Point of Law: The meaning of the word “forest” in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any “forest.”

ORDER :

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner as per the provisions contained in an Order No FFE B-A(3)4/99 dated 10 September 2002 Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, vide Annexure P-1,and grant extension in time for demarcation of land, enumeration, marking and felling of trees beyond the prescribe year of felling in Tiyari Beat of Holi Block/in the interest of justice.

(ii) That the period during which the case of the petitioner for extension of time remained with the respondents may kindly be excluded for granting extension in time for demarcation of land, enumeration, marking and felling of trees.”

2. Respondent No. 1 approved ten years felling programme (for short ‘TYFP’) for felling of trees from private areas of Churah, Chamba, Dalhousie and Bharmour Forest Divisions of Chamba Forest circle from 2009-10 to 2018-19 vide communication dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure P-2). 2018-19 was allocated for felling of trees in Tiyari beat of Holi block in Trehta range of Bharmour Forest Division (for short ‘Tiyari Beat’) under TYFP.

3. Petitioner applied for felling permission under TYFP in respect of land in Khasra No. 10/7/2 measuring 8956 bighas situate at Mauza Dhar Drabthon, Sub-Tehsil Holi, District Chamba, H.P. during the year 2018-19 which falls within Tiyari beat. The demarcation and marking/enumeration etc. of the trees, in pursuance to the application of petitioner, could not be effected on account of heavy snow precipitation, frigid temperature and non-availability of staff.

4. Petitioner applied to the competent authority for extension of time under Clause 8 of the order dated 10th September, 2002 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978 (for short the ‘1978 Act’). The Divisional Forest Officer Bharmour (DFO), Chief Conservator of Forest, Chamba (CCF) recommended the case of the petitioner for extension of time. No Final decision on the request of the petitioner for extension of time was taken by the competent authority. Noticeably, 2018-19 was the last year of TYFP.

5. On 19.03.2019, petitioner made another representation to the CCF, Chamba. The relevant extract of the said communication dated 19.03.2019 is reproduced as under:

“The approved period of Ten Years Felling Program in respect of Bharmour Forest Division will expire with the close of this current Financial Year 2018-2019 and a new Ten Years Felling Programme i.e. for the period 2019-20 to 2028-29 in respect of Bharmour Forest Division has yet formulated. It is worthwhile to mention here that no trees have been felled and sale under approved ten-year felling program in this beat Tiyari. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above and considering the genuineness of the case, fervently and humbly request your honourable self to kindly open the Tiyari beat for felling and sale of trees from private land for the year 2019-20 else the firm has to suffer huge loss which is irrevocable.”

I shall be highly thankful and obliged for your kind consideration and approval please.

6. In the originally proposed TYFP for 2019-20 to 2028-29, the felling in Tiyari beat was scheduled in the year 2028-29. On the above noted representation of petitioner, the DFO Bharmour recommended the year 2019-20 for felling in Tiyari beat under proposed TYFP instead of 2028-29. CCF Chamba and PCCF, Himachal Pradesh also concurred with the proposal of the DFO, however, Respondent No. 1 declined the said proposal vide communication dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-13) on the ground that it would amount to preponement of TYFP, which was impermissible in law.

7. Aggrieved against the communication dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-13) issued by Respondent No. 1, the petitioner is before this Court by way of instant petition.

8. The contention of petitioner is that Clause 8 of the order dated 10.09.2002 (Ann