Special Report
By Ramesh Marulkar and Kartik Lokhande
Sometimes,
good start does not lead to equally good result. This applies aptly to
the Bill proposed by Maharashtra Government for effecting amendments to
age-old Indian Forest Act of 1927 in its application to the State of
Maharashtra. The committee appointed to suggest changes did its job
quite well, but its recommendations included in the Bill are ‘diluted’
in nature. The result is loopholes in the Bill.
As several provisions of the Indian Forest Act have become outdated,
amendments were effected previously its its application to Maharashtra
to address the conditions at relevant point of time. Still, several
changes were needed considering new challenges. To study the situation
and suggest changes to the existing law in its application to
Maharashtra, Forest Department had appointed a committee headed by
Tasneem Ahmad, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(Production and Management); and comprising A K Jha, Additional PCCF
(CAMPA); and Devendra Kumar, Additional PCCF (Protection). The committee
submitted its report and suggested several changes to amend the Indian
Forest Act in its application to Maharashtra, to make the law more
stringent.
However, according to sources familiar with the issue, felt that
suggestions of the committee were incorporated in the Bill but in a
‘diluted’ manner. As a result, even if the amendments proposed in the
Bill are effected, they will not serve the purpose of forest protection,
sources told ‘The Hitavada’.
In admission of Forest Department, forest lands and resources have
become ‘vulnerable because of unauthorised constructions on forest lands
near urban settlements and organised crimes’ in the recent past. The
element of unauthorised constructions, encroachment of forest lands,
shrinking area of forest are major challenges nowadays, especially in
the areas near Mumbai, Pune, Thane etc. Several powerful lobbies are at
work to protect these constructions. To curb such instances and to
protect forest lands, the committee had proposed ‘ejection’ of
encroachers and trespassers, confiscation and demolition of such
constructions.
Unfortunately, said a source in the know of things, lobbies closer to
politicians did their job and ensured that the word ‘ejection’ was
replaced by ‘eviction’. Explaining the difference between the two terms,
the source said that ‘eviction’ required a long and tedious procedure
to be followed. The procedure required serving notices. “If people have
encroached upon the land which is not theirs, it construes infringement
of the rights of original owner. In case of Forest Department, the land
is well demarcated and notified. Hence, ejection is the only solution.
Else, once the department issues notice to encroachers, they may go to
court and the lawsuit goes on for years. By the time, more such
constructions come up around and situation worsens,” said a serving
official on the condition of anonymity. Mostly, such constructions exist
in Pune, Lonavla, Khandala, Murbad etc.
Further, the Bill has a provision that states that nothing in the
provisions for ‘eviction’ and confiscation shall ‘adversely affect’ the
forest rights conferred on the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional forest dwellers, or ownership rights of Gram Sabha
over minor forest produce under Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas
(PESA) Act of 1996. According to Forest Department sources, reference to
PESA Act should have been replaced by Maharashtra Transfer of Ownership
of Minor Forest Produce in Scheduled Areas Act of 1997. The committee
had pointed this out to the authorities concerned, but it was not taken
note of while drafting the Bill.
Besides, while talking of protection of forest lands, there is no
reference to forest lands in possession of Revenue Department. In many
cases, sources said, encroachment/construction is on forest land in
possession of Revenue Department. The Bill proposed to increase the
amount of fine under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act from Rs 500 to Rs
2,000 in cases of tree-felling, mining, cultivation, grazing etc.
According to experts, increase in amount of fine will not be a deterrent
to offenders. “It will only lead to increase in revenue collection for
the Government through imposition of fine, and nothing else. If a
10-year-old tree is felled, the offender will prefer to get away with
payment of fine of Rs 2,000. However, the Government or Forest
Department will have to invest time, money, and energy for 10 more years
to grow a tree again. In effect, the waiting period for returns will be
20 years. How can such a great loss be compensated through mere
increase in amount of fine?” wondered an official.
 |
| Published in The Hitavada CityLine on January 20, 2014 |
Punishment proposed for abettors of forest offences
“The
situation has become grave due to the fact that the anti-social elements
involved in such illegal trades never indulge themselves in committing
forest offence, but succeed in their plans through helpless people. In
absence of any provision to prosecute abettors of forest offences, the
masterminds behind the organised crimes go scot-free,” reads the
statement of objects and reasons of the proposed Bill that was shown on
the list of legislative business during recently held winter session of
State Legislature.
There are gangs involved in organised crimes. These organised crimes
include cross-border smuggling of timber, sandalwood, and illicit
international trade in body parts of endangered species like Tiger.
Several incidents of armed attacks on forest officials also have been
reported in the recent past. However, for want of a provision for
punishment for abetment, the abettors and masterminds of such crimes
went scot-free. To bring them to book, the Bill proposes punishment for
abetment of forest offences.
Some of the important amendments proposed
* Forest Officer may ‘evict’ from a reserved forest or from any land in a
reserved forest any person who in such forest trespasses or pastures
cattle, or permits cattle to trespass, or clears or breaks up such land
for cultivation or for any other purpose; and may demolish any building
erected or construction made by such person on such land.
* Any agricultural or other crops grown, or any building erected or any
construction made, by any person on any land in a reserved forest shall
be liable to confiscation by an order of the Divisional Forest Officer.
* Stringent punishment for persons resisting or hurting to deter a public servant while discharging his official duty.
* Amendment proposed to bar the juridiction of Civil Court with an
intention to ‘eliminate the forest land grabbing tactics’ adopted by the
organised criminal groups ‘as seen through spate of illegal
constructions on forest lands near urban settlements’.
* Confiscation of property used in committing forest offences instead of forfeiture.
* Increase in amount of fine for various offences from 50 paise to Rs
100, from Re 1 to Rs 200, from Rs 2 to Rs 200, Rs 10 to Rs 200, and from
Rs 500 to Rs 2,000.
Comments
Post a Comment