Thursday 24 November 2016

KULDEEP KOHLI- PETITION ARAVALI NGT NOTIFICATION


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 




No comments:

Post a Comment