1. Dispute over whether land subject to special orders under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 constitutes forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 672
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Narinder Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Divesh Bhutani and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10294, 11000 of 2013, 8454 of 2014, 8173 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1008, 1031, 1320 of 2021
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Important Points
Lands covered by special orders under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, are considered "forest lands" under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Consequently, any diversion of such lands for non-forest use requires prior approval from the Central Government.
Subject
Environmental Law - Forest Conservation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.32, Art.48(a), Art.48(a)(a), Art.51(a)(g)
Faridabad Complex Development and Regulation Act: S.29
FOREST ACT: S.20, S.26(1)(a), S.29, S.35, S.36, S.37, S.38, S.5
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT: S.2
PUNJAB LAND PRESERVATION ACT: S.14, S.3, S.4, S.6, S.7
Faridabad Complex Development and Regulation Act: S.29
FOREST ACT: S.20, S.26(1)(a), S.29, S.35, S.36, S.37, S.38, S.5
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT: S.2
PUNJAB LAND PRESERVATION ACT: S.14, S.3, S.4, S.6, S.7
Headnote
(A) Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 - Section 4 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Issue regarding interpretation of lands covered under a special government order as 'forest land' - Court found that such lands meet the criteria defined under Section 2 of the Forest Act - The orders originally issued in 1992 under Section 4 require prior approval from the Central Government before non-forest use can be permitted. (Paras 64-66)
(B) Legal principles of environmental conservation - The state's obligation to preserve forests and the legal interpretation rooted in sustainable development principles - Ruling emphasizes that government records and classifications should adhere to statutory definitions and compliance mandates. (Paras 25-26)
Facts of the case:
The appeals and writ petitions arose from disputes on whether lands regulated by the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA are categorized as forest land under the 1980 Forest Act, affecting multiple private properties and commercial structures established on such lands. (Paras 1-9)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that lands covered by the special orders possess the characteristics of forest land as per the definition provided in the Forest (Conservation) Act, thus necessitating compliance with its provisions regarding non-forest activities. (Paras 64-66)
Issues: The court primarily addressed whether lands covered under specific government orders are classified as forest lands and whether such classification necessitates adherence to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, particularly prior approval for any non-forest activities. (Paras 1-3, 44-46)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that local regulations under PLPA could not override the classifications established by broader forest conservation laws; hence, the use of designated forest lands for non-forest purposes requires prior consent at multiple governance levels. (Paras 64-66)
Result: Appeals and writ petitions disposed in favor of recognizing the lands as forest and mandating compliance with conservation laws. (Paras 67-69)
(B) Legal principles of environmental conservation - The state's obligation to preserve forests and the legal interpretation rooted in sustainable development principles - Ruling emphasizes that government records and classifications should adhere to statutory definitions and compliance mandates. (Paras 25-26)
Facts of the case:
The appeals and writ petitions arose from disputes on whether lands regulated by the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA are categorized as forest land under the 1980 Forest Act, affecting multiple private properties and commercial structures established on such lands. (Paras 1-9)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that lands covered by the special orders possess the characteristics of forest land as per the definition provided in the Forest (Conservation) Act, thus necessitating compliance with its provisions regarding non-forest activities. (Paras 64-66)
Issues: The court primarily addressed whether lands covered under specific government orders are classified as forest lands and whether such classification necessitates adherence to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, particularly prior approval for any non-forest activities. (Paras 1-3, 44-46)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that local regulations under PLPA could not override the classifications established by broader forest conservation laws; hence, the use of designated forest lands for non-forest purposes requires prior consent at multiple governance levels. (Paras 64-66)
Result: Appeals and writ petitions disposed in favor of recognizing the lands as forest and mandating compliance with conservation laws. (Paras 67-69)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- environmental law
- constitutional law
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Vikas Singh, Monisha Handa, Mohit D. Ram, Rajul Shrivastav, Anubhav Sharma, Satya Mitra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Vijay Kumar, Ankit Swarup, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Tushar Mehta, K.M. Nataraj, B.K. Satija, Anil Grover, Ajay Bansal, Kanu Aggarwal, Sharath Nambiar, Indira Bhakhan, Vatsal Joshi, Vinayak Sharma, Anuj Udupa, Rahul Khurana, Monika Gusain, Satish Kumar, Suresh Kumar Bhan, Ritu Rastogi, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Aakarsh Kamra, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Manjeet Kirpal, Colin Gonsalves, Kawalpreet Kaur, Hetvi Patel, Amiy Shukla, Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Satvisa Pattanayak, Thashmitha Muthanna, Prashanth Dixit, Arun Bhardwaj, Bhaskar Bhardwaj, Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Gauraan, Rahul Kumar Sharma, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Samten Doma, Sourabh Tandon, Sanjay Parikh, Srishti Agnihotri, Tripti Poddar, Satwick Parikh, Sanjana Thomas, Hitesh Kumar Shrma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Vivek Sharma, Ritwick Dutta, Rahul Chaudhary, K.V. Bharathi Upadhaya.
Advocate Appeared:
Vikas Singh, Monisha Handa, Mohit D. Ram, Rajul Shrivastav, Anubhav Sharma, Satya Mitra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Vijay Kumar, Ankit Swarup, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Tushar Mehta, K.M. Nataraj, B.K. Satija, Anil Grover, Ajay Bansal, Kanu Aggarwal, Sharath Nambiar, Indira Bhakhan, Vatsal Joshi, Vinayak Sharma, Anuj Udupa, Rahul Khurana, Monika Gusain, Satish Kumar, Suresh Kumar Bhan, Ritu Rastogi, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Aakarsh Kamra, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Manjeet Kirpal, Colin Gonsalves, Kawalpreet Kaur, Hetvi Patel, Amiy Shukla, Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Satvisa Pattanayak, Thashmitha Muthanna, Prashanth Dixit, Arun Bhardwaj, Bhaskar Bhardwaj, Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Gauraan, Rahul Kumar Sharma, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Samten Doma, Sourabh Tandon, Sanjay Parikh, Srishti Agnihotri, Tripti Poddar, Satwick Parikh, Sanjana Thomas, Hitesh Kumar Shrma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Vivek Sharma, Ritwick Dutta, Rahul Chaudhary, K.V. Bharathi Upadhaya.
Table of Contents
2. Whether PLPA aims at soil conservation rather than forest protection and if special orders under Section 4 automatically classify land as forest under the 1980 Act. (Para 10 , 18 , 20 )
3. Analysis of PLPA's objective to prevent deforestation and the nature of Section 4 restrictions as indicative of forest characteristics under the 1980 Act. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
4. Land covered by special orders under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 possesses the trappings of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (Para 47 , 64 )
5. Lands under Section 4 special orders declared forest lands; non-forest use requires Central Government approval; directions issued for removal of illegal structures. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 )
6. Does a notification under Section 3 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA) automatically make land a forest land under the 1980 Act?
No. A notification under Section 3 of PLPA is a general notification for the conservation of sub-soil water or prevention of erosion and does not ipso facto make the land forest land within the meaning of the 1980 Act. (Para 64 )
7. Why are lands subject to special orders under Section 4 of the PLPA considered forest lands under the 1980 Act?
The restrictions in Section 4—such as prohibiting the cutting of trees, removal of forest produce, and clearing of land—indicate that such land possesses the trappings of a forest, falling under the dictionary meaning or government records categories of the 1980 Act. (Para 47 , 64 )
8. What categories of land are considered forests under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?
Section 2 applies to three categories: statutorily recognized forests (such as reserved or protected forests), forests as understood in the dictionary sense (extensive tracts of land with dense growth of trees), and any area recorded as forest in government records. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
9. Can a State Government change the land use of forest land via state amendments to the PLPA?
No. Section 2 of the 1980 Act contains a non-obstante clause that overrides other state laws. Any diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes requires prior approval from the Central Government, regardless of state amendments. (Para 35 , 63 )
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. The broad issue involved in these appeals and writ petitions is Whether a land covered under a special order issued by the Government of Haryana under Section 4 of the PUNJAB LAND PRESERVATION ACT , 1900 (for short “PLPA”) is a “forest land” within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short “the 1980 FOREST ACT ”)?”
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. Civil Appeal No. 10294 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 8454 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 8173 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2013 take exception to the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (for short “the NGT”).
3. Civil Appeal No. 10294 of 2013 takes exception to the order dated 03rd May 2013 passed by the NGT in Original Application No. 42 of 2013. The said application was filed for inviting the attention of the NGT to the illegal non- FOREST ACT ivities of the encroachers on the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 1359, 1374 and 1378 of Village Anangpur Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad in the State of Haryana. The NGT passed the impugned order restraining the carrying on of any non- FOREST ACT ivities on the subject lands. The NGT proceeded on the footing that the lands at village Anangpur covered by the order dated 18th August 1992 issued under Section 4 of PLPA were forest lands within the meaning of the 1980 FOREST ACT . Before the said order dated 18th August 1992 was passed, a notification dated 10th April 1992 under Section 3 of PLPA was issued notifying the entire area covered by Ballabhgarh Tehsil of Faridabad District. The appellants are running marriage halls on the land subject matter of the said order dated 18th August 1992, issued under Section 4 of PLPA.
4. Civil Appeal No. 8173 of 2016 impugns the order dated 16th May 2016 passed by the NGT in Original Application No. 519 of 2015. In Original Application No. 519 of 2015, a prayer was made to stop the commercial and non- FOREST ACT ivities on the lands bearing Khasra No. 182 Min, RECT No. 61, Kila No. 19 (8-0), 20/1(0-7) and 22/2 (7-17) of Village Ankhir, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad in the State of Haryana. The said lands were the subject matter of another order issued on 18th August 1992 by the Government of Haryana in the exercise of the power under Section 4 of PLPA in respect of certain lands in village Ankhir. The NGT held that the lands covered by the said order under Section 4 were forest lands within the meaning of the 1980 FOREST ACT .
5. Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2013 takes exception to the same order dated 03rd May 2013 passed by the NGT in Original Application No. 42 of 2013, which is also the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No. 10294 of 2013. The appellants claim to be the owners of a restaurant on the land subject matter of the order dated 18th August 1992, issued under Section 4 of PLPA.
6. Civil Appeal No. 8454 of 2014 also takes exception to the same order dated 03rd May 2013 of the NGT. The appellants therein are having marriage halls on the subject land.
7. The petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 2021 have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claim to be the holders of the lands in Villages Anangpur, Ankhir and Mewla Maharajpur (for short “the said three villages”) in Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faribadad in the State of Haryana. The lands held by them are the subject matter of the three separate orders dated 18th August 1992 issued under Section 4 of PLPA in respect of certain lands in the said three villages. The petition is based on a Public Notice dated 21st August 2021 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad informing that in compliance with the orders passed by this Court, a time of two days has been granted to the members of the public to remove illegally constructed farm houses/banquet halls/ structures on forest lands, failing which the Municipal Corporation and Forest Department of the State Government will undertake action to remove the said structures on 23rd August 2021
