wilfully or by gross negligence in a reserved forest, the [State Government]
may (notwithstanding that any penalty has been inflicted under this section) direct that in such forest
or any portion thereof the exercise of all rights of pasture or to forest produce shall be suspended for
such period as it thinks fit.

Statement of Objects and Reasons

The general law relating to forests in British India is contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1878, and its
amending Acts. The present Bill brings the law together within the scope of one enactment. The Bill is
a straightforward consolidated Bill. But with the original Act, having been passed before the General
Clauses Act of 1897 (10 of 1897), it has been possible to shorten the language of the Bill by taking
advantage of that Act. The ambiguous language in the second paragraph of Section 42 of Act 7 of 1878
has been altered in Clause 42(2) so as to bring it to conformity with what appears to have been the
original intention of the law. The only other point that calls for further notice is the extent clause. The
original Act extended to the Province of Assam. But by Regulation 7 of 1891, the Indian Forest Act, 1878,
was repealed as far as it relates to Assam. The Bill accordingly omits Assam from the extent clause.

List of Amending Acts and Adaptation Orders

1. The Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 1930 (Act 26 of 1930)
2. The Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 1933 (Act 3 of 1933)
3. The Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937
4. The Repealing and Amending Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1948)
5. The Indian Independence (Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances) Order, 1948
6. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950
7. The Adaptation of Laws (No. 3) Order, 1956
8. The Delegated Legislation Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2004 (Act 4 of 2005)
9. The Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act 5 of 2018)
10. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (Act 34 of 2019)

Subjective Theory
In ancient times, trees were considered sacred. ‘Not to cut trees’ was the only moral sanction. The
most famous of mystic trees is the ‘tree of knowledge’ or ‘tree of life’, which figure in the Biblical
account of paradise.

Forests as Regulator of Ecological Balance

Forests provide protection against both cold and hot winds. While around the Mediterranean, the
climate became hotter, owing to the felling of forests in the Spessart and Rhon districts of Germany,
the mean temperature after the clearing of forests plummeted by around one degree Celsius.

2 Indian Forest Act, 1927

Environment and Forests
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, was enacted to protect the environment and improve
environmental conditions, and for preventing hazards to human beings, other living creatures, land,
and property.
In Virender Gaur versus State of Haryana [(1995) 2 SCC 577], the Supreme Court held that environmental,
ecological, air and water pollution, etc., should be regarded as amounting to a violation of the right to
life as assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Again, a hygienic environment is an integral
facet of the right to a healthy life, and it would be impossible to live with dignity without a humane
and healthy environment.
In Samatha versus State of Andhra Pradesh [(1997) 8 SCC 191], the Supreme Court observed that
environmental protection has become a matter of grave concern for human existence. ‘Promotion
of environmental protection’ implies the maintenance of an eco-friendly environment as a whole,
comprising both man-made and natural environment. It is, therefore, the duty of every citizen
and industry to conserve the environment. It becomes inevitable to disturb its existence. It is the
concomitant duty to reforest and restore forestation. The Apex Court further observed that it is the
duty of the state to coordinate with all concerned and take adequate measures to promote, protect,
and improve both man-made and natural environment, flora and fauna, as well as diversity.

Forest—An Important and Vital Component to Sustain Life Support System on This Planet
In TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India [AIR 2005 SC 4256], the Apex Court observed
that it is an undisputed fact that the forest is an important and vital component to sustain the life
support system on this planet for various reasons, and the forest area is slowly depleting. At the same
time, as part of developmental activities, some areas of the forest need to be used for non-forest
purposes. It held that economic development should not be at the cost of complete degradation of
forest or environment, and the eco-system provided by the green area of the forest. It was decided by
the Supreme Court that the user agency shall be required to make payment of the net present value
of such diverted land so as to utilise this for getting back forest area, which is lost by such diversion,
in the long run.

National Forest Policy, 1988

The principal aim of the National Forest Policy, 1988, is to ensure environmental stability and maintain
ecological balance, including atmospheric equilibrium, vital for the sustenance of all life forms, i.e.,
humans, plants, and animals. The forest policy has a statutory flavour. The non-fulfilment of the
aforesaid aim would be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The basic objectives
of the National Forest Policy, 1998, are as follows.
y Maintenance of environmental stability through preservation and, where necessary, restoration of
the ecological balance that has been adversely disturbed by the serious depletion of the forests of
the country.
y Conserving the natural heritage of the Country by preserving the remaining natural forests with the
vast variety of flora and fauna, which represent remarkable biological diversity and genetic resources
of the country.
y Checking soil erosion and denudation in the catchment areas of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in the
interest of soil and water conservation, for mitigating floods and droughts, and for the retardation of
siltation of reservoirs.
y Checking the extension of sand dunes in the desert areas of Rajasthan and along coastal tracks.

Indian Forest Act, 1927 3

 y Increasing the productivity of forests to meet essential national needs.
y Encouraging efficient utilisation of forest produce and maximum substitution of wood.
y Creating a massive people’s movement with the involvement of women for achieving these objectives
and to minimise pressure on existing forests.
Therefore, the principal aim of the Forest Policy must be to ensure environmental stability and maintain
ecological balance, including atmospheric equilibrium, which is vital for the sustenance of all life forms,
i.e., humans, plants and animals. The derivation of direct economic benefit must be subordinated to
this principal aim.
It has been recognised that one of the essentials for forest management is the conservation,
strengthening and extension of total biological diversity, the network of national parks, sanctuaries,
biosphere reserves, and other protected areas [TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India (AIR
2005 SC 4256)].

Meaning of ‘Forest’
The word, ‘forest’, is derived from the Latin word foris, which means ‘outside’. This has reference to
village boundaries and fences. A ‘forest’ or ‘jungle’ is an area dominated by trees, shrubs, herbs, or grass,
and naturally has wildlife living there. However, the term forest has not been defined in the Forest Act,
1927. In Laxman Ichharam versus District Forest Officer Raigarh [AIR 1953 Nag 51], it is defined as “an
extensive tract of the land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture”.

Importance of Forest
In the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra versus State of UP [AIR 1988 SC 2187], the Apex Court
observed: “The trees in the forest draw water from the bowls of the Earth and release the same into
the atmosphere by the process of transpiration and the same is received by way of rain as a result
of condensation of clouds formed out of atmospheric moisture. Forests, thus, help the cycle get
completed. Trees are responsible for air purification by releasing oxygen into the atmosphere through
the process of photosynthesis. It has, therefore, been rightly said that there is a balance between
Earth, air, soil, and plant. Forests hold-up the mountains, cushion the rains, discipline the rivers, and
control the floods. They sustain the springs; they break the winds, foster the bulk, keep the air cool;
and clean forests also and prevent erosion.”

The Indian Forest Act, 1927

The Indian Forest Act, 1927, is a comprehensive legislation relating to forest management that
consolidates pre-existing laws, such as the Indian Forest Act, 1865, and the Forest Act, 1878. The
Indian Forest Act, 1927, being a product of the British colonial days, reflects the exploitative intentions
of the colonial and feudal society of that time, rather than the environmental and ecological interests
to preserve forests. With a revenue-oriented policy, its main objective was to regulate dealings in
forest produce and augment the public exchequer by levying duties on timber. The Preamble to the
Indian Forest Act, 1927, depicts that the Act was passed to consolidate the pre-existing laws relating
to forests, the transit of forest produce, and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce.

Application of the ACT

Reserved forests Private forests Village forests Protected forests

4 Indian Forest Act, 1927

Reserved Forests
Chapter II of the Act (Sections 3 to 20) makes provision for the constitution of reserved forests and
lays down procedures for it.

Power to Reserved Forest

The State government may constitute any forest-land or waste-land, which is the property of the
Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the
forest-produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner provided under
the Act (Section 3).

Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

‘Forest-produce’ includes:
1. the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say, timber, charcoal,
wood-oil, resin, catechu, natural varnish, bark, Iac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, and
2. the following when found, or brought from a forest, that is to say—
a. trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned,
of trees,
b. plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts or produce of
such plants,
c. wild animals and skins, tusks, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and animals all other parts
or produce of animals, and
d. peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including limestone, mineral oils, and all products of
mines or quarries).
In Indian Wood Products Co. Ltd versus State of UP [AIR 1999 All 222], it was held that even factory-
made kattha or ‘catechu’ is a forest-produce within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act.

Section 4: Notification by the State Government

(1) Whenever it has been decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State Government shall
issue a notification in the Official Gazette:
(a) declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest;
(b) specifying as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land; and
(c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called ‘the Forest Settlement-officer’) to inquire into and
determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person
in or over any land comprised within such limits or in or over forest-produce, and to deal with
the same as provided in this Chapter.
(2) The officer appointed under Clause (c) of the sub-section (1) shall ordinarily be a person not
holding any forest office, except that of Forest Settlement-officer.
(3) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the State Government from appointing any number of officers
not exceeding three, not more than one of whom shall be a person holding any forest-office except
as aforesaid, to perform the duties of a Forest Settlement-officer under this Act.

Section 8: Powers of the Forest Settlement Officer

For the purpose of such inquiry, the Forest Settlement-officer may exercise the following powers, that
is to say—

Indian Forest Act, 1927 5

 (a) power to enter, by himself or any officer authorised by him for the purpose, upon any land, and to
survey, demarcate and make a map of the same; and
(b) the powers of the civil court in the trial of suits.

Section 20: Notification Declaring Forest Reserved

(1) When the following events have occurred, namely—
(a) the period fixed under Section 6 for preferring claims have elapsed and all claims (if any) made
under that section or Section 9 have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement-officer;
(b) if any such claims have been made, the period limited by Section 17 for appealing from the order
passed on such claims has elapsed and all appeals (if any) presented within such period have been
disposed of by the appellate officer or court; and
(c) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement-officer has,
under Section 11, elected to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have become vested in
the Government under Section 16 of the Act, the State Government shall publish a notification,
according to boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved,
and declaring the same to be reserved from the date fixed by the notification.
(2) from the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest.
In State of UP versus Deputy Director of Consolidation [AIR 1996 SC 2432], it was observed that once
a notification under Section 20 of the Act declaring a land as a reserved forest is published, then
all rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and are no longer available. The
notification is binding on the consolidation authorities in the same way as a decree of a Civil Court.

Section 28: Formation of Village Forests

(1) The State Government may assign to any village-community the rights of the Government to or
over any land which has been constituted a reserved forest, and may cancel such assignment. All
forests so assigned shall be called village-forests.
(2) The State Government may make rules for regulating the management of village-forests,
prescribing the conditions under which the community to which any such assignment is made may
be provided with timber or other forest-produce or pasture, and their duties for the protection and
improvement of such forests.
(3) All provisions of this Act relating to reserved forests shall apply to village-forests.

Protected Forests
Chapter IV of the Act (i.e., Sections 29 to 34) provides for what are called protected forests, and the
state government is empowered to constitute any land other than reserved forests as protected forests.
The state government is further empowered to make rules to regulate cutting, sawing, conversion or
removal of trees, etc. [Virji Lalji Patel and Co. versus State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1965 MP 211)].
Under Section 29(2) of the Act, forest-land and waste-land are to be called ‘protected forest’. There is
no provision in Chapter IV for the transfer of possession over any property to the government legally;
therefore, possession could not be passed to the government by the mere fact of publication of
notification [Jetmull Bhojraj versus the State of Bihar (AIR 1967 Pat 287)].

Section 32: Power to Make Rules for Protected Forests

The State Government may make rules to regulate the following matters—

6 Indian Forest Act, 1927

(i) the examination of forest-produce passing out of such forests;
(ii) the protection from fire of timber lying in such forest and of trees reserved under Section 30;
(iii) the cutting of grass and pasturing of cattle in such forests;
(iv) the clearing and breaking up of land for cultivation or other purposes in such forests;
(v) the protection and management of any protection and in the portion of a forest closed under
Section 30; and
(vi) the granting of licences to persons felling or removing trees or timber or other forest-produce from
such forests for the purpose of trade, and the production and return of such licences by such
persons.

Private Forests

Section 35: Protection of Forests for Special Purposes

(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulate or prohibit in any forest
of waste-land—
(a) the breaking up or clearing of land for cultivation;
(b) the pasturing of cattle; or
(c) the firing or cleaning of vegetation; when such regulation or prohibition appears necessary for
any of the following purposes—
(i) for protection against storms, winds, rolling stones, floods and avalanches;
(ii) for the preservation of soil on the ridges and slopes and in the valleys of hilly tracts, the
prevention of landslips or of the formation of ravines, and torrents, or the protection of
land against erosion, or the deposit thereon of sand, stones or gravel;
(iii) for maintenance of a water-supply in springs, rivers, and tanks;
(iv) for the protection of roads, bridges, railways and other lines of communication;
(v) for the preservation of public health.
(2) The State Government may, for any such purpose, construct at its own expense, in or upon any
forest or waste-land, such work as it thinks fit.

Section 38: Protection of Forests at the Request of Owners

A strong presumption of legality and correctness is always attached in favour of notification issued
under Section 38 of the Act, which cannot be rebutted in collateral proceedings initiated under some
other Act. An order declaring the statutory notification issued under the Forest Act can be declared
illegal, null and void only by the Civil Court or court exercising the writ jurisdiction.

Landmark Judgements

Mining Is a Non-Forest Activity

Tarun Bharat Singh versus Union of India
[1993 (3) SCR 21: 1993 SCC Supp (3) 115]
Decided on: 08 April 1993
Bench: Justice Reddy Venkatachala, the Supreme Court of India
Facts: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a voluntary organisation against illegal mining going
on in a reserved area in the Alwar district of Rajasthan. Despite the fact that the area was declared

Indian Forest Act, 1927 7

 a ‘tiger reserve’ under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951; a sanctuary and a
National Park under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; and protected forest under the Rajasthan
Forest Act, 1953, the State Government had granted hundreds of licences for marble mining.
Issues: The Apex Court was dealing with an issue related to illegal mining in a reserved area in the
Alwar district of Rajasthan. Whether the State government can carry out any non-forest activity in the
reserved area?
Held: The Apex Court issued a direction to the State government and the mine owners to stop the
illegal activity in the reserved area. It issued an interlocutory direction to the effect that “no mining
operation of whatever nature shall be carried on in the protected area”. Whenever an area is declared
as a protected forest, it comes within the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, and the State
government cannot carry on any non-forest activity in the reserved area without the prior permission
of the Central government.
It further held that mining is a non-forest activity and the State government’s decision to grant the
licence for mining or renewing their mining licence is contrary to the law.
—————

Prior Approval of the Central Government Is Mandatory

State of MP versus Krishnadas Tikaram
[1994 Supp (3) SCR 747]
Decided on: 21 September 1994
Bench: Justices K Ramaswamy and N Venkatachala, the Supreme Court of India
Facts and Issues: In 1966, a mining lease of limestone in the forest area was granted to the respondent,
Krishnadas Tikaram, for a period of 20 years. In 1986, the respondent approached the concerned
government for renewal of the lease. The government passed the order to renew the lease for further
20 years, which was objected to by the Forest Department and later cancelled. An appeal was filed
before the Apex Court, challenging the cancellation. Prior to this, the respondent had approached the
High Court, wherein they were granted the permission for renewal.
Held: It was held that as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the State cannot grant
or renew a licence without the prior approval of the Central government. Therefore, the cancellation of
the order was properly made. In this case, the State government had not obtained the prior approval of
the Central government under Section 2 of the Act. It was also held that the High Court was not right
in directing the grant for the renewal of the lease.
—————

Mining in Forest Area

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra versus State of UP
[AIR 1989 SC 594: 1989 SCC Supp (1) 537]
Decided on: 30 August 1988
Bench: Justice Rangnath Misra, the Supreme Court of India
Facts and Issues: A petition was filed against unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun.
Committees and working groups were set up both by the Supreme Court and the Central government to
look into various aspects of the problem, and accordingly, the court issued an interlocutory directions.
Further in this matter, the Court allowed category mines located outside the city limits to operate.

8 Indian Forest Act, 1927

Issues, in this case, were that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, permits mining in the forest area;
and in case of continuance of mining activity, whether the Act of 1980 would apply to renewals.
Held: The Act does not permit mining in a forest area. Illegal mining activities would be congenial to
ecology and environment; and the natural calm and peace, which is a special feature of this area in
its normal condition, shall not be restored. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, applies to renewals.
Even if there was a provision for renewal in the lease agreement on the exercise of the lessee’s option,
the requirements of the 1980 Act had to be satisfied before such renewal could be granted. The Court
ordered for setting up of a Monitoring Committee to look into re-afforestation, mining activities, and
all other aspects necessary to bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley. The Court also issued
some directions regarding the finances, powers, and duties of the Monitoring Committee.
—————

Renewal of Lease
Ambica Quarry Works versus State of Gujarat
[AIR 1987 SC 1073: 1987 (1) SCR 562]
Decided on: 11 December 1986
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, the Supreme Court of India
Facts and Issues: In this case, the appellant had first applied for a lease for quarrying minor minerals,
which was granted prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Act. Applications for renewal of leases under
Section 18 of the rules were rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the land fell under
reserved forests, which were governed by the 1980 Act. The appellants filed for revision, but their
revision applications were also rejected. Further, they filed applications before the High Court, and they
were again rejected. After the enforcement of the 1980 Act, there was no question of renewal of leases
as it prevented the renewal of the lease without the approval of the Central government contented for
the respondents. The Court was dealing with issues related to the renewal of quarry leases.
Held: It was so stated that the purpose of the Act of 1980 is to prevent further deforestation and
ecological imbalances. Therefore, the concept that power, coupled with duty, enjoined upon the
respondents to renew the lease, stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation manifested in the
Act. The appellants were asking for renewal of the quarry leases. The Court held that it would lead to
further deforestation or at least not help in reclaiming the areas where deforestation has taken place.
The approval was not granted by the Central government. If the State government was of the opinion
that this was not a case where it should seek the approval of the Central government, the State
government could not apparently seek such approval.
—————

Granting or Renewal of Lease

KV Shanmugam versus State of Tamil Nadu
[(1998) 1 MLJ 417]
Decided on: 30 April 1997
Bench: Justice P Sathasivam, Madras High Court
Facts and Issues: A writ petition was filed in this case. The Court dealt with issues related to granting
or renewal of lease. Earlier, in this matter, the petitioner had applied for 10 years’ lease and the
respondent was granted the lease only for five years that expired by 1982. Further, the petitioner filed a

Indian Forest Act, 1927 9

 writ petition before this Court for the renewal of the said lease as the same was still pending. It was so
contended that “an application for quarrying lease or renewal of the lease of forest land containing minor
minerals cannot be allowed without seeking prior approval of the Central government”. Accordingly, the
petitioner requested the District Forest Officer, Dharmapuri, for the necessary permission. It was also
contended that the Central government’s approval is mandatory; and the State government does not
have the power to grant a lease in a reserved forest, without sending a proposal in specific for prior
approval by the Central government as per Rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981, as amended.
These were the circumstances, and the petitioner lastly approached this Court for relief.
Held: The Court held that the prior approval of the Central government is a condition precedent for
the grant of lease under Section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It also clarified that in all
cases, in which the government wants to grant lease of reserve forest lands for mining operations, the
mandatory provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, have to be strictly complied
with.
—————

Applicability of the Act

State of Bihar versus Banshi Ram Modi
[AIR 1985 SC 814: 1985 SCR (1) Supp 345]
Decided on: 07 May 1985
Bench: Justice ES Venkataramiah, the Supreme Court of India
Facts: In 1966, the respondent was granted a mining lease for a period of 20 years. In 1983, the State
government and the lessee executed a ‘Deed of Incorporation’, allowing the lessee to win and carry
away feldspar and quartz after paying the required royalty from the area over which he had been
granted lease for mining. In 1983, the Divisional Forest Officer wrote a letter to the lessee, stating that
the impugned mining area was situated within the reserved forest area, and that previous approval of
the Central government had not been obtained for the inclusion of feldspar and quartz in the mining
lease as required by the Act. Aggrieved by the letter, the respondent approached the High Court. The
petition was allowed, and the High Court held that the Act had no application to the instant case. It
was also stated that if for gaining feldspar and quartz, the lessee was required to break or clear any
forest land, other than the area required for mining to gain mica, he could not do so without obtaining
the prior approval of the Central government under the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court,
the appeal was filed.
Issues: Whether this Act of 1980 is applicable to a case where the lease had been entered prior to the
enforcement of the Act?
Held: What do Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act and the Explanation to that section state? These two
parts of the section mean that after the commencement of the Act, fresh breaking up of the forest
land or no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State government or
any authority without the prior approval of the Central government. But if such permission has been
accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the forest land is broken up or cleared, then
obviously the section cannot apply.
The Court held: “While before granting permission to start mining operations on a virgin area,
Section 2 of the Act has to be complied with, it is not necessary to seek the prior approval of the
Central government for purposes of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up
or cleared before the commencement of the Act.”
—————

10 Indian Forest Act, 1927

 Supreme Court Guidelines

Environmental Protection in the Aravalli Hills

MC Mehta versus Union of India
[AIR 2004 SC 4016: (2004) 12 SCC 118: 2004 (3) SCALE 396: 2004 (3) SCR 126
Writ Petition (Civil) 4677 of 1985]
Dated: 18 March 2004
Bench: Justices YK Sabharwal and HK Sema
With a view to monitor the overall eco-restoration efforts in the Aravalli Hills and to provide technical
support to the implementing organisations, and also to monitor the implementation of recommendations
contained in reports referred to herein, it is necessary to constitute a Monitoring Committee. The
heads of the following entities/departments would be the members of the Monitoring Committee.
1. Regional Officer of the State Pollution Control Board
2. Forest Department
3. District Administration
4. Department of Mining and Geology
5. Irrigation Department
6. Regional Officer of the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB)
7. Agriculture Department
8. District Industry Department
9. Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
Besides the above, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is directed to appoint an officer
from the Central Ground Water Board to be a member of the Monitoring Committee. The following
persons as representatives of the public shall also be members of the said Committee.
1. Dilip Biswas, former chairman, CPCB
2. Valmiki Thapar
3. Bhure Lal
The MoEF would act as a nodal agency of the Monitoring Committee. The Secretary of the MoEF is
directed to appoint an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry for the said
purpose.
The Monitoring Committee is directed to inspect the mines in question and file a report within a period
of three months, inter alia, containing suggestions for the recommencement of mining in individual
cases. All individuals and departments concerned are directed to render full cooperation to the
Monitoring Committee.

Conclusions
1. The order dated 06 May 2002, as clarified hereinbefore, cannot be vacated or varied before
consideration of the report of the Monitoring Committee constituted by this judgement.
2. The notification of environment assessment clearance dated 27 January 1994 is applicable also
when renewal of the mining lease is considered after issue of the notification.
3. On the facts of the case, the mining activity in areas covered under Sections 4 and/or 5 of the
Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, cannot be undertaken without approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.

Indian Forest Act, 1927 11

 4. No mining activity can be carried out in an area over which plantation has been undertaken under
the Aravalli Project by utilisation of foreign funds.
5. Mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of sustainable development and on the
compliance of stringent conditions.
6. The Aravalli Hill range has to be protected at any cost. In case despite stringent conditions, there
is an adverse irreversible effect on the ecology in the Aravalli Hill range area at a later date, the
total stoppage of mining activity in the area may have to be considered. For similar reasons, such a
step may have to be considered in respect of mining in the Faridabad district (in Haryana) as well.
7. The MoEF is directed to prepare a short-term and a long-term action plan for the restoration of
environmental quality in the Aravalli Hills in Gurgaon district (in Haryana) having regard to what is
stated in the final report of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDI) within four
months.
8. Violation of any of the conditions would entail the risk of cancellation of mining lease. The mining
activity shall continue only in strict compliance with the stipulated conditions.
—————

Protection and Conservation of Forests

TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India
[(1997) 2 SCC 267]
Dated: 12 December 1996
Bench: Justices JS Verma and BN Kirpal, the Supreme Court of India
The Apex Court was dealing with issues related to the protection and conservation of forests throughout
the country.

Directions
I. General
1. In view of the meaning of the word, ‘forest’, in the Act, it is obvious that the prior approval of the
Central government is required for carrying out any non-forest activity within the area of any ‘forest’.
In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all ongoing activity in a forest in any State throughout
the country, without the prior approval of the Central government, must cease forthwith. It is,
therefore, clear that the running of sawmills of any kind, including veneer or plywood mills and
mining of any mineral, are non-forest purposes, and are, therefore, not permissible without the
prior approval of the Central government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of
the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State government must promptly ensure
total cessation of all such activities forthwith.
2. In addition to the above, in the tropical wet evergreen forests of Tirap and Changlang in the State of
Arunachal Pradesh, there would be a complete ban on the felling of any kind of trees therein because
of their particular significance to maintain ecological balance needed to preserve biodiversity. All
sawmills, veneer mills and plywood mills in Tirap and Changlang and within a distance of 100 km
from its border in Assam should also be closed immediately. The State governments of Arunachal
Pradesh and Assam must ensure compliance with this direction.
3. The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended, except in accordance with the Working
Plans of the State governments, as approved by the Central government. In the absence of a

12 Indian Forest Act, 1927

 Working Plan in any particular State, such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system exists,
felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest Department of the State government or
the State Forest Corporation.
4. 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 either by rail, road or waterways. The
Indian Railways and the State governments are directed to take all measures necessary to ensure
strict compliance with this direction. This ban will not apply to the movement of certified timber
required for defence or other government purposes. This ban will also not affect felling in any
private plantation, comprising trees planted in any area, which is not a forest.
5. Each State government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to:
(i) identify areas which are ‘forests’, irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or
classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;
(ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and
(iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the government and those belonging to
private persons.
6. Each State government should within two months, file a report regarding—
(i) the number of sawmills, veneer and plywood mills actually operating within the State, with
particulars of their real ownership;
(ii) the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing;
(iii) their proximity to the nearest forest;
(iv) their source of timber.
7. Each State government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess:
(i) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State qua sawmills and timber-based industry;
(ii) the number of existing sawmills which can safely be sustained in the State;
(iii) the optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, in which the sawmill should be located.
8. The Expert Committee so constituted should be requested to give its report within one month of
being constituted.
9. Each State government would constitute a Committee, comprising the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests and another Senior Officer, to oversee the compliance of this order and file status
reports.

II. For the State of Jammu and Kashmir

1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in any ‘forest’, public or private. This ban will not affect
felling in any private plantations, comprising trees planted by private persons or the Social Forestry
Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and in such plantations, felling will be strictly in
accordance with the law.
2. In ‘forests’, the State government may either departmentally or through the State Forest Corporation
remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased or dry standing timber, and that only from areas
other than those notified under the Jammu and Kashmir Wild Life Protection Act, 1978, or any
other law banning such felling or removal of trees.
3. For this purpose, the State government will constitute an Expert Committee, comprising a
representative being an IFS officer posted in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, a representative

Indian Forest Act, 1927 13

 of the State government, and two private experts of eminence, and the Managing Director of
the State Forest Corporation (as Member Secretary), who will fix the qualitative and quantitative
norms for the felling of fallen trees, diseased and dry standing trees. The State shall ensure that
the trees so felled and removed by it are strictly in accordance with these norms.
4. Any felling of trees in a forest or otherwise or any clearance of land for execution of projects, shall
be in strict compliance with the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Conservation Act, 1990, and any other
laws applying thereto. However, any trees so felled, and the disposal of such trees shall be done
exclusively by the State Forest Corporation and no private agency will be permitted to deal with
this aspect. This direction will also cover the submerged areas of the Thein Dam.
5. All timber obtained, as aforesaid or otherwise, shall be utilised within the State, preferably to
meet the timber and fuel wood requirements of the local people, the government and other local
institutions.
6. The movement of trees or timber (sawn or otherwise) from the State shall, for the present, stand
suspended, except for the use of the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D),
Railways and Defence. Any such movement for such use will—
(a) be effected after due certification, consignment-wise made by the Managing Director of the
State Corporation, which will include certification that the timber has come from the State
Forest Corporation sources; and
(b) be undertaken by either the Corporation itself, the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Department, or
the receiving agency.
7. The State of Jammu and Kashmir will file, preferably within one month from today, a detailed
affidavit specifying the quantity of timber held by private persons purchased from the State Forest
Corporation Depots for transport outside the State (other than for consumption by the DGS&D,
Railways and Defence). Further directions in this regard may be considered after the affidavit is
filed.
8. No sawmill, veneer or plywood mill would be permitted to operate in this State at a distance of
less than 8 km from the boundary of any demarcated forest areas. Any existing mill falling in this
belt should be relocated forthwith.

III. For the State of Himachal Pradesh and Hill Regions of the States of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal
1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in any forest, public or private. This ban will not affect
felling in any private plantation comprising trees planted in any area which is not a ‘forest’; and
which has not been converted from an earlier ‘forest’. This ban will not apply to permits granted
to the right holders for their bona fide personal use in Himachal Pradesh.
2. In a ‘forest’, the State government may either departmentally or through the State Forest Corporation
remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased or dry standing timber from areas other than those
notified under Section 18 or Section 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, or any other Act
banning such felling or removal of trees.
3. For this purpose, the State government is to constitute an Expert Committee, comprising a
representative of the MoEF, a representative of the State Government, two private experts of
eminence and the Managing Director of the State Forest Corporation (as Member Secretary), who
will fix the qualitative and quantitative norms for the felling of fallen trees and diseased and
standing timber. The State shall ensure that the trees so felled and removed are in accordance
with these norms.

14 Indian Forest Act, 1927

4. Felling of trees in any forest or any clearance of forest land in the execution of projects shall be
in strict conformity with the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and any other laws applying thereto.
Moreover, any trees so felled, and the disposal of such trees shall be done exclusively by the State
Forest Corporation and no private agency are to be involved in any aspect thereof.

IV. For the State of Tamil Nadu

1. There will be a complete ban on felling of the trees in all forest areas. This will, however, not apply
to—
(a) trees which have been planted and grown, and are not of spontaneous growth, and
(b) are in areas which were not forests earlier but were cleared for any reason.
2. The State government, within four weeks from today, is to constitute a committee for identifying
all ‘forests’.
3. Those tribals who are part of the social forestry programme in respect of patta lands, other than
forests, may continue to grow and cut according to the government scheme provided that they
grow and cut trees in accordance with the law applicable.
4. In so far as the plantations (tea, coffee, cardamom, etc.) are concerned, it is directed as under.
(a) The felling of shade trees in these plantations will be—
(i) limited to trees which have been planted, and not those which have grown spontaneously;
(ii) limited to the species identified in the TANTEA report;
(iii) in accordance with the recommendations of (including to the extent recommended by)
TANTEA; and
(iv) under the supervision of the statutory committee constituted by the State government.
(b) In so far as fuel trees planted by the plantations for fuel wood outside the forest area are
concerned, the State government is directed to obtain within four weeks, a report from TANTEA
as was done in the case of shade trees, and the further action for felling them will be as per
that report. Meanwhile, eucalyptus and wattle trees in such area may be felled by them for
their own use as permitted by the statutory committee.
(c) The State government is directed to ascertain and identify those areas of the plantation which
are a ‘forest’ and are not in active use as a plantation. No felling of any trees is, however, to be
permitted in these areas, and sub-paras (b) and (c) above will not apply to such areas.
(d) There will be no further expansion of the plantations in a manner so as to involve encroachment
upon (by way of clearing or otherwise) of ‘forests’.
5. As far as the trees already cut, prior to the interim order of this court dated 11 December 1995
are concerned, the same may be permitted to be removed provided they were not so felled from
Janmam land. The State government would verify these trees and mark them suitably to ensure
that this order is duly complied with. For the present, this is being permitted as a one-time
measure.
6. In so far as the felling of any trees in Janmam lands is concerned (whether in plantations or
otherwise), the ban on felling will operate subject to any order made in the Civil Appeal Nos. 367 to
375 of 1977 in CA Nos. 1344–45 of 1976. After the order is made in those Civil Appeals on the Indian
Appeals (IA) pending therein, if necessary, this aspect may be re-examined.
7. This order is to operate and to be implemented, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or
which may be made by any government or any authority, tribunal or court, including the High Court.

Indian Forest Act, 1927 15

 The Apex Court further stated: The earlier orders made in these matters shall be read and modified
wherever necessary to this extent. This order is to continue until further orders. This order will operate
and be complied with by all concerned, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be
made hereafter, by any authority, including the Central or any State government or any court (including
High Court) or Tribunal. The Court also directed that notwithstanding the closure of any sawmills or
other wood-based industry pursuant to this order, the workers employed in such units will continue to
be paid their full emoluments due and shall not be retrenched or removed from service for this reason.
—————

Mining in Goa: Legal or Illegal–1

Goa Foundation versus Union of India
[(2014) 6 SCC 590 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2012]
Dated: 11 November 2013
Bench: Justices AK Patnaik, Surinder Singh Nijjar, and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
The Apex Court was dealing with an issue related to mining in the State of Goa.
The Supreme Court directed that:
(i) the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) will issue a notification on eco-sensitive zones
around the National Park and wildlife sanctuaries in Goa after following the procedure discussed
in this judgement within a period of six months from today;
(ii) the State government will initiate action against those mining lessees who violate Rules 37 and 38
of the Mineral Concession Rules;
(iii) the State government will strictly enforce the Goa (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and
Transportation of Minerals) Rules, 2013;
(iv) the State government may grant mining leases of iron ore and other ores in Goa in accordance with
its policy decision and in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act (MMDR) Act and the Rules made thereunder in consonance with the constitutional provisions;
(v) until the final report is submitted by the Expert Committee, the State government will, in the
interests of sustainable development and intergenerational equity, permit a maximum annual
excavation of 20 million MT from the mining leases in the State of Goa other than from dumps;
(vi) the Goa Pollution Control Board will strictly monitor air and water pollution in the mining areas
and exercise powers available to it under the 1974 Act and the 1981 Act, including powers under
Section 33A of the 1974 Act and Section 31A of the 1981 Act, and furnish all relevant data to the
Expert Committee;
(vii) the entire sale value of the e-auction of the inventorised ores will be forthwith realised and out of
the total sale value, the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa, under the supervision
of the Monitoring Committee will make the following payments:
(a) average cost of excavation of iron ores to the mining lessees;
(b) 50% of the wages and dearness allowance to workers in muster rolls of the mining leases who
have not been paid their wages during the period of suspension of mining operations;
(c) 50% of the claim towards storage charges of MPT; out of the balance, 10% will be appropriated
towards the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund and the remaining amount will be appropriated by
the State government as the owner of the ores;

16 Indian Forest Act, 1927

(viii) the Monitoring Committee will submit its final report on the utilisation and appropriation of the
sale proceeds of the inventorised ores in a manner as directed in this judgement within six months
from today;
(ix) henceforth, the mining lessees of iron ore will have to pay 10% of the sale price of the iron ore sold
by them to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund;
(x) the State government will within six months from today frame a comprehensive scheme with regard
to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund in consultation with the CEC for sustainable development
and intergenerational equity, and submit the same to this Court within six months from today; and
(xi) the Expert Committee will submit its report within six months from today on how mining dumps in
the State of Goa should be dealt with and will submit its final report within 12 months from today
on the cap to be put on the annual excavation of iron ore in Goa.
—————

Mining in Goa: Legal or Illegal–2

The Goa Foundation versus M/S Sesa Sterlite Ltd.
[2018 SCC OnLine SC 98 Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 32138 of 2015]
Dated: 07 February 2018
Bench: Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court set aside the second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa and
issued several directions to ensure the implementation of mining-related environment protection laws.

Directions
1. The mining leaseholders, who have been granted the second renewal in violation of the decision
and directions of this Court in Goa Foundation, are given time to manage their affairs and may
continue their mining operations till 15 March 2018. However, they are directed to stop all mining
operations with effect from 16 March 2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or other
renewals) are granted and fresh environmental clearances are granted.
2. The State of Goa should take all necessary steps to grant fresh mining leases in accordance with
the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Ministry
of Environment and Forests should also take all necessary steps to grant fresh environmental
clearances to those who are successful in obtaining fresh mining leases. The exercise should be
completed by the State of Goa and the Ministry of Environment and Forests as early as reasonably
practicable.
3. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to ensure that the Special Investigation Team and
the team of Chartered Accountants constituted pursuant to the Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy,
2014, give their report at the earliest and the State of Goa should implement the reports at the
earliest, unless there are very good reasons for rejecting them.
4. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to expedite the recovery of the amounts said to
be due from the mining leaseholders pursuant to the show cause notices issued to them and
pursuant to other reports available with the State of Goa, including the report of the Special
Investigation Team and the team of Chartered Accountants.
—————

Indian Forest Act, 1927 17

 The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican: Protection of Two Bird Species
MK Ranjitsinh versus Union of India
[2021 SCC OnLine SC 326 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019]
Dated: 19 April 2021
Bench: Justices SA Bobde and AS Bopanna, the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court was dealing with an issue related to the protection of two species of birds, namely
the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, which are on the verge of extinction.

Directions
1. The Respondent, i.e., the government, shall take steps forthwith to install diverters pending the
consideration of the conversion of overhead cables as existing today in priority and (those located
in) potential Great Indian Bustard (GIB) areas into underground powerlines.
2. In all such cases where it is found feasible to convert the overhead cables into underground
powerlines, the same shall be undertaken and completed within a period of one year, and till such
time, the diverters shall be hung from the existing powerlines.
3. Irrespective of the cost factor, the priority shall be to save the near extinct.
4. One of the options that could be explored is to invite the attention of each electricity utility
engaged in the generation of power to Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, which imposes
corporate social responsibility upon companies having a specified net worth or turnover or net
profit.
5. Under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) Act, 2016, substantial funds are available with
the National and State authorities. The State of Rajasthan has already set up a Compensatory
Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority. Rule 5(2)(i) of these Rules permit the
use of the State Fund for the improvement of wildlife habitat. (According to the petitioner, a sum
of ₹47436 crore, out of a total of ₹54685 crore CAMPA Fund have been transferred by the Union
Environment Ministry to the states for afforestation projects.)
6. For the conservation of habitat to secure the safety of eggs laid by the birds, the area earmarked
shall be fenced and protected from invasion by predators, so that the eggs laid in these areas are
protected. The power supply line regarding which underground passage is to be made should also
avoid these areas.
7. The laying of high voltage underground powerline would require expertise to assess the feasibility
of the same. For the purpose of assessing the feasibility, the Bench constituted a committee
consisting of Dr Rahul Rawat (scientist), Dr Sutirtha Dutta (scientist), and Dr Devesh Gadhavi,
Deputy Director (Corbett Foundation).
8. The committee was granted the liberty to obtain technical reports, if need be, from experts in the
field of electricity, and the respondents were directed to refer the matter to the committee with
all relevant material and particulars, if there is any issue relating to feasibility.
—————

18 Indian Forest Act, 1927

 Protection of Mangrove Forests
Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia versus Bombay Environmental Action
[2011 (3) SCC 363 Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 2010]
Dated: 31 January 2011
Bench: Justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan, the Supreme Court of India
Facts and Issues: An application was filed by the District Collector of Mumbai Suburban District to
initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants, Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia and others, for
violating the order of the Court.
Held: The Apex Court observed: “The appellants cannot be permitted to make allegations against
the authorities and drag them to the Court, alleging disobedience of the orders of this Court without
realising that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. The appellants have knowingly and
purposely damaged the mangroves and other vegetation of the wetland of the CRZ-I area, which could
not have been disturbed. Under the garb of repairing the old bund, a sort of pukka bund using boulders
and debris has been constructed along with a huge platform, violating the norms of environmental law
and in flagrant violation and utter disregard of orders passed by the courts and the District Collector.
No court can validate an action which is not lawful at its inception.”
Directions were issued to remove the newly constructed bund so that seawater can flow in to protect
the mangrove forests.
(1) The land in dispute has not been used for manufacturing of salt for more than two decades.
(2) The land in dispute stands notified as a reserve forest, though it may be a private land and requires
to be protected.
(3) The High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the Action Group has issued several
directions, including the direction to identify the mangrove area and declare/notify it as a forest.
(4) The Central Regulatory Zone Regulations, 1991, imposes certain restrictions on the land in dispute.
(5) The District Collector, while deciding the application of the applicants for according permission
to repair the bund, has explicitly incorporated the conditions that the appellants would only repair
the old bund without raising its height and ensure full protection of mangroves.
(6) This Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellants has directed to ensure compliance
of the order of the District Collector, and in case of any kind of violation, to bring the matter to the
notice of the Court.
(7) In respect of the repairing of the bund, a large number of complaints had been made to the
authorities concerned by the public, representatives of the people, and various officials and
statutory authorities, alleging that the appellants have violated the conditional order passed by
the District Collector for permitting the appellants to repair the bund.
(8) Various reports submitted to the authorities concerned make it clear that there have been flagrant
violations of the conditional order and that included:
(i) Closing the natural flow of water which has an adverse effect on existing mangroves;
(ii) A large number of mangroves had been cut/destroyed while repairing the bund and a large
number of mangroves were found cut manually;
(iii) The height and width of the bund had been increased to an unwarranted extent. The reports
reveal that the width of the bund had been extended by 12 ft to 15 ft, while the old bund was
not beyond 6 ft wide.

Indian Forest Act, 1927 19

 (iv) Instead of mud, big boulders, concrete and debris had been used. Several platforms of 25 to
30 metres with a width of 16 to 20 metres have been constructed;
(v) Debris was being dumped beyond the area of the platform in the land in dispute making an
attempt to increase the width of the platform;
(vi) The cut mangroves have been used to increase the height of the bund;
(vii) Breathing roots and branches of mangroves were found sticking out of the muddy area of the
bund; and
(viii) A large number of mangroves died because of the removal of mud and stagnation of water.

Directions
(1) The appellants are directed to restore the height and width of the bund as it existed prior to the
order passed by the District Collector dated 27-01-2010 within a period of 60 days from today by
removing all debris, grit, boulders, etc., dismantling of platforms and reducing the height and width
of the bund.
(2) All culverts and drains, which existed prior to 27-01-2010, which could facilitate the natural flow of
seawater into the land, shall be restored.
(3) In case the appellants fail to carry out the aforesaid directions within the stipulated period, the
District Collector, Suburban District, shall carry out the aforesaid directions and recover the cost
from the appellants as arrears of land revenue and shall ensure in future that the appellants
would not act in a manner detrimental to the ecology of the area and ensure the preservation of
mangroves and other vegetation.

Objective Type Questions

1. ‘Forest-produce’ is explained under which (ii) plants not being trees (including grass,
of the following clauses of Section 2, Indian creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts
Forest Act? or produce of such plants;
(A) Clause 2 (iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns,
(B) Clause 3 bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and
all other parts or produce of animals;
(C) Clause 4
and
(D) Clause 4A
(iv) peat, surface soil, rock, and minerals
Ans. (C) (including limestone, laterite, mineral
Section 2(4), ‘Forest-produce’ includes— oils, and all products of mines or quarries.
(a) the following whether found in, or brought 2. Which one of the following is not included
from, a forest or not, that is to say—timber, within the meaning of the term, ‘River’, used
charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood oil, under the Indian Forest Act, 1927?
resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua (A) Stream
flowers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams; (B) Canal
and (C) Pond
(b) the following when found in, or brought (D) Creek
from, a forest, that is to say— Ans. (C)
(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, Section 2(5)—‘River’ includes any stream, canal,
and all other parts or produce not creek or other channels, natural or artificial. It
hereinbefore mentioned, of trees; does not include ponds.

20 Indian Forest Act, 1927

3. Which one of the following is exempted from (a) makes any fresh clearing prohibited by
the ambit of the meaning of ‘Tree’ as defined Section 5, or
under Section 2(7) of the Indian Forest Act, (b) sets fire to a reserved forest, or, in
1927? contravention of any rules made by the State
(A) Palms Government in this behalf, kindles any fire,
(B) Tea or leaves any fire burning, in such manner
(C) Stumps as to endanger such a forest; or who, in a
(D) Brushwood reserved forest;
Ans. (B) (c) kindles, keeps or carries any fire except
Section 2(7)—‘Tree’ includes palms, stumps, at such seasons as the Forest-officer may
brushwood and canes. notify in this behalf;
4. Which of the following Sections of the Indian (d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits
Forest Act, 1927, deals with the powers of the cattle to trespass;
Forest Settlement Officer? (e) causes any damage by negligence in felling
(A) Section 7 any tree or cutting or dragging any timber;
(B) Section 8 (f) fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree
(C) Section 9 or strips off the bark or leaves from, or
(D) Section 10 otherwise damages, the same;
Ans. (B) (g) quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal, or
Section 8 deals with the powers of the Forest collects, subjects to any manufacturing
Settlement Officer. process, or removes, any forest-produce;
5. Which of the following Sections of the Indian (h) clears or breaks up any land for cultivation
Forest Act provides the powers of a Civil Court or any other purpose;
in the trial of suits to the Forest Settlement (i) in contravention of any rules made in this
Officer? behalf by the State government, hunts,
shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps
(A) Section 6
or snares; or
(B) Section 7
(j) in any area in which the Elephants’
(C) Section 8
Preservation Act, 1879 (6 of 1879), is not
(D) Section 9
in force, kills or catches elephants in
Ans. (C)
contravention of any rules so made; shall
Section 8, Powers of Forest Settlement-officer—
be punishable with imprisonment for a term
For the purpose of such inquiry, the Forest
which may extend to six months, or with fine
Settlement-officer may exercise the following
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or
powers, that is to say—(b) the powers of a Civil
with both, in addition to such compensation
Court in the trial of suits.
for damage done to the forest as the
6. Which of the following is not a prohibited
convicting Court may direct to be paid.
act as mentioned in Section 26 of the Indian
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
Forest Act, 1927?
prohibit—
(A) Sets fire to a reserved forest
(a) any act done by permission in writing of the
(B) Pastures cattle
Forest-officer, or under any rule made by the
(C) Girdles any tree
State government; or
(D) Manages watercourses
(b) the exercise of any right continued under
Ans. (D)
clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15,
Section 26, Acts prohibited in such forests—(1)
or created by a grant or contract in writing
Any person who—

Indian Forest Act, 1927 21

 made by or on behalf of the Government shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps
under Section 23. or snares; or
(3) Whenever fire is caused wilfully or by gross (j) in any area in which the Elephants’
negligence in a reserved forest, the State Preservation Act, 1879 (6 of 1879), is not
Government may (notwithstanding that any in force, kills or catches elephants in
penalty has been inflicted under this section) contravention of any rules so made; shall
direct that in such forest or any portion thereof, be punishable with imprisonment for a term
the exercise of all rights of pasture or to forest- which may extend to six months, or with fine
produce shall be suspended for such period as it which may extend to five hundred rupees, or
thinks fit. with both, in addition to such compensation
7. Which of the following Acts is not a prohibited for damage done to the forest as the
act in relation to a reserved forest? convicting Court may direct to be paid.
(A) Sets fire in a forest (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
(B) Pastures cattle in a forest prohibit—
(C) Worships sacred trees in a forest (a) any act done by permission in writing of the
(D) Quarries stone from a forest Forest-officer, or under any rule made by the
Ans. (C) State Government; or
Section 26, Acts prohibited in such forests—(1) (b) the exercise of any right continued under
Any person who— clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15, or
(a) makes any fresh clearing prohibited by created by grant or contract in writing made
Section 5, or by or on behalf of the government under
(b) sets fire to a reserved forest, or, in Section 23.
contravention of any rules made by the State (3) Whenever a fire is caused wilfully or by
Government in this behalf, kindles any fire, gross negligence in a reserved forest, the State
or leaves any fire burning, in such manner Government may (notwithstanding that any
as to endanger such a forest; or who, in a penalty has been inflicted under this section)
reserved forest; direct that in such forest or any portion thereof,
(c) kindles, keeps or carries any fire except the exercise of all rights of pasture or to forest-
at such seasons as the Forest-officer may produce shall be suspended for such period as it
notify in this behalf; thinks fit.
(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits 8. What is the punishment for wrongful seizure
cattle to trespass; under the Indian Forest Act?
(e) causes any damage by negligence in felling (A) Imprisonment for a term that may
any tree or cutting or dragging any timber; extend to six months, or with a fine of
one thousand rupees, or both
(f) fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree
(B) Imprisonment for a term that may
or strips off the bark or leaves from, or
extend to one year, or with a fine which
otherwise damages, the same;
may extend to one thousand rupees, or
(g) quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal, or
both
collects, subjects to any manufacturing
(C) Imprisonment for a term that may extend
process, or removes, any forest-produce;
to six months, or with a fine which may
(h) clears or breaks up any land for cultivation extend to five hundred rupees, or both
or any other purpose; (D) Imprisonment for life
(i) in contravention of any rules made in this Ans. (C)
behalf by the State Government, hunts,

22 Indian Forest Act, 1927

9. Match List I with List II and give the correct Penalties and Procedure: Chapter 9
answer by using the codes given below. Of Control over Forests and Lands Not Being the
List I Property of Government: Chapter 5
(Titles of Chapters) Of Protected Forests: Chapter 4
(a) Penalties and Procedure Of the Collection of Drift and Stranded Timber:
(b) Of Control over Forests and Lands Not Chapter 8
Being the Property of Government 10. The District Magistrate or any Magistrate of
(c) Of Protected Forests the First Class may try summarily any forest
(d) Of the Collection of Drift and Stranded offence punishable with imprisonment for a
Timber term not exceeding:
List II (A) three months
(Chapters of Indian Forest Act, 1927) (B) six months
(i) Chapter IV (C) one year
(ii) Chapter VIII (D) one month
(iii) Chapter IX Ans. (B)
(iv) Chapter V Section 67, Power to try offences summarily—The
Codes District Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first
(a) (b) (c) (d) class, especially empowered in this behalf by the
(A) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) State Government, may try summarily, under the
(B) (iv) (iii) (ii) (i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), any
(C) (iii) (iv) (i) (ii) forest offence punishable with imprisonment
(D) (ii) (i) (iv) (iii) for a term not exceeding six months, or fine not
Ans. (C) exceeding five hundred rupees, or both.

Previous Years’ Questions

11. ‘River’ does not include _____________ within (c) River (iii) Section 2(4)
its meaning under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. (d) Cattle (iv) Section 2(5)
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.) [Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.)
Examination, 2013] Examination, 2016]
(A) ponds Codes
(B) stream (a) (b) (c) (d)
(C) canal (A) (ii) (iii) (iv) (i)
(D) creek (B) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
Ans. (A) (C) (iii) (iv) (i) (ii)
Section 2(5)—‘River’ includes any stream, canal, (D) (iv) (i) (ii) (iii)
creek or other channels—natural or artificial. Ans. (A)
It does not include ponds. Tree: Section 2(7)
12. Match List I with List II and give the correct Forest-produce: Section 2(4)
answer by choosing the correct code. River: Section 2(1)
List I List II Cattle: Section 2(5)
(Definitions under (Sections of Terms) 13. Which of the following is not included within
the Indian Forest the meaning of ‘tree’ under the Indian Forest
Act, 1927) Act, 1927?
(a) Tree (i) Section 2(1)
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.)
(b) Forest-produce (ii) Section 2(7)
Examination, 2013]

Indian Forest Act, 1927 23

 (A) Palm (C) Section 18
(B) Bamboo (D) Section 19
(C) Cane Ans. (B)
(D) Neem Section 17, Appeal from order passed under
Ans. (D) Section 11, Section 12, Section 15 or Section 16.—
Section 2(7), ‘Tree’ includes palms, stumps, Any person who has made a claim under this Act,
brushwood and canes. or any Forest-officer or other person generally or
Section 8, Powers of Forest Settlement-officer— especially empowered by the State Government
For the purpose of such inquiry, the Forest in this behalf, may, within three months from
Settlement-officer may exercise the following the date of the order passed on such claim by
powers, that is to say— the Forest Settlement-officer under Section 11,
(a) power to enter, by himself or any officer Section 12, Section 15 or Section 16, present an
authorised by him for the purpose, upon any appeal from such order to such officer of the
land, and to survey, demarcate and make a Revenue Department, of rank not lower than that
map of the same; and of a Collector, as the State Government may, by
(b) the powers of a Civil Court in the trial of notification in the Official Gazette, appoint to
suits. hear appeals from such orders: Provided that
the State Government may establish a Court
14. In the trial of suit, the Forest Settlement
(hereinafter called the Forest Court) composed
Officer may exercise the powers of which of
of three persons to be appointed by the State
the following Courts?
Government, and, when the Forest Court has
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.)
been so established, all such appeals shall be
Examination, 2018]
presented to it.
(A) Revenue Court
16. Which of the following acts is not prohibited
(B) Criminal Court
under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act,
(C) Civil Court
1927?
(D) None of the above
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.)
Ans. (C)
Examination, 2013]
Section 8, Powers of Forest Settlement-officer—
(A) Sets fire to a reserved forest
For the purpose of such inquiry, the Forest
Settlement Officer may exercise the following (B) Trespasses or pastures cattle
powers, that is to say— (C) Clears or breaks up any land for
(a) power to enter, by himself or any officer cultivation
authorised by him for the purpose, upon any (D) Exercise of any right continued
land, and to survey, demarcate and make a map under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
of the same; and Section 15
(b) the powers of a Civil Court in the trial of Ans. (D)
suits. Section 26(2) Nothing in this section shall be
15. Under which of the following sections of the deemed to prohibit—
Indian Forest Act, 1927, the State Government (a) any act done by permission in writing of the
has the power to establish a ‘Forest Court’? Forest-officer, or under any rule made by the
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.) State Government; or
Examination, 2016] (b) the exercise of any right continued under
(A) Section 16 clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15,
(B) Section 17 or created by a grant or contract in writing

24 Indian Forest Act, 1927

 made by or on behalf of the government (e) leaves burning any fire kindled by him in the
under Section 23. vicinity of any such tree or closed portion;

17. Which of the following punishments is (f) fells any tree or drags any timber so as to
provided under Section 33 of the Indian damage any tree reserved as aforesaid;
Forest Act, if any person fells, lops or burns (g) permits cattle to damage any such tree;
any tree reserved under Section 30? (h) infringes any rule made under Section 32;
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.) shall be punishable with imprisonment for
Examination, 2019] a term which may extend to six months or
(A) Imprisonment for a term which may with fine which may extend to five hundred
extend to six months only and not others rupees, or with both.
(B) Imprisonment for a term which may (2) Whenever a fire is caused wilfully or by gross
extend to six months, or with a fine which negligence in a protected forest, the State
may extend to five hundred rupees, or Government may, notwithstanding that any
with both penalty has been inflicted under this section,
(C) Fine which may extend to five hundred direct that in such forest or any portion thereof
rupees only and not others the exercise of any right of pasture or to forest-
(D) Imprisonment for a term which may produce shall be suspended for such period as it
extend to nine months, or with a fine thinks fit.
which may extend to one thousand
18. Match List I with List II and give the correct
rupees, or with both
answer by choosing the correct code.
Ans. (B)
List I
Section 33, Penalties for acts in contravention of
(Provisions)
notification under Section 30 or of rules under
(a) Power to impose a duty on timber and
Section 32— (1) Any person who commits any of
other forest produce
the following offences, namely—
(b) Seizure of property liable to confiscation
(a) fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree
(c) Punishment for wrong seizure
reserved under Section 30, or strips off the
(d) Power to make rules for protected
bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages,
forests
any such tree;
List II
(b) contrary to any prohibition under Section
(Sections of the Indian Forest Act, 1927)
30, quarries any stone, or burns any lime (i) Section 62
or charcoal, or collects, subject to any (ii) Section 32
manufacturing process, or removes any (iii) Section 39
forest-produce; (iv) Section 52
(c) contrary to any prohibition under Section [Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.)
30, breaks up or clears for cultivation or Examination, 2016]
any other purpose any land in any protected Codes
forest; (a) (b) (c) (d)
(d) sets fire to such forest, or kindles a fire (A) (iii) (iv) (i) (ii)
without taking all reasonable precautions to (B) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
prevent its spreading to any tree reserved (C) (ii) (iii) (iv) (i)
under Section 30, whether standing, fallen (D) (iv) (i) (ii) (iii)
or felled, or to any closed portion of such Ans. (A)
forest; Power to impose a duty on timber and other
forest produce: Section 39

Indian Forest Act, 1927 25

 Seizure of property liable to confiscation: (A) Section 61
Section 52 (B) Section 62
Punishment for wrong seizure: Section 62 (C) Section 63
Power to make rules for protected forests: (D) Section 64
Section 32 Ans. (B)
19. Which of the following sections of the Indian Section 62, Punishment for wrongful seizure—Any
Forest Act, 1927, deals with ‘punishment for forest officer or police officer who vexatiously and
wrongful seizure’ of any forest property by unnecessarily seizes any property on the pretence
the forest officer or police officer? of seizing property liable to confiscation under
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Pre.) this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment
Examination, 2018] for a term which may extend to six months, or
with a fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both.

26 Indian Forest Act, 1927