ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) I. A. 1901 of 2005 relates to the land situated in Aravalli Range. Challenge basically is to the communication dated 31. 1. 2005 by the divisional Forest officer, Faridabad requesting the Commissioner, Faridabad, the administration Haryana, Urban Development authority (in short the'huda') and the District town Planner, Faridabad forwarding list of area closed under Sections 4 and 5 of the punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (in short the 'act' ). It was indicated that these areas have been declared by this Court to be "forest' and, therefore, penal action is required to be taken for any non forest activities under the forest Conservation Act, 1980 (in short the 'conservation Act' ). This communication was issued purportedly on the basis of this Count's order. Similar communication was made by the Senior Town Planner, Gurgaon Circle. Gurgaon intimating Dr. Mathan Singh Kanwar that he has to obtain "noc" from the forest department and produce the same before the senior Town Planner so that the next course of action with regard to granting occupation certificate can be carried out. Reference has also been made to a letter dated 19. 9. 1999 by the Commissioner and Secretary to government, Haryana Forest and Wildlife department addressed to the Principal Chief conservator, Forest Conservation, Haryana. on the subject of prohibition in the areas covered under the Notification issued under the Act. It has been indicated therein that the forest Department will not declare areas notified, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act as "forest".

( 2 ) THE background facts show that the State government decided to notify the area in question under Section 4 of the Act, prohibiting activities contained in the said notification dated 18th August. 1992 for a period of 30 years. The effect of the decision in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. [jt 2004 (4)SC 181 ; 2004 (12) SCC 118] on the areas declared under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, have to be noted.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in the i. A. No. 1901 and I. A. No. 1999 filed by Kant enclave Residents Welfare Association, I. A. 1955 filed on behalf of Karamyogi Shelters pvt. Ltd. and certain other I. As. i. e. I. A. Nos. 1965-66 and 2024 in I. A. 1901-1904 for impleadment and directions are filed by PCL industries. It is the stand that the decision of this Court in M. C. Mehta's case (supra) fully takes care of the situation. It is submitted that the decision was mining centric. In the instant case the development started in 1992. The earlier judgment clearly excluded constructions already undertaken. There cannot be any retrospective effect in the inter-fraction of forest and in the instant case the first and in most of the cases the first licence was granted prior to the Conservation Act. Reference is also made to Faridabad complex Requisition and Development Act, 1971 (in short the 1971 Act') the National capital Region Planning Board, 1985 and also to the object of 1971 Act. It is pointed out that the situation for pre 21. 12. 1992 period has been dealt with in paras 80 and 81 of the earlier judgment. Similar stand has been dealt with and rejected in para 82. It is pointed out that there is an overriding effect so far as Section 27 is concerned and the 1971 Act has to be kept out of consideration because of Section 27.

( 4 ) LEARNED amicus curie on the other hand submitted that this Court nowhere has kept the cases of the applicant out of consideration. In fact the other questions like the effect of section 4 were examined.

( 5 ) IN the order dated 18th August, 1992 issued by the Forest Department of the Government, serials 9 to 16 become relevant.

( 6 ) IT is to be noted that Section 4 is subject to section 3 Notification. Conservator of Forest in his letter to M/s R. Kant and Company dated 15. 5. 1996 noted as follows:

"m/s. R. Kant and Co. 407 Vishal Bhawan 95 nehru Place, new Delhi 110019 is allowed to proceed ahead with their plan in Khasra no. 9 to 1