The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lands identified as forest lands under Quanoon Jungalat continued to be forest lands despite the repeal of the forest laws, and non-forest activities were prohibited under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

( 1 ) IN this petition filed in public interest, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in permitting non-forest activities in the forest area. Though this petition related to a limited area to be developed by the Special Axea Development Authority (SADA) respondent No. 6 and has challenged the development plan of the said Authority in which forest area is being utilised for non-forest activities for construction of Counter Magnet City and permission of mining in the forest area, during the course of arguments, this being a public interest litigation, the Court has enquired about the non-forest activities in the district of Gwalior and issuance of mining lease to various persons on the forest land. In view of the contradictory reply by the Department of Forest and Revenue, a committee was constituted which was headed by Justice R. B. Dixit, a retired Judge of this Court, Committee submitted its report. State was not satisfied with the said report and further requested that another commission be appointed. Therefore, vide order dated 14-2-2005 expert committee was directed to be constituted which comprised of: (i) An officer of the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests to be appointed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. (ii) The Collector, Gwalior. (iii) An expert to be appointed by the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of India.

( 2 ) IT was also directed that the Committee shall visit all the villages in question referred to in the report dated 13- 9-2004 and identify the forests and submit a report keeping in view the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the series of judgments and orders issued in the case of T. N. Godavarman. Committee convened its meetings, inspected the villages and submitted its report. While identifying the forest lands of the area surrounding Gwalior, and portions forming part of erstwhile Gird District under the then Gwalior State, the committee after considering the provisions of forest laws of Gwalior State, for identifying reserved and protected forests under the control of the Forest Department submitted its report identifying the forest lands. Forest areas were declared as Reserved Forests (R. F.) or Protected Forests (P. F.) as per the provisions of Quanoon Jungalat, Gwalior Samvat, 1969. These forests were carved out from the revenue Khasra and grouped into a management unit called Forest Block and given a particular name. A forest block was sub-divided into smaller managements units called compartments which were numbered. A forest block comprised of revenue Khasra from a number of adjoining villages. A Block or a member of such Blocks, forming a consolidated forest area had been constituted as Reserved Forests. This report was submitted after examining the records of the Forest Department. The committee, while identifying the forest areas in the villages also considered (i) the report on the Administration of the Forest Department, Gwalior Government 1914-15, (ii) Annual report of the Forest Department, Gwalior Government 1934-35, (iii) Working Plan of Gwalior State for the period 1944-45 to 1954-55 and (iv) Working Plan of Gwalior Forest Division between 1975-76 to 1989-90.

( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY after the report was submitted, this Court ordered that non-forest activities on the lands identified as forests be stopped. State filed a review application praying therein that the provisions of Quanoon Jungalat are not applicable as the said Quanoon Jungalat has been repealed by the Madhya Bharat Forest Act. It is further contended by the learned Advocate General that since Quanoon Jungalat has been repealed, the lands identified as Reserved Forests or Protected Forests under the Quanoon Jungalat shall cease to exist as Reserved Forests or Protected Forests after repeal of Quanoon Jungalat.

( 4 ) NUMBER of intervenors in their applications have prayed that mining lease granted to them is not on the forest land and is on the revenue land. They submitted that sin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document