<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (7) TMI 1394 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306414</link>
    <description>Prior forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 depends on a prior determination that the land is forest land; on the record, the project site was not shown to be forest land because authorities and expert bodies had treated it as non-forest or peripheral forest area, and the clearances were not invalidated on that basis. The revised environmental clearance and Stage-I forest clearance were also not vitiated, because the process involved repeated disclosures, field reports, expert inputs, and public participation, and no wilful suppression or lack of due diligence was established. The Court applied sustainable development, intergenerational equity, and process-based judicial review, and issued broader guidelines to strengthen scrutiny and avoid fait accompli situations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=702951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1394 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306414</link>
      <description>Prior forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 depends on a prior determination that the land is forest land; on the record, the project site was not shown to be forest land because authorities and expert bodies had treated it as non-forest or peripheral forest area, and the clearances were not invalidated on that basis. The revised environmental clearance and Stage-I forest clearance were also not vitiated, because the process involved repeated disclosures, field reports, expert inputs, and public participation, and no wilful suppression or lack of due diligence was established. The Court applied sustainable development, intergenerational equity, and process-based judicial review, and issued broader guidelines to strengthen scrutiny and avoid fait accompli situations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>