{"id":150688,"date":"2008-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-25T19:50:52","modified_gmt":"2015-06-25T14:20:52","slug":"a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H S Bedi<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
                                                      ( Reportable)\n\n          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5180 OF 2001\n\n\nA. Chowgule & Co. Ltd.                       ........Appellant\n\n\n                     Vs.\n\nGoa Foundation & Ors.                    ............Respondents\n\n\n                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:<\/p>\n
2.   The appellant, a company incorporated under the<\/p>\n
     Companies Act, has its registered office at Chowgule<\/p>\n
     House, Mormugao Harbour,Goa and is a recognized star<\/p>\n
     trading house engaged in the mining, processing and<\/p>\n
     export of iron ore. In the year 1979, the appellant took a<\/p>\n
     decision to establish a 100 per cent export oriented unit<\/p>\n
     in Sanguem Taluka situated at a short distance from its
\n                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
existing mines. The process of locating suitable land for<\/p>\n
the unit took about 10 years and the process for the unit<\/p>\n
was finally set in motion by a letter dated 21st December<\/p>\n
1988 from the Collectorate of South Goa, Revenue<\/p>\n
Department to the Inspector of Survey, Land Records,<\/p>\n
Mangao-Goa       informing   the   said   officer   that   the<\/p>\n
Government of Goa had decided to lease an area of 15<\/p>\n
hectare out of 26.4675 hectares to the appellant under<\/p>\n
Survey No. 12 of Potrem Village in Sanguem Taluka and<\/p>\n
directions were issued that the area be demarcated and<\/p>\n
the other formalities complied with.       On 17th August<\/p>\n
1989, the appellant addressed a letter to the Secretary<\/p>\n
for Industrial Approvals, Ministry of Industries of the<\/p>\n
Central Government about the proposal to set up an<\/p>\n
integrated unit including a benefication plant at Tuduo<\/p>\n
Mines for the production of saleable iron ore at a cost of<\/p>\n
Rs.25 crores and to operate it as a 100 per cent export<\/p>\n
oriented unit. A formal letter of intent was also issued to<\/p>\n
the appellant on 25th January 1991.       Pursuant to the<\/p>\n
decisions taken, a Memorandum of Lease dated 1st
\n                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
November 1989 was executed between the Governor of<\/p>\n
Goa and the appellant whereby an area of 12 hectares<\/p>\n
was leased out for the purpose of ancillary work<\/p>\n
connected to mining and for that purpose the appellant<\/p>\n
was   authorized   to   construct   the    necessary   civil<\/p>\n
structures. The appellant also, on 7th of February 1990,<\/p>\n
entered into a contract with a Japanese Corporation for<\/p>\n
the export of processed iron ore.         A No Objection<\/p>\n
Certificate from the Goa State Pollution Control Board<\/p>\n
was obtained on 15th April 1991 and a Sanad dated 10th<\/p>\n
July 1991 was also issued by the Deputy Collector of<\/p>\n
Goa permitting the use of the land for non-agricultural<\/p>\n
purposes upon payment of Rs.6 lakhs by way of<\/p>\n
conversion fees.   It is the case of the appellant that<\/p>\n
pursuant to the aforesaid administrative sanctions and<\/p>\n
decisions, machinery worth Rs.12 crores was imported<\/p>\n
for the operation of the project.         At this juncture<\/p>\n
Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition No.113 of<\/p>\n
1992 in public interest before the Goa Bench of the<\/p>\n
Bombay High Court praying for a writ of certiorari for
\n                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
quashing the Memorandum of Lease dated 1st November<\/p>\n
1989 and for several other reliefs.     Respondent No.5<\/p>\n
herein, the Conservator of Forests, Goa filed an affidavit<\/p>\n
before the High Court pointing out that the 12 hectares<\/p>\n
of land which had been leased to the appellant had<\/p>\n
already been classified as Revenue Land meant for “Dry<\/p>\n
Crops” and was not a forest area, as had been contended<\/p>\n
by the writ petitioners\/respondents 1,2 and 3. On 26th<\/p>\n
March 1992, the High Court adjourned the matter for 8<\/p>\n
weeks in view of the statement made by the Advocate<\/p>\n
General that the State Government proposed to take up<\/p>\n
the matter with the Central Government so as to secure<\/p>\n
the necessary approvals postulated under section 2 of<\/p>\n
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the<\/p>\n
“Act”) and as such it was unnecessary to proceed with<\/p>\n
the writ petition. The High Court, accordingly, adjourned<\/p>\n
the matter for 8 weeks without any discussion on merits<\/p>\n
with liberty to all parties to press their submissions in<\/p>\n
case the need arose. Pursuant to the assurance given by<\/p>\n
the Advocate General to the High Court, the State
\n                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
Government wrote to the Ministry of Environment and<\/p>\n
Forest, New Delhi on 7th May 1992 pointing out that out<\/p>\n
of the 12 hectares leased to the appellant a small area of<\/p>\n
about 5000 square meters would be used for the erection<\/p>\n
of the benefication plant and that appellant had also<\/p>\n
taken to raise compensatory afforestation in one hectare<\/p>\n
in non-forest area in Survey No.42 Santanu Village of<\/p>\n
Sangueme Taluka and as the unit was likely to earn<\/p>\n
foreign exchange and the broad sanctions had already<\/p>\n
been given by the concerned quarters, clearance under<\/p>\n
section 2 of the Act be accorded.      The writ petition<\/p>\n
aforesaid once again came up for consideration on 17th<\/p>\n
November 1992 and while granting some interim relief to<\/p>\n
the writ petitioners-respondents, it was directed that the<\/p>\n
petition be listed for final disposal in January 1993. The<\/p>\n
Ministry of Environment and Forest, in the meanwhile,<\/p>\n
vide its letter dated 25th May 1993 conveyed its approval<\/p>\n
in principle for diversion of 4.44 hectares of forest land<\/p>\n
from Potrem village subject to several conditions which<\/p>\n
were statedly complied with by the appellant and a final
\n                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
decision allowing the diversion was also conveyed to the<\/p>\n
appellant on 7th November 1997. Writ Petition No.113 of<\/p>\n
1992 came up for final disposal before the Goa Bench on<\/p>\n
21st July 2000 and was duly allowed and writ of<\/p>\n
certiorari was issued quashing the lease agreement dated<\/p>\n
1st November 1989.         It was, inter-alia, held that the<\/p>\n
various approvals\/sanctions granted to the appellant by<\/p>\n
the Industries Department or by the Collector could not,<\/p>\n
by   any   stretch   of    imagination,   be   construed   as<\/p>\n
permission for deforestation of the forest area, as<\/p>\n
envisaged by section 2 of the Act as the said Act required<\/p>\n
prior approval of the Central Government after the<\/p>\n
procedure given in Rules 4, 5 and 6 of The Forest<\/p>\n
(Conservation) Rules 1981 (hereinafter called the “Rules”)<\/p>\n
had been followed.        The plea of the appellant that the<\/p>\n
area concerned was not a forest was also repelled with<\/p>\n
the observations that an average of 250 trees per hectare<\/p>\n
were growing on the land, as was clear from the affidavit<\/p>\n
filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, R.Nagbhushan<\/p>\n
Rao and that the entire area was heavily forested with
\n                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
3000 trees and was in addition contiguous to the<\/p>\n
Government forests.         The Bench also observed that<\/p>\n
merely because the land had been described as “Dry<\/p>\n
Crops Land” would not change the nature of the land as<\/p>\n
it was apparently a wrong description more particularly<\/p>\n
as Section 2 ibid referred not only to forests but to forest<\/p>\n
land as well.      For arriving at its decision, the Division<\/p>\n
Bench relied upon the decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India &<\/p>\n
Ors.<\/a> (1997) 2 SCC 267 in which it was held              that the<\/p>\n
term `forest’ was to be given an extended meaning so as<\/p>\n
to   cover   all   statutorily   recognized   forests   whether<\/p>\n
designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the<\/p>\n
purpose of section 2 of the Act. Having held as above,<\/p>\n
the Division Bench observed that the 12 hectares being<\/p>\n
forest land, prior permission under section 2 of the Act<\/p>\n
was the sine qua non for the execution of the lease deed<\/p>\n
dated 1st of November 1989 and finally concluded as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
“Does the subsequent act of granting
\npermission communicated by letter of 18th
\nMay 1993 enable respondent No.4 to carry on
\nwith those development activities on the 4.44
\nhectares? The letter of 8th July 1997 seeks
\nprior approval of Central Government. In the
\ninstant case as we have been there is no prior
\napproval for entering into a lease deed any of
\nthe term of lease can be set out. Condition
\nNo.1 shows that the legal status of the forest
\nland shall remain unchanged. The permission
\nis co-terminus with lease granted by the State
\nGovernment with effect from 1st November
\n1989. Therefore, it proceeded on the footing
\nthat prior approval is being sought. In the
\ninstant case the records show that prior
\napproval was not taken. In that context mere
\npermission granted for development will be of
\nno consequence. It is true that the petitioner
\nhas     not    challenged      the   subsequent
\npermission granted. However, what is material
\nto notice is that the area was a forest. In spite
\nof that, without prior permission, the
\nrespondent No.1 granted the lease in favour of
\nthe respondent No.4. The lease was contrary
\nto law. Once the lease was contrary to law,
\nthe question of the State Government applying
\nat the behest of respondent No.4 for
\npermission would not arise.\n<\/p>\n
      Even otherwise the land is situated to an
\nadjacent Government forest and the land is
\nsought to be used for setting up of a
\nbeneficiation plant which involves dust and
\nwater pollution and consequent destruction of
\nthe adjoining forest. It will substantially affect
\nthe environment and ecology of the area.\n<\/p>\n
This, in fact, would affect the right to life. The
\npetitioners in the petition have averred that
\nthe cutting of trees without obtaining
\n                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
          permission was resorted to. In matters of
\n          ecology and environment and considering the
\n          principle of sustainable development, no
\n          person or organization, however, high and
\n          mighty they may be, can be permitted to flout
\n          the law of the land.\n<\/p>\n
          Considering that, in our opinion, the lease
\n          granted in favour of respondent No.4 is still
\n          born, null and void.       Respondent No.1 is
\n          directed to restore the land to its original use.\n<\/p>\n
                Rule made absolute in the aforesaid
\n          terms. In the circumstances, there shall be
\n          no order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
\n     It is these circumstances that the appeal is before us.<\/p>\n
3.   Mr. Shrivastava, the learned senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
     appellant has raised several arguments during the<\/p>\n
     course of hearing. He has first and foremost pointed out<\/p>\n
     that there had been no violation of the provisions of<\/p>\n
     Section 2 of the Act in the background that the<\/p>\n
     Government of India had given its post-facto approval to<\/p>\n
     the project and that the State Government had accorded<\/p>\n
     its approval on 21st December 1988 and that               the<\/p>\n
     Government of India had also conveyed its approval in<\/p>\n
     principle for the diversion of 4.44 hectares of the land<\/p>\n
     subject to several conditions which had been complied
\n                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
with and in this view of the matter, any flaw, which may<\/p>\n
have been present at the initial stage, had been rectified.<\/p>\n
It has been submitted that the aforesaid arguments were<\/p>\n
further fortified from the letters of the Ministry of<\/p>\n
Environment and Forest, Government of India dated 18th<\/p>\n
May 1993 and 7th November 1997 for the use of 4.44<\/p>\n
hectares of forest land in Porterm village in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant subject to the condition, inter-alia, that<\/p>\n
compensatory afforestation would be carried out over<\/p>\n
non-forest land at the cost of the project.        It has,<\/p>\n
accordingly, been submitted as the lease deed has been<\/p>\n
executed for an area of about 15 hectares and was as per<\/p>\n
record not a forest area, the entire area ought to be left<\/p>\n
for the use of the appellant-company and that the 4.44<\/p>\n
hectares which had been cleared not only by the State<\/p>\n
Government but by the Ministry of Environment and<\/p>\n
Forest, Government of India should in any case be left<\/p>\n
out for the benefit of the appellant. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
has relied upon (1985) 3 SCC 643 (State of Bihar vs.<\/p>\n
Banshi Ram Modi & Ors.<\/a> ) and AIR 1990 Andhra
\n                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
     Pradesh   257     (Hyderabad      Abrasives       &   Minerals,<\/p>\n
     Hyderabad vs. The Govt. of A.P. Forest Department,<\/p>\n
     Hyderabad & Anr.<\/a> in support of his case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.        Mr. Sanjay Parekh, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
     respondents has, however, submitted that as a matter of<\/p>\n
     fact, the benefication plant had already been shifted<\/p>\n
     from the proposed site and that this fact had been<\/p>\n
     withheld from the High Court as well as from this Court<\/p>\n
     during the course of the protracted hearings. It has also<\/p>\n
     been strongly urged that Section 2 of the Act and the<\/p>\n
     Rules pre-supposed a prior approval of the Central<\/p>\n
     Government as per the prescribed procedure before the<\/p>\n
     dereservation    of forest land     and formal approvals<\/p>\n
     granted   by    any   other    agency   or   by   the   Central<\/p>\n
     Government ex-post facto, would not cure any defect in<\/p>\n
     the dereservation. It has been submitted that even as<\/p>\n
     per the appellant’s case, the lease deed for 12 hectares<\/p>\n
     had been executed on 1st November 1989, but the<\/p>\n
     approval for the diversion of 4.44 hectares of land had
\n                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
been accorded in the year 1997 and would, therefore not<\/p>\n
operate retrospectively even for this limited area. It has<\/p>\n
also been argued that the appellant’s undertaking to<\/p>\n
cause afforestation in an area equivalent to the one<\/p>\n
leased out as per the stipulation of the Central<\/p>\n
Government in the afore referred documents, was also<\/p>\n
not acceptable in the light of the fact that the lease deed<\/p>\n
itself was contrary to law. It has also been pointed out<\/p>\n
that the finding of fact recorded by the High Court was<\/p>\n
that the area in question was indeed a forest and that<\/p>\n
the judgments cited by the appellant’s counsel had been<\/p>\n
clarified by the Supreme Court in a series of subsequent<\/p>\n
judgments reported in (1987) 1 SCC 213 (Ambica<\/p>\n
Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.),<\/a> 1989<\/p>\n
Suppl. (1) SCC 504 (Rural Litigation & Entitlement<\/p>\n
Kendra    vs.    State   of    U.P.,<\/a>   (1997)   2   SCC   267<\/p>\n
(T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India &<\/p>\n
Ors.) and<\/a> (2004) 12 SCC 118 (M.C.Mehta vs. Union of<\/p>\n
India & Ors.).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
5.     We have considered the arguments advanced by the<\/p>\n
     learned counsel for the parties.    It is evident from the<\/p>\n
     record and what has been recorded earlier that the<\/p>\n
     primary issue is with regard to the permission granted<\/p>\n
     by the Central Government for the diversion of the forest<\/p>\n
     area.   Section 2 of the Act and the relevant Rules are<\/p>\n
     reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
“Sec. 2.  Restriction on the dereservation of forests or
\n       use of forest land for non-forest purpose –
\n       Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
\n       law for the time being in force in a State, no State
\n       Government or other authority shall make, except
\n       with the prior approval of the Central Government
\n       any order directing –\n<\/p>\n
       (i)that any reserved forest (within the meaning of
\n       the expression `reserved forest’ in any law for the
\n       time being in force in that State) or any portion
\n       thereof, shall cease to be reserved;\n<\/p>\n
       (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may
\n       be used for any non-forest purpose;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)that any forest land or any portion thereof
\n        may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to
\n        any private person or to any authority,
\n        Corporation, agency or any other organisation
\n        not     owned,    managed    or  controlled  by
\n        Government;\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof
\n        may be cleared of trees which have grown
\n                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
       naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose
\n       of using it for re-afforestation.\n<\/p>\n
    Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 2(b). “Committee” means the Committee
\nconstituted under Section 3.\n<\/p>\n
   2A.(1)Composition of the Committee:- The
\nCommittee shall be composed of the following Members:-<\/p>\n
         i. Inspector General of Forests,Ministry of
\n         Environment & Forests – Chairman.<\/p>\n
         ii. Additional Inspector General of Forests,
\n         Ministry of Environment and Forests –
\n         Member.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         iii. Joint Commissioner (Soil Conservation),
\n         Ministry of Agriculture – Member.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         iv. Three eminent environmentalists (non-
\n         officials) – Member.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         v. Deputy Inspector General of Forests,
\n         (Forest       Conservation),    Ministry   of
\n         Environment      and    Forests  –    Member-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Secretary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4.Procedure to make proposal           by   a   State
\n    Government or other authority:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (1) Every State Government or other authority
\n    seeking the prior approval under section 2 shall
\n    send its proposal to the Central Government in the
\n    form appended to these rules:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Provided that all proposals involving clearing
\n    naturally grown trees in forest land Or portion
\n    thereof for the purpose of using it for
\n                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
    reafforestation shall be sent in the form of Working
\n    Plan\/Management Plan.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (2) Every proposal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall
\n    be sent to the following address, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Secretary to the Government of India
\n         Ministry of Environment & Forests
\n         Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex
\n         Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110003<\/p>\n
    Provided that all proposals involving forest land up
\n    to twenty hectares and proposals involving clearing
\n    of naturally grown trees in forest land or portion
\n    thereof for the purpose of using it for
\n    reafforestation shall be sent to the Chief
\n    Conservator of Forests\/Conservator of Forests of
\n    the concerned Regional Office of the Ministry of
\n    Environment and Forests.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5. Committee to advise on proposals received by the
\nCentral Government:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    1. The Central Government shall refer every
\n    proposal received by it under sub-rule (1) of rule 4
\n    to the committee for its advice thereon if the area of
\n    forest land involved is more than twenty
\n    hectares.Provided that proposals involving clearing
\n    of naturally grown trees in forest land or portion
\n    thereof for the purpose of using it for
\n    reafforestation shall not be referred to the
\n    Committee for its advice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. The Committee shall have due regard to all or
\n    any of the following matters while tendering its
\n    advice on the proposals referred to it under sub-
\n    rule (1), namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
     a.   Whether the forests land proposed to be used
\n     for non-forest purpose forms part of a nature
\n     reserve, national park wildlife sanctuary, biosphere
\n     reserve or forms part of the habitat of any
\n     endangered or threatened species of flora and
\n     fauna or of an area lying in severely eroded
\n     catchment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     b.   Whether the use of any forest land is for
\n     agricultural purpose or for the rehabilitation or
\n     persons displaced from their residences by reason
\n     of any river valley or hydro-electric project;
\n     c.   Whether the State Government or the other
\n     authority has certified that it has considered all
\n     other alternatives and that no other alternatives in
\n     the circumstances are feasible and that the
\n     required area is the minimum needed for the
\n     purpose; and<\/p>\n
     d.    Whether the State Government or the other
\n     authority undertakes to provide at its cost for the
\n     acquisition of land of an equivalent area and
\n     afforestation thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
3.   While tendering the advice, the Committee may
\n     also suggest any conditions or restrictions on the
\n     use of any forest land for any non-forest purpose
\n     which, in its opinion, would minimize adverse
\n     environmental impact.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.    Action of the Central Government on the advice
\nof the Committee – The Central Government shall,
\nafter considering the advice of the committee tendered
\nunder rule 5 and after such further enquiry as it may
\nconsider necessary, grant approval to the proposal with
\nor without conditions or reject the same.”
\n                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
6.   A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show<\/p>\n
that prior approval is required for the diversion of any forest<\/p>\n
land and its use for some other purpose.       This is further<\/p>\n
fortified by a look at Rule 4 which provides that every State<\/p>\n
Government or other authority seeking prior approval under<\/p>\n
Section 2 of the Act shall submit a proposal to the Central<\/p>\n
Government in the prescribed form and Rule 6 stipulates that<\/p>\n
the proposals would be examined by a committee appointed<\/p>\n
under Rule 2-A within the parameters and guidelines<\/p>\n
postulated in Rule 5. There is nothing on record to suggest<\/p>\n
that this procedure had been adopted.     Admittedly also the<\/p>\n
approval for 4.4 hectares had been obtained long after the<\/p>\n
lease deed had been executed on 1st November 1989 and<\/p>\n
there is no suggestion that even for this limited area the<\/p>\n
procedure envisaged under Rules 4, 5 and 6 had been<\/p>\n
followed. We are, therefore, of the opinion even assuming that<\/p>\n
some approval was granted with respect to 4.44 hectares of<\/p>\n
land in the year 1997, it would not amount to prior approval<\/p>\n
in terms of the Act and the Rules afore quoted.            Mr.<\/p>\n
Shrivastava has, however, pointed out that in the light of the
\n                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment in Banshi Ram Modi’s case (supra), as the 4.44<\/p>\n
hectares of land were to be utilized for the purpose of an<\/p>\n
existing and adjoining mining activity, the prior approval<\/p>\n
envisaged under section 2 was not required.           We find,<\/p>\n
however, that the aforesaid judgments do not apply to the<\/p>\n
facts of the present matter as it is nobody’s case that any<\/p>\n
mining activity was going on near the land which is now<\/p>\n
sought to be leased out. In the above cited cases, the primary<\/p>\n
question was as to whether in the case of a lease granted prior<\/p>\n
to the coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Section 2<\/p>\n
would apply at the time of the renewal of the lease after the<\/p>\n
Act had become operative.     Concededly this is not the case<\/p>\n
before us and on the contrary in Hyderabad Abrasives case<\/p>\n
(supra) it has been specifically observed that the material date<\/p>\n
“for the purpose of the Act is not the date of the lease is<\/p>\n
granted, but the date on which the State Government or other<\/p>\n
authority permits the breaking up, or clearing of the forest<\/p>\n
land or any portion thereof”, the implication being that the<\/p>\n
initial lease deed could be granted earlier to the promulgation<\/p>\n
of the Act, but for renewal, the provisions of the Act would be
\n                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
operable.   We also find that the observations in Ambica<\/p>\n
Quarry   Works,   Rural   Litigation    &   Entitlement   Kendra,<\/p>\n
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad and M.C.Mehta cases (supra),<\/p>\n
would indicate that after the coming into force of the Act, the<\/p>\n
renewal of a pre-existing mining lease in a forest area can be<\/p>\n
granted only if the requirements of Section 2 are satisfied. It<\/p>\n
is therefore obvious that the claim of the appellant confined<\/p>\n
only to 4.44 hectares is also untenable for the reasons given<\/p>\n
above and that in any case, the benefication plant to which<\/p>\n
this area was to be attached had been shifted from its earlier<\/p>\n
proposed location.\n<\/p>\n
7.   It has finally been submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the<\/p>\n
land in question was not a forest and was, therefore, not<\/p>\n
subject to the provisions of the Act and that in any case, the<\/p>\n
appellant was willing to reforest an identical area if the lease<\/p>\n
was permitted to operate. We find from a perusal of the High<\/p>\n
Court judgment that this question of fact had been adequately<\/p>\n
dealt with based on the affidavits filed in Court and also on a<\/p>\n
perusal of the Revenue record.         Some argument has been<\/p>\n
made by Mr. Shrivastava on the discordance between the
\n                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
affidavits filed by the two Forest Officers, T.Ramaswamy and<\/p>\n
R. Nagbhushan Rao. We however discern no difference with<\/p>\n
regard to the basic factum as to the nature of the land in<\/p>\n
question and the only difference, if at all, is with regard to the<\/p>\n
number of trees per hectare said to be growing on the land.<\/p>\n
We, thus, have no hesitation in confirming this finding of fact.<\/p>\n
In T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad case (supra), this Court<\/p>\n
expressed   its   dissatisfaction   with   some   of   the   State<\/p>\n
Governments in the implementation of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Act and observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
           “The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was
\n     enacted with a view to check further deforestation
\n     which ultimately results in ecological imbalance;
\n     and therefore, the provisions made therein for the
\n     conservation of forests and for matters connected
\n     therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of
\n     the nature of ownership or classification thereof.
\n     The word “forest” must be understood according to
\n     its dictionary meaning. This description covers all
\n     statutorily recognized forests, whether designated
\n     as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose
\n     of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The
\n     term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2 will not
\n     only include “forest” as understood in the
\n     dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as
\n     forest in the Government record irrespective of the
\n     ownership. This is how it has to be understood for
\n     the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions
\n     enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for
\n                              21<\/span><\/p>\n
     the conservation of forests and the matters
\n     connected therewith must apply clearly to all
\n     forests so understood irrespective of the ownership
\n     or classification thereof. This aspect has been made
\n     abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in
\n     Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat, Rural
\n     Litigation and Entitlement Kendra<\/a> vs. State of U.P.
\n     and recently in the order dated 29.11.1996
\n     (Supreme      Court Monitoring Committee           vs.
\n     Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority ). The
\n     earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v.
\n     Banshi Ram Modi<\/a> has, therefore, to be understood
\n     in the light of these subsequent decisions.We
\n     consider it necessary to reiterate this settled
\n     position emerging from the decisions of this Court
\n     to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any
\n     State Government or authority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the light of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid emphatic and clear cut observations, and findings of<\/p>\n
fact, there can be no doubt that the land leased out to the<\/p>\n
appellant was indeed a forest.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Some arguments have flown during the course of the<\/p>\n
hearing that the appellants were willing to reforest an<\/p>\n
identical area in case the lease was allowed to be effectuated.<\/p>\n
In this connection, some observations need to be made. The<\/p>\n
basic question is as to what is implied by the terms<\/p>\n
afforestation or re-forestation. Is it merely the replacement of
\n                              22<\/span><\/p>\n
one tree with another or does it imply some thing a little more<\/p>\n
complex?    “Reforestation is the restocking of existing forests<\/p>\n
and woodlands which have been depleted, with native tree<\/p>\n
stock, whereas afforestation is the process of restoring and<\/p>\n
recreating areas of woodlands or forest that once existed but<\/p>\n
were deforested or otherwise removed or destroyed at some<\/p>\n
point in the past”. In the present case, we are concerned with<\/p>\n
afforestation and the promise of the appellant to plant trees in<\/p>\n
an equivalent area.   We, however, find from experience and<\/p>\n
observation that the re-forestation or afforestation that is<\/p>\n
being carried out in India does not meet the fundamentals<\/p>\n
and the planting of new trees to match the numbers removed<\/p>\n
is too simplistic and archaic a solution, as in the guise of<\/p>\n
compensatory replantation, local varieties of trees are being<\/p>\n
replaced by alien and non-indigenous but fast growing<\/p>\n
varieties such as poplar and eucalyptus which make up the<\/p>\n
numbers but cannot satisfy the needs of our environmental<\/p>\n
system. It must be borne in mind that both re-forestation and<\/p>\n
afforestation envisage a resurrection and re-plantation of trees<\/p>\n
and other flora similar to those which have been removed and
\n                                23<\/span><\/p>\n
which are suitable to the area in question.            There is yet<\/p>\n
another       circumstance   which   is   even   more    disturbing<\/p>\n
inasmuch as the removal of existing forest or trees suited to<\/p>\n
the   local    environment   have    destroyed   the    eco   system<\/p>\n
dependent on them. This is evident from the huge depletion<\/p>\n
of wild life on account of the disturbance of the habitat arising<\/p>\n
out of the destruction of the existing forest cover. A small but<\/p>\n
significant example is the destruction of plantations alongside<\/p>\n
the arterial roads in India. 30 years ago all arterial roads had<\/p>\n
huge peripheral forest cover which not only provided shade<\/p>\n
and shelter to the traveller but were a haven to a large variety<\/p>\n
and number of birds and other wild life peculiar to that area.<\/p>\n
With the removal of these plantations to widen the roads to<\/p>\n
meet the ever growing needs of the traffic, and their<\/p>\n
replacement by trees of non-indigenous varieties, (which are<\/p>\n
often not eco or bird friendly) in the restricted and remaining<\/p>\n
areas bordering the widened roads, the shelter for birds has<\/p>\n
been destroyed and where thousands of birds once nested<\/p>\n
and bred, there has been a virtual annihilation of the bird life<\/p>\n
as well.      Those who live in North India would do well to
\n                              24<\/span><\/p>\n
remember that a drive along the Grand Trunk Road, National<\/p>\n
Highway No.1, northwards of Delhi, particularly during the<\/p>\n
hours of dawn or dusk, was as if through an aviary with<\/p>\n
thousands of birds representing a myriad of species with their<\/p>\n
distinctive calls reaching a crescendo during early evening<\/p>\n
and gradually fading into silence as darkness set in. Sadly,<\/p>\n
all that can now be seen are crows feeding on the decaying<\/p>\n
and mutilated carcasses of dogs and other animals killed by<\/p>\n
speeding vehicles. Equally disturbing is the decrease in the<\/p>\n
reptilian population as the undergrowth in which it lived and<\/p>\n
prospered has been destroyed, and with the concomitant<\/p>\n
increase in the rodent population, colossal losses and damage<\/p>\n
to the farmer and in the storage of food grains.<\/p>\n
                10. We are, therefore, of the opinion that<\/p>\n
there is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                               ……………………………J.
\n                                  (Tarun Chatterjee )<\/p>\n
                              ……………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                       (Harjit Singh Bedi )
\n                         25<\/span><\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nDated: August 18, 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008 Author: H S Bedi Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Harjit Singh Bedi ( Reportable) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5180 OF 2001 A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. ……..Appellant Vs. Goa Foundation & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-25T14:20:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T14:20:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4620,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008\",\"name\":\"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T14:20:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-25T14:20:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T14:20:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008"},"wordCount":4620,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008","name":"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T14:20:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-chowgule-co-ltd-vs-goa-foundation-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd vs Goa Foundation & Ors on 18 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}