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) 3405

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 recorded as non-forest post-1980 but noted as Sabik Jungle in remarks is forest land under Forest (Conservation) Act, requiring Central Government approval for diversion, unaffected by later reclassifications.

Headnote:(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Land recorded as non-forest in Hal records published after 25.10.1980 but with “Sabik Kisam Jungle” entry in remarks column - Such land qualifies as forest land requiring prior Central Government approval for non-forest use, de-reservation, assignment or tree felling - Government circular clarifying applicability of Act to such land based on Supreme Court interpretation that ‘forest land’ includes areas recorded as forest in Government records irrespective of ownership or classification - Subsequent changes in classification post-1980 do not override original Sabik status if indicated in records - Presumption arises from consistent remarks entries across multiple plots negating claims of inadvertence or unavailability of Sabik records - Circulars dated 24.10.2011 and 16.06.2023 interpreted; latter inapplicable where records reflect Sabik jungle status. (Paras 7, 8, 28, 35-40, 45)

(B) Evidence - Record of Rights - Later settlement entries carry presumption of correctness under survey laws, but rebuttable by prior records or government clarifications mandating Forest Act compliance - Party alleging error in latest entry must prove incorrectness; here, remarks column entries prevail over Kisam changes made post-cut-off date. (Paras 42-44)

Facts of the case:
Applicants challenged diversion of land recorded as Sabik Kisam Jungle (forest land) in remarks column of revenue records for industrial waste facility without forest clearance. Respondents claimed land as non-forest (Taila-2/Patita), attributing jungle remarks to inadvertence, with Hal records published post-1980, Sabik records unavailable, and no DLC listing. Tree felling and construction occurred after lease to industrial body.

Findings of Court:
Land held as forest land due to Sabik Kisam Jungle remarks in records for subject plot and 280 others; respondents directed to halt construction until forest clearance obtained from Central Government.

Issues: Whether land with post-1980 non-forest Hal classification but Sabik Jungle remarks constitutes forest land under Forest Act; applicability of government circulars; validity of post-cut-off reclassifications and inadvertence plea.

Ratio Decidendi: Entry of “Sabik Kisam Jungle” in remarks column of Hal records published after 25.10.1980 triggers Forest Act restrictions notwithstanding later Kisam changes or untraceability claims, as affirmed by government circular and Supreme Court; consistent entries across plots rebut inadvertence, requiring prior approval for non-forest use.

Result: Original Application allowed; activities stopped pending forest clearance (Para 45).

Table of Content
1. illegal tree felling on forest land for industrialization (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 9 , 25 , 26)
2. sabik jungle land requires forest conservation act clearance (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8)
3. respondents claim non-forest status and procedural compliance (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. sabik jungle remarks trigger forest act despite hal changes (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
5. later settlement entries presume incorrect without rebuttal (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
6. land held as sabik jungle; halt activity pending 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 18.02.2022. It is stated that IDCO has acquired 12 acres of land including 6 ac

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