SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1844

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member
Prakash Chandra Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Original Application No.39/2023/EZ



Advocates:
For Applicant(s): Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, Mr. Ashutosh Padhy
For Respondent(s): Mr. Debasish Tripathi, Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Mr. Amit Pattnaik

Land records post-1980 showing 'Sabik Kisam Jungle' in remarks treated as forest land under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, requiring prior Central Government approval for non-forest use despite non-forest kisam classification.

Headnote:(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Land recorded as non-forest kisam in Hal records published after 25.10.1980 but with 'Sabik Kisam Jungle' entry in remarks column - Treated as forest land requiring prior Central Government approval for non-forest use, diversion, lease or tree felling - Government circular clarifying applicability of Act to such land upheld; subsequent circular requiring non-availability of Sabik records rejected where remarks explicitly indicate jungle classification across multiple plots - Presumption of forest land status from official records not rebutted by claims of inadvertence. (Paras 7, 8, 35, 36, 39, 40, 45)

(B) Land Records - Interpretation - Entries in remarks column as 'Sabik Kisam Jungle' in post-1980 records create presumption of forest character; cannot be dismissed as inadvertent when repeated across 280 plots - Changes to non-forest kisam post-cut-off date ineffective without forest clearance. (Paras 32, 34, 40)

Facts of the case:
Applicants challenged tree felling and land diversion for hazardous waste facility on land recorded as non-forest (Taila-2/Patita) in Hal records published 31.05.1983, but marked 'Sabik Kisam Jungle' in remarks; alienated to industrial body and sub-leased without forest clearance. Respondents claimed inadvertent entry, Sabik records unavailable, de-reservation under state rules, tree enumeration compensated; environmental clearance granted separately.

Findings of Court:
Land held as 'Sabik Kisam Jungle' forest land; no construction or activity permitted until Central Government approval under Section 2 obtained.

Issues: Whether land with 'Sabik Kisam Jungle' remarks in post-1980 non-forest Hal records qualifies as forest land mandating prior approval; validity of changes to Patita kisam and tree felling without clearance.

Ratio Decidendi: Official land records showing 'Sabik Kisam Jungle' in remarks post-1980 trigger Forest (Conservation) Act; repetition across plots refutes inadvertence; state circulars affirm need for clearance unless Sabik unavailable, but remarks evidence availability and forest status.

Result: Original Application allowed; activities halted pending forest clearance.

Table of Content
1. illegal tree felling on forest land for industrialization without clearance. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 9)
2. sabik kisam jungle in remarks triggers forest act post-1980. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34)
3. land classified non-forest; corrections made; no sabik records. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. environmental clearance granted; no forest violations found. (Para 20 , 21 , 27 , 28)
5. 2011 circular mandates fc act for sabik jungle entries. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. later settlement entries presumed correct unless rebutted. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
7. land is sabik jungle; requires prior fc act clearance. (Para 45)

ORDER

1. The allegation in the Original Application is that the Project Proponent i.e., Respondent No.6 is cutting trees in land which is otherwise forest land by illegal diversion of forest land for the purposes of industrialization. It is stated that 7.5 acres of Sabik Kisam Forest Land is being usurped by Respondent No.6 for the benefit of Respondent No.7 i.e., M/s Western Integrated Waste Management Facility Private Limited which is projected to set up Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (CHWTSDF) at Village- Patamrapada, Teshil-Parjang, District-Dhenkanal, Odisha.

2. The contention of the Applicant is that the land in question is forest land recorded as Forest Land (Sabik Jungle) in the Revenue Records and no Forest Clearance has been obtained.

3. Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, learned Counsel for the Applicant has referred to the Bhulekh Record at page 40 of the Original Application and submits that in respect of the land in dispute i.e. Khatian No.1023, Plot No.5 though under the head “Kisam” it is mentioned “Taila-2” but under the ‘remark’ column the nature of the land has been described as “Sabik Kisam Jungle”. Learned Counsel further referred to the document at page No.43 of the paper book and submitted that Alienation Case No.1/2021 was conducted and by order dated 06.09.2022 Khata No.1023 upon alienation to the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) the plot of the land was shown as Khatian 985/532 Mouza Patarpada, Dist.-Dhenkanal and the Kisam of the land was shown as ‘Patita’ for Plot No.5.

4. Learned Counsel submitted that these records have been published on 31.05.1983 i.e. after the cut-off date of 25.10.1980 as mentioned in the Forest (Conservations) Act 1980 and therefore the nature of the land could not have been changed from “Sabik Kisam Jungle” to “Taila-2” or “Patita” in the Bhulekh Records at page 40 and page 43 of the paper book (Annexures 4 and 5 to the Original Application).

5. Similarly, for Plot No.3 learned Counsel has submitted that same was also shown as “Kisam Patita” in Annexure 5 after the Alienation Case No.1/2021 vide order dated 06.09.2022. Learned Counsel submitted that large tracks of forest land are being illegally diverted for industrialisation by IDCO, the Respondent No.6 without following the due process laid down in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. It is stated that about 93 acres of land have been brought under the Land Bank Scheme (LBS) as per the Land Schedule Map (LSM) of IDCO including 12 acres of “Gochar” land and 7.5 acres of “Sabik Kisam Land” and out of these 93 acres of land, about 70 acres of land have been proposed to be allocated to the Respondent No.7 for the Western Integrated Waste Management Facility Pvt. Ltd. for establishment of Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (CHWTSDF) at village Patarapara, Tahasil – Parajang, Dist. –Dhenkanal, Odisha.

6. It is stated that the Respondent No.7 Unit is to continue land fill at the site in question for burying a total of 7,00,000 MT of hazardous waste; subsequently the capacity of the waste treatment was reduced to 20,000 tons per annum and the land area also has been reduced from 70 acres to 27 acres for which Environmental Clearance was granted on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top