Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 104
`2006(3) JLJ 27
S.S. Jha and S.A. Naqvi, J.J.
Kamal Kishore and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No. 1413 of 2002 and 5076 of 2005;
Decided on 18.1.2006.
N.K. Gupta and M.P.S. Raghuwanshi for petitioners;
Ravinandan Singh, Advocate General with S.B. Mishra, Additional
Advocate General for State;
Y.K. Tankha with O.K. Katare, Y.K. Bharadwaj, Arvind Dudawat, Vijay
Sundaram and Jitendra Sharma for intervenors.
Headnote:Forest Act, 1927 -- S. 20A(1) to 20(4) (as inserted in 1969) -- Forest Conservation Act, 1980 -- S. 2 -- Ss. 20A(1) and 20(2) deal with reserved forest -- S. 20A(3) provides that report, working plan etc. duly certified by State Government shall not be questioned in Court entries made by Ruler cannot be questioned after such a long lapse of time -- S. 20A(4) speaks protected forest in merged territory -- S. 20 of 1980 Act pro hi hits non-forest activities in forest areas -- Committee directed to be formed and report called for to determine forest land.
In this petition tiled in public interest, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in permitting non-forest activities in the forest area. [Para 1
Held : Under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no non-forest activities can be permitted on the said forest lands. State is directed not to allow any non-forest activities on the forest lands which comprised or reserved forests and protected forests as defined under section 20A(4) of the Indian Forest Act.
It will be appropriate that the State shall constitute a committee comprising of Commissioner, Land Records, Collector, District Gwalior, Chief Conservator of Forests, Gwalior Division and other officers. These officers shall sit together, examine the area and determine the forest land. Intervenors who had been granted mining lease shall also submit their claims before the Committee. [Paras 20 to 24
ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 && /kkjk 20d¼1½ ls 20d¼4½ ¼lu~ 1969 esa ;Fkk var% LFkkfir½ && ou laj{k.k vf/fku;e] 1980 && /kkjk 2 && /kkjk 20d¼1½ vkSj 20d¼2½ vkjf{kr ou ls lacaf/kr gSa && /kkjk 20d¼3½ esa micaf/kr gS fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk lE;d~ :i ls izekf.kr fjiksVZ] dk;Z ;kstuk vkfn U;k;ky; eas iz‘uxr ugha fd, tk,¡xs && ‘kkld }kjk dh xbZ izfrof‘V;k¡ bruk le; O;rhr gks tkus i‘pkr~ iz‘uxr ugha dh tk ldrha && /kkjk 20d¼4½ esa foyhu jkT;{ks= esa lajf{kr ou dh ckr dh xbZ gS && lu~ 1980 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 esa ou {ks= esa xSj&ouh xfrfof/k;k¡ izfrf"k) dh xbZ gSa && ou Hkwfe vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, lfefr xfBr fd, tkus dk funs‘k fn;k x;k rFkk fjiksVZ ek¡xh xbZA
yksd fgr esa Qkby dh xbZ bl ;kfpdk eas ;kph us ou {ks= esa xSj&ouh xfrfof/k;k¡ vuqKkr djus dh izR;FkhZx.k dh dkjZokbZ ij vk{ksi fd;k gSA ¼iSjk 1
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ou ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1980 ds v/khu] mDr ou Hkwfe ij dksbZ Hkh xSj&ouh xfrfof/k vuqKkr ugha dh tk ldrhA jkT; dks funs‘k fn;k tkrk gS fd Hkkjrh; ou vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20d¼4½ ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr vkjf{kr ouksa vkSj lajf{kr ouksa ds varxZr ou Hkwfe ij dksbZ Hkh xSj&ouh xfrfof/k vuqKkr ugha djsA
;g leqfpr gksxk fd jkT; Hkw&vfHkys[k vk;qDr] dyDVj ftyk Xokfy;j] eq[; ou laj{kd Xokfy;j laHkkx vkSj vf/kdkjh lekfo"V dj lfefr xfBr djsA ;g vf/kdkjh lkFk cSB dj {ks= dk ijh{k.k djsaxs rFkk ouHkwfe vo/kkfjr djsaxsA e/;{ksid Hkh] ftUgsa [kuu iV~Vs iznku fd, x, Fks] lfefr ds le{k vius nkos is‘k djsaxsA ¼iSjk 20 ls 24
Jha, J. -- 1. In this petition tiled 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 Area 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 Forest.
(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 (RF) or Protected Forests (PF) as per the provisions of Quanoon Jungalat, Gwalior Samvat 1969. These forests were carved out from the revenue khasras 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 khasras from a number of adjoining villages. A Block or a number 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 197576 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 since their leases
