Enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Promotion & Protection of Fruit Trees Act, 1985 in the case of illegal construction in the fruit belt area.

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

This is a Public Interest Litigation. The reliefs sought in the Writ Petition are as follows :-

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to stop the construction of the house colony in the fruit belt of village Jassaganja.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 directing them to take the legal action against the responsible persons under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Promotion & Protection of Fruit Trees (Regulation of Harmful Establishments & Housing Schemes) Act, 1985.”

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-

3. The State of Uttarakhand vide its notification dated 23.05.2002 had declared certain villages as fruit belt area while exercising its power under Sub-clauses (2) & (3) of Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Promotion & Protection of Fruit Trees (Regulation of Harmful Establishment and Housing Schemes) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Village Jassaganja was included under the area of Fruit Belt on 18.09.2002. It is the case of the petitioner, inter alia, that one Virendra Singh sold the property to the 12th respondent. The 12th respondent started felling fruit trees standing thereon for the purposes of construction of Housing Colony. The petitioner made complaints to the Divisional Forest Officer. He sought information under the Right to Information Act from the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramnagar as to whether any permission was granted by the Forest Department. The villagers of Village Jassaganja alongwith their Gram Pradhan had sent a letter to the Chief Minister complaining felling of the fruit trees in the declared area of fruit belt. The Hon’ble Minister of Agriculture, Horticulture, Veterinary and Fisheries intimated the petitioner that directions have been issued to the Chief Forest Conservator, Kumaon to take necessary action. The petitioner also asked some information from the Office of Assistant Collector, Ramnagar and Horticulture Department regarding the illegal felling of fruit trees. The Incharge, Horticulture Department informed the petitioner that Village Jassagnaja had been declared as fruit belt area on 18.09.2002 and the permission for felling of trees in this belt could only be given by the Forest Department and not by Horticulture Department. There is inaction on the part of the respondents authorities to restrain the illegal act of respondent No. 12 and, on the said basis, the Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The 4th respondent, namely, Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai West Forest Division Ramnagar, District Nainital has filed a counter affidavit. He has disowned administrative control over the Agricultural land, in question, and stated that it is the Revenue Department, who looks after the agricultural land and maintains its records.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No. 2, Additional Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. It is stated that 12th respondent has not taken any permission from the Horticulture Department for felling of trees in the fruit belt area. No recommendation for felling of trees in fruit belt area of Village Jassaganja situated in the Khasra numbers, in question, has been made by the Horticulture Department to the Forest Department. It is also stated that under the Act, Horticulture Department has no authority to proceed under the Act. The duty of Horticulture Department is only to maintain the records of fruit trees. There is a reference to CA-1, joint inspection report dated 13.09.2011. It is mentioned that no permission has been granted by the Department of Horticulture for felling of trees in the fruit belt area. It is also stated that since the Horticulture Department has no control over the fruit belt area, as such, no action under the Act could be taken by the Department.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 7 on behalf of respond