IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA
Discusses interpretation of statutes, applicability of legal doctrines, and the public trust doctrine.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 701
Decision Date: 15-05-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Forest Act, 1927; The Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Constitution of India, 1949; Indian Penal Code, 1860; General Principles of Law
- The Indian Forest Act, 1927: The judgment discusses Section 34 of the Act, noting that an area was notified as a Reserved Forest under its provisions. Specifically, an area admeasuring 32 Acres 35 Gunthas at Survey No. 20 of Village Kondhwa Budruk in Pune District was notified as a Reserved Forest under Section 34, vide Notification dated 1st March 1879. The judgment also mentions "the powers conferred by Section 34 of the 1878 Act" in relation to the notification. The argument that the Notification dated 1st March 1879 issued under Section 34 of the 1878 Act has been put to disuse for a long time was rejected.
- The Forest Conservation Act, 1980: The judgment extensively discusses the Act, particularly Section 2. It notes that the Act came into force on 25th October 1980. Section 2 is quoted in full, emphasizing the restriction on de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval of the Central Government. The judgment states that after the Act came into effect, no Forest Land could have been de-reserved without the permission of the Central Government. The judgment also refers to the definition of "non-forest purpose" as per the Explanation to Section 2. The judgment notes that the allotment of the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family' was in blatant disregard to the provisions of Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act. The judgment also notes that this Court has in unequivocal terms overruled what was held in Banshi Ram Modi (supra) in accordance with Section 2 of the Act.
- Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879: The judgment mentions that the 'Chavan Family' gave an undertaking to the Mamlatdar, Taluka-Haveli, District Pune, stating that "I accept and agree that the said assessment is allotted to me under the provision of Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 and rules thereunder and shall be subjected to following terms and conditions."
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: The judgment mentions that the Final Regional Plan of Pune Region was published in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that the Act is a complete code in itself. The judgment also refers to Section 37 of the Act, noting that the modification to be issued under Section 37 for changing the land use in question from Private/Semi-Private to Residential is concerned, the said procedure shall be completed within a period of three months.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 32, mentioning that the RRCHS filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No.301 of 2008, praying for the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated 2.7.2008 bearing no. Land-3408/1025/PKP 935/Part 2/J-5, issued by the State Government; and/or (b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated 4.7.2008 bearing no. 57 of 2008-09, issued by the Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra; and/or (c) Pass such other of further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." The judgment also refers to Article 21, mentioning that the Court observed that in view of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a citizen must be protected from being prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become "dead letter".
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment mentions that the senior functionaries and officers of the Government of Maharashtra responsible for the allotment/use of the said Reserve Forest land in violation of the provision of the FC Act and this Hon'ble Court's order dated 12.12.1996 should be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the doctrine of desuetude, examining its applicability to the facts of the case. It refers to the judgment in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. (supra) and Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (supra) to explain the essentials of the doctrine. The judgment states that for applicability of the doctrine of desuetude, the statute must not only be required to be in disuse for long duration but instead a contrary practice must also be prevalent. The judgment also discusses the doctrine of public trust, referring to In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath to explain its importance in environmental matters. The judgment emphasizes that the State is a trustee of natural resources and has a legal duty to protect them.
🔒 For Members Only