Dismissed

R. Kizhavan, v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Madras HC29 Aug 2019WP(MD)/4033/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Traditional grazing rights were claimed in protected wildlife areas under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The court dismissed the petition, holding that those rights did not override environmental protection, but permitted an application for grazing in permissible areas, subject to verification of eligibility and expeditious consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to seek grazing rights in permitted areas; authorities to verify eligibility first and consider any request expeditiously and equitably.

R. Kizhavan, Vs the Secretary to the Govt. — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON: 02.07.2019 PRONOUNCED ON: 29.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.4033 of 2013 and

¶6

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶7

R.Kizhavan ... Petitioner /Vs./

¶8

1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Environment and Forest,

¶9

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶11

3.The District Collector,

¶12

Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶13

4.The Deputy Warden, Wildlife Sanctuary & District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

5.The Range Officer, Rajapalayam Forest Range Office,

¶15

Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

6.The Range Officer, Srivilliputhur Forest Range Office, (Opp. Co-op. Milk Society), Madurai Road, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶17

7.The Range Officer, Watrap Forest Range Office, S.Kodikulam, Watrap, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to frame procedure thereof to vest the Forest Rights including grazing Rights as laid down under Section 6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and consequently direct the 4,5,6 and 7^th respondents to implement the instructions of the circular

¶19

¶20

NO.J3/147422/06, dated 23.08.2007 issued by the 2^nd respondent permitting the petitioner and his fellow herdsmen to exercise their traditional grazing rights in the forest ranges of Rajapalayam, Srivilliputhur and Watrap in Virudhunagar District.

¶21

For Petitioner For Respondents

¶22

: Mr.D.Gurusamy : Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi Special Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner claims to be a traditional forest dweller, dependant entirely on pastoralism for his livelihood. According to him, there are several individuals and families of forest herdsmen like him following traditional grazing methods, guided and facilitated by Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Voluntary Action (SEVA), numbering about 500 families. They herd community herds called 'Malaimaadu' and 'Pulikulam Cattle', categorized as indigenous and endangered species by the National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources.

¶25

According to him, this nomadic existence is being carried on by the community for more than a century and he relies in this regard upon a Will executed by the Zamindar of Sethur dated 29.12.1895, which grants grazing rights to traditional forests dwellers. The practices followed by the community are stated to be maintaining ecological balance and diversity and biological diversity. He challenges, in this writ petition, the imposition of a total ban on grazing activities along the slopes of the Western Ghats that have been earmarked as Reserved forests. This, according to the petitioner, infringes upon the rights of traditional pastoral communities and has affected the community very adversely. As a result, cattle population has also according to him, dwindled.

¶26

He relies upon the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 , (in short '2006 Act') pointing out that the statute has been enacted to specifically recognize and vest forest rights including the right of occupation of forest land upon Scheduled Tribe and Traditional Forest Dwellers, who have been resident there for generations. He speaks passionately about the historical injustice committed over time to such Traditional Forest Dwellers, whose rights have neither been identified nor enforced and states that the aforesaid statute has been brought about to correct such an injustice.

¶27

He prays that a mandamus may be issued directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents i.e., the State as well as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (in short 'PCCF') to frame a procedure to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vest forest rights that include grazing rights upon those entitled to the same and a direction to the Officials to implement

¶28

¶29

instructions contained in Circular No.20/07 dated 23.08.2007 issued by the PCCF permitting Traditional Forest Dwellers to exercise their rights in the forest range of Srivilliputtur and Watrap in Virudhunagar District. The petitioner has also filed an additional compilation of documents including samples of grazing permits issued to various persons and Notification dated 10.08.2015 issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

¶30

A counter has been filed by the first respondent denying all the averments of the petitioner. At para 19, they state as under:

¶31

‘ 19. I respectfully submit that the averments made by the petitioner in para 2 of the affidavit are devoid of truth. More than a decade, nobody is dwelling inside the forest areas of this sanctuary. Earlier local tribal people “Paliyars” were dwelling inside the forest upto mid 1990’s. Later they were also shifted outside the forest with proper rehabilitation facilities. The only tribal settlement presently in side sanctuary that too on the boundary of the sanctuary area is Ayyanarkoil of Rajapalayam Range. Except that nobody is dwelling inside the forest area for any purpose. Further cattle in thousands and hundreds in number are owned only by handful of few big land lords in Watrap, Koomapatti, Khansapuram, Rajapalayam areas. These cattle are given in charge of persons on contract basis on annual / monthly remuneration. Presently even those cattle are dependent on Panchayat lands, community lands and Revenue hillocks and not on forest areas within the limits of the sanctuary. Petitioner has stated that “Malaimadu” and “Pulikulam cattle” are rare and endangered species. Wildlife sanctuary is protected for conserving endangered wild animals and not for conserving domesticated cattle breed.

¶32

20. Regarding the averments made in para 3 of the affidavit, I respectfully submit that controlled grazing inside the forest areas of Watrap, Srivilliputtur and Rajapalayam were in existence before declaration of these forests areas as sanctuary i.e., till 1988. But it is not true that graziers were maintaining ecological balance. Grazing led to degradation of forest, transfer deadly anthrax disease to wild animals has also improved and resulted in healthy breeding of wild animals and increase in their number.’

¶33

The respondents, at the outset, question the locus of this petitioner to file the present writ petition stating that he has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ established his claim of being a traditional forest dweller. In any event, they rely wholly upon Circular No. Circular No.20/07 dated 23.08.2007 in terms of which an absolute ban is imposed upon grazing

¶34

¶35

in protected areas. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of this Court:

¶36

(i)R.Seeniappan vs. The Wildlife Warden, Pollachi (1999 (3) CTC 494) (ii) Order dated 14.08.2001 in W.P.No.14660 of 2001 in the case of Srivilliputtur Taluka Malaimadugal Madrum Prambaraia Kainadai Valarpor Sangam vs. Government of India and others.

¶37

(iii) Order dated 30.06.2011 in W.P.No.20996 of 2004 in the case of Srivilliputtur Taluka Malaimadugal Madrum Prambaraia Kainadai Valarpor Sangam vs. Government of India and others.

¶38

Heard learned counsel.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel and also carefully perused the file, supporting documents and case law.

¶40

Since the petitioner claims entitlement in terms of the 2006 Act, it is incumbent upon him to satisfy the Court that he is a member of a forest dwelling Schedules Tribe or any other traditional forest dweller as per Section 2(c) or (o) of the Act, both extracted below:

¶41

(c) “forest dwelling Schedules Tribes” means the members or community of the Schedules Tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forests or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities;

¶42

(o) “other traditional forest dweller” means any member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13^th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs.’

¶43

Despite a specific query put to the petitioner in this regard, no identification has been produced by him. However, I do not hold that very seriously against the petitioner at this juncture, since the issue raised by him is, in my view, one of some importance and also one of a recurring nature.

¶44

The map circulated by the respondents demarcates the area in - question as being part of the Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctu - ary (GSWS), also known as the Srivilliputhur Wildlife Sanctuary, es - tablished in 1988 to protect the vulnerable grizzled giant squir rel and occupying an area of 485.2 sq kms . This Sanctuary, as also the adjoining Megamalai Wildlife Sanctuary are admittedly, protected areas, in terms of the Indian Forest Act 1927 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

¶45

All the cases relied upon by the authorities deal with an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ almost identical situation as before me, wherein the petitioners therein have also laid claim to forest dwelling rights and

¶46

¶47

traditional grazing rights in the Srivilliputhur Squirreled Wild Life Sanctuary . The aforesaid decisions are however, sought to be distinguished by the petitioner before me, on the ground that those decisions were rendered prior to enactment of the 2006 Act, which has, according to him, codified the rights and entitlement of Schedules Forests Tribes and Traditional Dwellers.

¶48

No doubt, Section 4 of the 2006 Act, titled ‘Recognition, restoration and vesting of forest rights and related matters’ commences with a non-obstante clause, and, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, recognizes and vests forest rights upon Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers. Unquestionably, 2006 Act is a special enactment. But then, so are the Forest Act 1972 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, in the context of preservation of the environment. The question is how best one can align and reconcile rights that accrue under all the aforesaid statutes.

¶49

Since an understanding of the Act is critical to the resolution of the lis before me, the scheme of the Act is examined in some detail. The Preamble to the Act is relevant and extracted below:

¶50

Preamble

¶51

An Act to recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; to provide for a framework for recording the forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in respect of forest land.

¶52

WHEREAS the recognised rights of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers include the responsibilities and authority for sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance and thereby strengthening the conservation regime of the forests while ensuring livelihood and food security of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers;

¶53

AND WHEREAS the forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately recognised in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India resulting in historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem;

¶54

AND WHEREAS it has become necessary to address the long standing insecurity of tenurial and access rights of for- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ est dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers including those who were forced to relocate their dwelling due to State development interventions.

¶55

¶56

Chapter I deals with the preliminaries and definitions of relevant terms.

¶57

Definitions:

¶58

(a) “community forest resource” means customary common forest land within the traditional or customary boundaries of the village or seasonal use of landscape in the case of pastoral communities, including reserved forests, protected forests and protected areas such as Sanctuaries and National Parks to which the community had traditional access;

¶59

(d) “forest land” means land of any description falling within any forest area and includes unclassified forests, undemarcated forests, existing or deemed forests, protected forests, reserved forests, Sanctuaries and National Parks;

¶60

(h) “habitat” includes the area comprising the customary habitat and such other habitats in reserved forests and protected forests of primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities and other forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes;

¶61

Chapter II deals with Forest rights and contains Section 3 which recognizes and enumerates the rights that are provided to forest dwelling scheduled tribes or other traditional forest dwellers as well as provides for the establishment of other facilities by diversion of forest land, albeit in a controlled manner. Section 3 reads as under:

¶62

3. Forest rights of Forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other tradional forest dwellers.–(1) For the purposes of this Act, the following rights, which secure individual or community tenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands, namely:–

¶63

(a) right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers;

¶64

(b) community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those used in erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes;

¶65

(c) right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ collected within or outside village boundaries;

¶66

¶67

(d) other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water bodies, grazing (both settled or transhumant) and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralist communities; (e) rights including community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities; (f) rights in or over disputed lands under any nomenclature in any State where claims are disputed; (g) rights for conversion of Pattas or leases or grants issued by any local authority or any State Government on forest lands to titles;

¶68

(h) rights of settlement and conversion of all forest villages, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and other villages in forests, whether recorded, notified or not into revenue villages;

¶69

(i) right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use;

¶70

(j) rights which are recognised under any State law or laws of any Autonomous District Council or Autonomous Regional Council or which are accepted as rights of tribals under any traditional or customary law of the concerned tribes of any State;

¶71

(k) right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity;

¶72

(l) any other traditional right customarily enjoyed by the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers, as the case may be, which are not mentioned in clauses (a) to (k) but excluding the traditional right of hunting or trapping or extracting a part of the body of any species of wild animal;

¶73

(m) right to in situ rehabilitation including alternative land in cases where the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers have been illegally evicted or displaced from forest land of any description without receiving their legal entitlement to rehabilitation prior to the 13th day of December, 2005.

¶74

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Central Government shall provide for diversion of forest land for the following facilities managed by the Government which involve felling of trees not exceeding seventy-five trees per hectare, namely:– (a) schools; (b) dispensary or hospital; (c) anganwadis; (d) fair price shops; (e) electric and telecommunication lines; (f) tanks and other minor water bodies; (g) drinking water supply and water pipelines; (h) water or rain water harvesting structures; (i) minor irri- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gation canals; (j) non-conventional source of energy; (k)

¶75

¶76

skill upgradation or vocational training centres; (l) roads; and (m) community centres:

¶77

Provided that such diversion of forest land shall be allowed only if,– (i) the forest land to be diverted for the purposes mentioned in this sub-section is less than one hectare in each case; and (ii) the clearance of such developmental projects shall be subject to the condition that the same is recommended by the Gram Sabha.

¶78

Chapter III contains Sections 4 and 5 that confer recognition, restoration and vesting of forest and allied rights. While Section 4 recognizes and vests forest rights upon scheduled tribes and forest dwellers, Section 5 empowers them further to work as one with the environment to protect wild life, forests, biodiversity and in protection of the same.

¶79

Chapter IV enumerates the relevant authorities constituted as well as the procedure for the vesting of the rights itself and is extracted below:

¶80

‘6.(I) The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the local limits of its jurisdiction under this Act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of each recommended claim in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of such rights and the Gram Sabha shall, then, pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.

¶81

(2) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee constituted under sub-section (3) and the Sub-Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition:

¶82

Provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha:

¶83

Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

¶84

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3) The State Government shall constitute a SubDivisional Level Committee to examine the resolution

¶85

¶86

passed by the Gram Sabha and prepare the record of forest rights and forward it through the SubDivisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision.

¶87

(4) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the SubDivisional Level Committee may prefer a petition to the District Level Committee within sixty days from the date of decision of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition:

¶88

Provided that no petition shall be preferred directly before the District Level Committee against the resolution of the Gram Sabha unless the same has been preferred before and considered by the SubDivisional Level Committee:

¶89

Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

¶90

(5) The State Government shall constitute a District Level Committee to consider and finally approve the record of forest rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.

¶91

(6) The decision of the District Level Committee on the record of forest rights shall be final and binding.

¶92

(7) The State Government shall constitute a State Level Monitoring Committee to monitor the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights and to submit to the nodal agency such returns and reports as may be called for by that agency.

¶93

(8) The Sub-Divisional Level Committee, the District Level Committee and the State Level Monitoring Committee shall consist of officers of the departments of Revenue, Forest and Tribal Affairs of the State Government and three members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions at the appropriate level, appointed by the respective Panchayati Raj Institutions, of whom two shall be the Scheduled Tribe members and at least one shall be a woman, as may be prescribed.

¶94

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (9) The composition and functions of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, the District Level Committee

¶95

¶96

and the State Level Monitoring Committee and the procedure to be followed by them in the discharge of their functions shall be such as may be prescribed.’

¶97

I am informed that the authorities constituted as above are functioning as at present.

¶98

Chapters V and VI deal with offences and penalties and Miscellaneous provisions. This, then, is the summary of the Act itself.

¶99

The PCCF has on 23.08.2007 issued Circular Instructions regarding the grazing policy to be followed by Forest Department. Since this circular has been issued in August 2007, after enactment of the 2006 Act, I deem it fit to extract the same in full as well:

¶100

'Circular No.20/07 Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. Ref No.J3/47422/06 Dated 23.08.2007

¶101

Thiru C.K.Sreedharan, IFS.,

¶102

Principal Chief Conseravator of Forests

¶103

Sub: Grazing Policy in Forest Department – Circular instructions issued Regarding.

¶104

******

¶105

Grazing has always remained a sensitive issue calling for a clear policy. Grazing of domestic livestock continuous to be the prime factor in the degraded forest destroys all the potential of the degraded forest eco-system. Uncontrolled and unlimited grazing is incompatible with scientific forestry. Grazing also destroys all the potential of the natural regeneration possible in the forest eco-systems as the domestic livestock destroys the natural seedlings of the tree species. More than 80% of the forest fire in Tamil Nadu are caused and induced by the graziers. Grazing and forest fie go together in several forest area. Graziers are also head loaders in the forest areas and most of the graziers indulge in tree felling and in collection fire wood. There is potential danger of spread of several diseases like anthrax, food and mouth disease etc. From grazing domestic livestock to wild herbivores thereby causing serious impact on the wild herbivore population. This calls for restrictions in grazing for scientific management of the fragile eco systems. There have been instructions from Government (Environment and Forests Department) at intervals https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ revising rates for grazing.

¶106

¶107

Taking all these facts into consideration grazing is permitted generally in the forest areas with restrictions and not at all permitted in cases indicated below. Vis:

¶108

a.No grazing is permitted in protected areas like National Park, Tiger reserve and Sanctuaries.

¶109

b.No grazing is permitted in the reafferestration areas upto 5 years, in order to ensure that plants attain heights beyond browsing.

¶110

c.Certain areas are liable to be closed to grazing either permanently or temporarily. Closure is applied to areas under regeneration to burn areas and to those in which grazing is harmful. Forests may be closed to grazing in case of fires.

¶111

Presently grazing permits are being issued for domestic live stock except for goat. In the recent times various complaints are received from the cattle and other livestock grazing Associations seeking permission from the Government to allow their cattle to browse in the forest areas. Considering the request of various Associations the following may be considered by the Field Officers for allowing grazing in the forest areas. Efficient forest management requires that grazing be regulated in time, place and cattle leads to be grazed.

¶112

1.Grazing in other forest areas including older reafforestation areas (more than 5 years) may be considered by District Forest Officers after inspecting the areas and to permit grazing in such areas taking into consideration the presence of wildlife. This would be again subject to the resoulation to be passed by VFC about grazing of local cattle population in the forest areas.

¶113

2.In respect of allowing Malaimadu (ferel cattle) to graze inside the forest area the VFC may decide by passing resolution taking into consideration the availability of area and fodder for the local cattle.

¶114

3.The Conservator of Forests / District Forest Officers are requested to stick to the various Government orders / instructions issued in this regard while following the above instructions before allowing cattle owners to browse their domestic animals in the forest areas.

¶115

The Chief Conservator of Forests / Conservator of Forests are requested to acknowledge the receipt of the instructions and also get this circulated to District Forest Officers / Wildlife Wardens and get https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their acknowledgement in turn for records in their office.

¶116

¶117

Sd/-

¶118

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests'

¶119

Though the Circular extracted above is expected to have taken into account the stipulations, spirit and object of the 2006 Act, there is no reference to the same therein. The respondents rely on the Circular pointing out that grazing activities have been banned specifically in protected areas like National Parks, Tiger Reserves and Sanctuaries. Barring the aforesaid, grazing permits are to be issued for permitting cattle to browse in forest areas. The Circular also states that the field officers may consider the request of Association for permission to graze in permitted areas.

¶120

Clearly, and in my considered view, the 2006 Act cannot be said to have overridden or prioritized the interest of traditional forest dwellers and scheduled forest tribes over that of the environment. However, the definitions of ‘forest resource’, ‘forest land’ and ‘habitat’ include reference to ‘reserved forest’ as well. Thus, while there is no question that the protection of the environment is paramount and cannot be compromised in any way whatsoever meaning has to be given to the provisions of the 2006 Act as well.

¶121

Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Forest Acct 1927, that fall under Chapter II thereof dealing with Reserved Forests, provide for the power of the State to declare any land as reserved forest and to issue a Notification in that regard. Section 5 bars the accrual of right in such reserved land after the land has been so reserved, and states as follows:

¶122

5. Bar of accrual of forest-rights.–After the issue of a notification under section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.

¶123

The direction in the Circular to the effect that no grazing be permitted in protected areas, Tiger Reserves and sanctuaries stands to reason bearing in mind the compulsions of preservation of the environment as well as wildlife. I draw useful reference in this regard to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. V.Murad Ali Khan ( 1998 (4) SCC 655) as follows:

¶124

‘ The policy and object of the wild life laws have a

¶125

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalances introduced by the depredations in-

¶126

¶127

flicted on nature by man. The state to which the ecological imbalances and the consequent environmental damage have reached is so alarming that unless immediate, determined and effective steps were taken, the damage might become irreversible. The preservation of the fauna and flora, some species of which are getting extinct at an alarming rate, has been a great and urgent necessity for the survival of humanity and these laws reflect a last ditch battle for the restoration, in pan at least, a grae situation emerging from a long history of callous insenshiveness to the enormity of the risks to mankind that go with the deterioration of environment. The tragedy of the predicament of the civilised man is that "Every source from which man has increased his power on earth has been used to diminish the prospects of his successors. All his progress is being made at the expense of damage to the environment which he cannot repair and cannot foresee." In his foreword to International Wild Life law, H.R.H. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh said:

¶128

Many people seem to mink that the conservation of nature is simply a matter of being kind to animals and enjoying walks in the countryside. Sadly, perhaps, it is a great deal more complicated than that.....

¶129

....As usual with all legal systems, the crucial requirement is for the terms of the conventions to be widely accepted and rapidly implemented. Regretfully progress in this direction is proving disastrously slow ......."

¶130

In the third century B.C.King Asoka issued a decree that "has a particularly contemporary ring" in the matter of preservation of wild life and environment. Towards the end of his reign, he wrote:

¶131

Twenty-six years after my coronation. I declared that the following animals were not to be killed: parrots, mynas, the aruna, ruddy geese, wild geese, the nandimukha, cranes, bats, queen ants, terrapins, boneless fish, rhinoceroses ...

¶132

and all quadrupeds which are not useful or edible ... Forests must not be burned. Environmentalists conception of the ecological balance in nature is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ based on the fundamental concept that nature is "a series of complex biotic communities of which a man is an inter dependant part" and that it should not be given

¶133

¶134

to a part to trespass and diminish the whole. The largest single factor in the depletion of the wealth of animal life in nature has been the "civilised man" operating directly through excessive commercial hunting or, more disastrously, indirectly through invading or destroying natural habitats,’

¶135

Thus, and in the light of the narration as above, while I dismiss this Writ Petition, I grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities for grazing rights in areas permitted in the light of the provisions of the 2006 Act read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Forests Act 1972. Such request, if and when made, shall be considered and disposed expeditiously by the authority after first, and as a preliminary issue, ascertaining the entitlement of the persons to make such request in the first place. In considering the representations made, if any, the authority shall ensure proper and equitable consideration as well as a balance of all the special enactments mentioned hereinbefore. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶136

Sd/-

¶137

Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy //

¶138

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶139

¶140