KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
RZ 200B, STREET NO. 3, RAM CHOWK,
SADH NAGAR PART I, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110045
Mobile: 08860332404
1.
Violation
of the Aravali Notification dated 7.5.1992 issued under the Environment
(Protection Act), 1986 at ANSAL RETREAT, VILLAGE RAISINA, TEHSIL SOHNA,
DISTRICT GURGAON
Ansals
had purchased 1132 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Raisina, Tehsil
Sohna, District Gurgaon in the year
1987-1988 from Shri Mahesh Raghav, Vishwapal Singh, Smt. Saubhag wati
and others whose fore-fathers had purchased the lands from the British
Government in the year 1857. All this is
a matter of record.
ABSENCE OF GREENERY
Before
May 1989, the conditions of the Area from the view point of green coverage can
be best judged by comparison with the adjoining present conditions of hills
called Tikli on the North side and Bas Mountain on the West.
The
barren hilly area was source of nothing but radiation of heat by virtue of its
being stony except stone quarrying with Mining rights in favour of M/s Narain
Singh & Associates granted through Mining Officer, District Industries
Centre, Gurgaon granted on 4.5.1989 to 1992 which were bought over by M/S
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. on 22.5.1990
( THIS IS A MATER OF
RECORD IN THE CASE NO. 598 OF 1990 BEING A WRIT PETITION FILED BY SHEKHAR SINGH
& OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MOEF WHICH WAS DISMISSED
BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT ON 27.1.1995 – PAGE NO. 239-294)
It
was uncultivable
Completely
denunded
Full
of stones and boulders
In
the condition of total neglect
When
the Ansals purchased the said land, most
of it was uneven, undeveloped and without proper facilities for cultivation
etc.
Apart
from very large expenses incurred on account of professional fee paid to
different experts for various services, surveys, environmental appreciation
report, planning and had spent a sum of Rs. 6.90 lacs on fencing the farms with
RCC /Angle, water through trolleys, Rs. 43,500.00, Construction of 15 weirs to
prevent soil erosion and regulate water discharge Rs. 4.5 lacs, Construction of
5000 meters long retaining walls, toe walls, to prevent soil erosion along the
steep slopes, roads and other areas Rs.
13.50 lacs, Pits dug for planting under social forestry scheme nearly 50,000.00
– Rs. 10.00 lacs, 10,000 pits dug for
planning of shade trees filled with imported sweet earth from fertile areas -
Rs. 5.00 lacs, 810 trenches (each 25
fee) had been excavated and filled with fertile soil treated for ant termite
treatment and manured – Rs. 8 lacs, Cost of Plants and shrubs – Rs. 5.4 lacs,
Thamlas made around 1 lac bushes/shrub for rejuvenating them – Rs. 2.0 lacs,
Fertilized Plans – 15,000 Nos – Rs. 75,000.00, Bunds & Dyke – 25.00 lacs,
Roads 29 kms – 119.20 lakhs, Avenues developed over 297 Acres – Rs. 148 lacs,
Drainage/Culverts (30) – R. 3.00 lacs, Tube wells – 12 with Genset & Pump
houses – Rs. 20 lacs. Besides this
Ansals planted 50,000 trees being Kikar, Jan, Orna and other trees along
fringes.
The
Ansals made huge development upon the land purchased by them by getting it
levelled, carving out roads, providing water facilities, electrical
infrastructure etc..
The Ansals provided
huge green cover. More than four lacs
trees saplings were planted in order to stop landslides.
It has also saved the
land from the hands of mining mafia which had mined the adjoining areas.
The
Ansals developed the area into a beautiful farmhouse scheme known as ‘Ansal Retreat’ having 675 farms out of
which 457 are of one Acre and 218 of two acres.
The
Ansals carved out various farms and also constructed several farm houses. Individual farm/farm houses were enclosed by
means of barbed wire fencing or pucca boundary walls and many of the farms have
been sold by the respondents to the third parties.
Ansals
planted orchards over the land purchased by them and they also planted other
ornamental trees.
The
Ansals had developed their land into a beautiful farmhouse complex. The entire improvement and development were
made by the respondents exclusively on the area validly purchased by them for
valuable sale consideration from its previous owners. The said improvements and expenditure were
made by the respondents openly, peacefully and with the knowledge of all
concerned including the concerned authorities but none ever objected as the
Ansals were making development on their own land.
All
this was done by Ansals before the land in question was declared controlled
area and before issuance of environment notification of the year 1992.
Haryana State
Pollution Control Board had filed a complaint in the Special Environment Court
of Faridabad under Section 15 read with Section 19 of the Environment
protection Act, 1986 with Section 120B IPCagainst
all the farm land owners and the main charge upon the accused is that the land
at Ansals Retreat Village Raisina is a Gair Mumkin Pahad and Ansals constructed
and developed farm houses on the Gairmumkin Pahad in the village Raisina and
continued doing so in the form of roads, gates, fencing, pillars in violation
of Aravali Notification dated 7.5.1992 and continued doing so till 2005 and
thus committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of Environment Protection
Act.
It has been observed
by the Special environment Court, Faridabad in one of the matters Haryana State
Pollution Control Board V/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and all
its Directors Case No. 12 of 2007 in respect of the complete Ansals Aravali Retreat
measuring 1200 Acres that:
1.
The purchase of land
of Raisina village by Ansals in the year 1987-88 is not in dispute.
2.
The nature of land in
Jamabandi of 1987-88 shown as Gair Mumkin Pahad is not in dispute.
3.
The nature of land in
the Jamabandi of 1985-86 is not in dispute shown as Gair Mumkin Pahar
4.
The change of Khasra
girdawari of Rabi 1991 from Gair Mumkin Pahar to Gair Mumkin Farm house is not
in dispute
5.
Its subsequent
incorporation in the Jamabandi of 1990-1991 is also not in dispute
6.
The issuance of
Aravali Notification on 7.5.1992 and its applicability on the Gair Mumkin Pahar
is also not in dispute
The
learned PO-cum-JMIC, Special Environment Court opined:
“I am of the
considered opinion that to rebut the claim of the complainant regarding
development of Aravali Retreat in Raisina Village after notification,
sufficient evidence has been brought upon file by Ld. Defence Counsel.
The reports of
ld. DRO and Tehsildar themselves admit the purchase of land by accused no I in
year 1987-88. Further both these
reports admit the development upon the spot…..”
“Perusal of
report ld. DRO shows that as per instruction no. 13 of land record manual,
nature of any land can be changed and if the nature of land is changed, the
changed nature can be incorporated in Khasra girdawari and subsequently in
Jamabandi after physical verification.”
“Perusal of
documents submitted by ld. Defence counsel shows that learned Commissioner,
Gurgaon was requested to hold an enquiry into the factual basis on which the
change in Girdawari of Rabi 1991 from Gair Mumkin Pahar to Gair Mumkin Farm
House in the village Raisina regarding 20 farm houses and Pathways School,
Raisina owned by M/s Sarla Holdings Pvt. Ltd (PAGE 970-971). Upon this
the ld. Commissioner, Gurgaon directed to ld. Deputy Commissioner to hold the
enquiry (PAGE 972) who directed the
Sub Divisional Officer and who in turn directed the Tehsildar, Sohna to conduct
the enquiry (PAGE 973).”
“Perusal of
enquiry shows that the total land was purchased by associate companies of
accused no. 1 in year 1987-1988 and from 1988 till 1990 it was developed. In this regard he has relied upon the no
objection certificate of Director, Town & County Planning, Haryana dated
29.1.1990,Map of site sent by accused no. 1 to Director, Khasra Girdawari of
Rabi and Kharib 1990, permission of Haryana State Electricity Board vide letter
no. 2794 dated 5.4.1991, demarcation report, certificate of expenses and
receipt of fine regarding felling of trees by accused no. in year 1989-1990.
The photo copy of these documents has also been placed upon this file. Perusal of the report further shows that the
expenses incurred by the accused no. 1 are Two Crore Thirty Eighty Lac Thirty
Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five rupees.
(2,38, 39, 535.00) The evidence so adduced by ld. Defence counsel shows
that the Aravali Retreat was developed by accused no. 1 after it purchases.
Perusal of these documents suggest that huge expense was incurred by accused
no. 1 in year 1990-91 in constructing roads, pillars, berms, fencing etc. Both the reports nowhere indicate any
illegality on the part of the accused no. 1. Thus both the reports only
indicate that proper procedure was followed and neither of the authorities
objected upon the change in Khasra girdawari of Rabi 1991 and its subsequent
incorporation in the Jamabandi.
Is
a report from the Commissioner, Gurgaon to Director, HSPCB confirming that the
development of Ansals Aravali Retreat had taken place before the issuance of
the Aravali Notification.
7.
The Government of
India, Ministry of Environment & Forest vide their letter No. 17-1/91.PL/IA
dated 1.11.2006 have confirmed that in case the members of Aravali Plot Owners
association have plots which in the land records maintained by the State Government
as on date of the Notification dated 7th May 1992 (of MoEF) were
categorised as “Farm House”…. then this Notification will not be applicable
8.
The learned
PO-cum-JMIC, Special Environment Court concluded “Thus the
complainant/prosecution has miserably failed to prove upon file that Aravali
Notification was applicable upon the Aravali Retreat the land of accused no. 1
and he has further failed to prove upon file that any construction in any shape
was made by accused no.1 after the issuance of Aravali Notification.
9.
There have been more
than 75 judgements by the Special Environment Court, Faridabad in last three
years wherein it has been repeatedly held that the land in question at Ansal Retreat is Gairmumkin farm land and not
Gairmumkin Pahad hence the Aravali notification dated 7th May 1992
is not applicable, to name a few:
·
HSPCB V/s Sunil Kalra
·
HSPCB V/s Prateek
Shrivastav
·
HSPCB V/s Mrs. Raj R
Gupta
·
HSPCB V/s Ansal
Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.
·
HPSCB V/s Vijay Malik
10. The above judgements
are therefore clearly indicative of the fact that the land in question is an
agriculture land and that the notification of the Government of India issued by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests SO No. (19) Dated 7th May
1992 commonly known as Aravali Notification is not applicable in respect of the
farm houses sold by Ansal Group. Needless to mention that the above judgements
have been made by the Honourable Court after going into details of each and
every issue taken up by Haryana State Pollution Control Board and the
documentary evidence provided in terms of the Revenue Records for the said farm
houses.
11. That three appeal were filed by the HSPCB
before the Honourable High Court of Punjab
& Haryana against the following respondents:
Mr. SunilKalra
through CRM A 299 MA 2014
Mr Prateek
Srivastava through CRM A 298 MA 2014 and
Mr. Jyotirmay
Daw through CRM A 297 MA 2014
All the three appeals
were dismissed by the Honourable High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order
dated 16.7.2015. True copies are at
above pages
Warm Regards
Kuldeep Kumar Kohli
