Guwahati: A fresh controversy has erupted in Assam over the diversion of forest land, with allegations of irregularities surfacing against Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) Mahendra Kumar Yadava.
The latest instance involves the clearing of 28 hectares of Geleky Reserve Forest in Upper Assam’s Sivasagar district for setting up a commando battalion camp.
This move echoes a similar incident in Hailakandi district’s Damcherra Inner Line Reserve Forest, where PCCF Yadava had authorized the diversion of 44 hectares of forest land for a commando battalion camp in 2022.
According to the official notification vide No FG 46/Border/Nagaland/Pt-11 dated November 15, 2022; the piece of land was diverted for setting up a commando battalion camp along Assam-Nagaland border of Geleky Reserve Forest for “protection and conservation of reserved forest land and conservation of forest resources”.
“Since the purpose of the proposal for 28 hectares of forest land for the establishment of a commando battalion camp in the Assam-Nagaland interstate border of Geleky Reserve Forest is for protection and conservation of reserved forest land, it qualifies as an activity relating to the conservation of forests mentioned under section 2(b) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Therefore you are allowed to go ahead with the establishment of the proposed battalion camp in the interest of conservation and protection of forest land,” the order added.
Clearing 28 hectares of Reserved Forest for a non-site-specific activity like a commando battalion headquarters, stating that it is a purpose ancillary to forest conservation, is perverse.
By this token, any non-forestry activity can be portrayed as a purpose ancillary to forest conservation.
Many such diversions were affected by MK Yadava in violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the orders of the Supreme Court in Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India are coming to light.
Environmentalists and legal experts have raised concerns about the recent Geleky land diversion, highlighting potential violations of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and orders of the Supreme Court.
Critics argue that clearing 28 hectares of a Reserved Forest for a non-site-specific activity like a commando battalion camp, under the pretext of “protection and conservation of forest land,” sets a dangerous precedent. They argue that such justification could pave the way for any non-forestry activity to be deemed ancillary to forest conservation, essentially nullifying the Act’s purpose.
Furthermore, questions have been raised about the legality of the decision. Environmental lawyer Prasanta N Choudhury points out that under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Manipur government cannot authorize the clearing of trees in a protected forest without prior consent from the Central government.
According to Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, without approval of Union government, no state government or any other authority is allowed to make the orders that a reserved forest or a portion of it shall cease to be reserved; that any portion of it may be used for non-forest purposes; and that any forest land should be assigned or leased to an individual, authority, corporation, agency or organisation not “owned, managed or controlled” by the government,” Choudhury added.
Apart from the legal aspects, environmentalists warn of the ecological consequences of such diversions. They point out that clearing significant portions of a Reserved Forest, even for purportedly conservation purposes, disrupts the delicate balance of the ecosystem and can have long-term detrimental effects on biodiversity and habitat integrity.