KULDEEP KOHLI PETITION - LL GLASS

 KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

RZ 200B, STREET NO. 3, RAM CHOWK,

SADH NAGAR PART I, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110045

Mobile: 08860332404

E MAIL: KULDEEP.KOHLI55@GMAIL.COM

04.11.2016

Deputy Commissioner and Chairman

Allottees Grievances Redressal Forum,

1^st Floor,

Mini Secretariat,

Rajiv Chowk,

Gurgaon - 122001

·      The facade glass are falling in spite of five orders number 6718 dated 2.12.2015 from the District Town Planner, Gurgaon (Planning), order  through the Minutes of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon on 8.1.2016 instructing the colonizer to take safety measures within the colony and submit modalities for the same by way of an undertaking to Member Secretary, AGRF within 15 days and order No. 356 dated 27.5.2016 by the District Town Planner, Gurgaon and orders of Shri R S Batth,  Assistant Town & Country Planner on two occasions to the builder in the meetings called by him at the La Lagune complex meeting has been done to resolve the life threatening problem.

·      132 Façade Glass Panes  of the size of 6 feet by 4 feet falling from the different floors starting from 17^th floor of the  condominium in last two years missing people narrowly at Residential Group Housing Project, La Lagune situated at Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon

·      The falling of glasses continues and is a regular process missing and harming the ladies, children, elderly and young people.

·      So far with only 42 glasses have been replaced in last two year and none during last nine months.

REQUEST FOR EXECUTION OF THE ABOVE ORDERS WITHIN 15 DAYS AND AN UNDERTAKING BY M/S  ABW SUNCITY AND ITS DIRECTOR A PARTNERSHIP FIRM FORMED  BY M/S ADITY BUILDWELL PRIVATE LTD. AND M/S SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT LTD. AND REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SUNCITY BUSINESS TOWER, 2^ND FLOOR, SECTOR 54, GOLF COURSE ROAD, GURGAON

Resected Sir,

1)    132 façade glasses measuring 7 feet by 4 feet are falling from different floors starting from 17^th floor as per details given above.

2)    Five orders have been passed as per the following enclosures by your office as Chairman, AGRF, by the District Town & Country Planner, by the Assistant Town Planner under the orders from Shri P Raghavendra Rao, Additional Chief Secretary and Chairman, AGRF for the meeting held on 12.8.2016.

a.  Order number 6718 dated 2.12.2015 from the District Town Planner, Gurgaon (Planning) – Annexure 1

b.  Order  through the Minutes of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon on 8.1.2016 instructing the colonizer to take safety measures within the colony and submit modalities for the same by way of an undertaking to Member Secretary, AGRF within 15 days – Annexure  2

c.  Order No. 356 dated 27.5.2016 by the District Town Planner, Gurgaon – Annexure 3.

d.  Order of Shri R S Batth, Assistant Town & Country Planner in the meeting called by him at the La Lagune complex, to the builder  as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in the meeting held on 8.1.2016 – Annexure 4 are the minutes of the meeting held on

e.  Order of Shri R S Batth, Assistant Town & Country Planner in the meeting called by him at the La Lagune complex, to the builder  as per the orders of thefrom Shri P Raghavendra Rao, Additional Chief Secretary and Chairman, AGRF for the meeting held on 12.8.2016– Annexure 5 are the minutes of the meeting held on

3. Sir, in spite of five orders in last one year from the highest of the concerned authorities:

                 I.        The glasses are still falling and no permanent solution has been found out by the builder in spite of the Assistant Town & Country Planner having instructed formation of a committee and the committee advising that the glasses are falling because of certain chemical composition and hence manufacturing defect and will keep falling and wrong fitting of the glasses.

               II.        The builder has stopped replacing the glasses.

             III.        Few of the residents have got injured and many others narrowly escaping including children women and elderly and young people staying there.

             IV.        No undertaking has been given as ordered by your office as the Chairman of AGRF in the meeting held on 8.1.2016 by the Builder instructing the colonizer to take safety measures within the colony and submit modalities for the same by way of an undertaking to Member Secretary, AGRF within 15 days

                V.        Evidence of the broken/missing glass panes at more than 80 points as on date is enclosed herewith for your kind information – Annexure 6  

4.    That apart from the danger to the lives of so many residents, this is causing us major mental agony, pain and torture as there are approximately 1500 glass planes of the size of 7 feet by 4 feet that could fall any time, from any tower. The Resident Welfare Association and the residents have repeatedly asked the Builder to kindly look into the matter, but apart from replacing a few panes here and there, nothing concrete has been done to resolve the life threatening problem.

5.    That the building having got the occupation certificate in April 2013 and the glass planes continuing to fall since the very beginning and this is of serious concern to all the residents and hence the Builder should be instructed to replace all the façade glass planes from the building because the existing situation is a constant threat to life of the people residing here.

6.  That, as per the Haryana Apartment Owners Act 1983, we are the owners of the undivided common area and being the ownersof the undivided common area, we have a “right to personal safety and reasonable safeguard from Hazard and risks of life and person”  and enjoy this undivided common area.  Unfortunately, the falling of the glass panes of this huge size on such a regular basis is resulting in acute mental agony to us and our family and resulting in continues risk of life and limb lest it should cause actual loss of life or limb  , which  is a serious Law and order concern

7.   Sir it does not require any more than a vivid imagination to visualise the consequences of a glass of this size falling upon any passerby. That no serious accident has occurred can only be attributed to sheer luck. It will not be wrong to say that this wanton and negligent act of the Builder is not only tortious wrong, but more importantly it amounts to serious criminal negligence. We would strongly urge you to prevail upon the Builder to take remedial action before a tragedy occurs.  

8.    That the Directors of SUN CITY Mr. Varun Agarwal and others as per the list given below have been informed of this through various messages and personal communications by the RWA but unfortunately no action has been taken by them.

9.    That ABW SUNCITY has been guilty and negligent of deficiency in rendering the service.

10.       That the above elaborated action of ABW SUNCITY has caused us lot of inconvenience, harassment, hardship, mental pain and agony.

11.       That in view of above, we shall be extremely grateful for your kind indulgence in getting the entire set of glasses replaced in all the Towers before another such incident results in certain kind of physical injury to us and our family members or others residents in the complex.

PRAYER

We therefore pray you to kindly issue orders for

A.  Replacement of all the damaged glasses immediately within next 15 days.

B.  Re - instruct the colonizer to take safety measures within the colony and submit modalities for the same by way of an undertaking to Member Secretary, AGRF within 15 days, as instructed by you vide minutes of the meeting of AGRF held on 08 January, 2016.

C.  An undertaking by the builder to replace all the glasses within a period of next 06 months as there is manufacturing defect in the glasses because of the chemical composition and defective fixation as advised by the committee formed under the instruction Assistant Town and Country Planner, Gurgaon.

D. Payment of compensation for the mental torture being faced by all of us and our family members on account of the reasons explained above.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully

KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

List of the Directors of the above two companies responsible for entering into a joint venture and then executing this project are:

Shri Atul Bansal,

Managing Director,

ABW Infrastructure Ltd.

II Floor,

ABW Tower,

IFFCO Chowk,

Gurgaon,

Haryana-122001

Shri Ravi Shanker,

Director,

ABW Infrastructure Ltd.

II Floor,

ABW Tower,

IFFCO Chowk,

Gurgaon,

Haryana-122001

Shri L.N. Goel,

Chairman,

Suncity Projects P Ltd.

II Floor,Suncity Business Tower,

Golf Course Road, Sector 54,

Gurgaon,Haryana

Shri Subhash Agarwal,

Director,

Suncity Projects P Ltd.

II Floor,

Suncity Business Tower,

Golf Course Road,

Sector 54,

Gurgaon,

Haryana

Shri Varun Agarwal,

Director,

Suncity Projects P Ltd.

II Floor,

Suncity Business Tower,

Golf Course Road,

Sector 54,

Gurgaon,

Haryana

Shri Arpit Goel

Managing Director

Suncity Projects P Ltd.

II Floor,

Suncity Business Tower,

Golf Course Road,

Sector 54,

Gurgaon,

Haryana

Shri Anil Gupta

G.M Project

Suncity Projects P Ltd.

II Floor,

Suncity Business Tower,

Golf Course Road,

Sector 54,

Gurgaon,

Haryana

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

E MAIL: KULDEEP.KOHLI55@GMAIL.COM

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 7^th 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 

KULDEEP KOHLI - PETITION ARAVALI IS NOT FOREST LAND

KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

RZ 200B, STREET NO. 3, RAM CHOWK,

SADH NAGAR PART I, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110045

Mobile: 08860332404

E MAIL: KULDEEP.KOHLI55@GMAIL.COM

2 Violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as the felling of trees or any kind of construction in Aravali Hill requires prior approval under section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE LAND IS NOT  COVERED UNDER INDIAN FOREST ACT 1980 AND HENCE NOT A FOREST LAND  AND THEREFORE NON APPLICABLITY OF INDIAN FOREST ACT 1980 

1.     While Ansal was working on this project in the year 1990, a well-known Environmentalist, Dr. Shekhar Singh, filed a Public Interest Litigation [PIL] before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India bearing Writ Petition No. 598 of 1990 - Shekhar Singh & others Versus Union of India. The said petition was dismissed in the year January 1995.  The Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India had then through their Under Secretary, Mr. G. Hari Kumar filed an Affidavit.

Para 4 of the said Affidavit states  - “The respondent humbly submits that the said lands were purchased by Ansals and Aggarwal from individual owners – the lands were not allotted to them by the Government”.  

Para 5 of the Affidavit states -  “the respondent humbly submits that the lands are not recorded as forest lands.  Therefore Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is not applicable to these lands”. Para 11 of the Affidavit states “” In reply to para V of the petition it is humbly submitted that on receipt of representation from Shri Shekhar Singh and others regarding alleged illegal transfer of forest land in Haryana in favour of Ansals and Aggarwal, a detailed enquiry was conducted by this Ministry. During the enquiry it was revealed that about 2,000 acres of land in Aravali Hills near Raisen Village in Gurgaon District has been purchased by Ansals and Aggarwal.  No land has been allotted by Government to them. The land purchased by Ansals is covered under General Section 4 of Punjab Land (Preservation) Act.  In respect of this land ownership as well as possession of the land is with individuals and not with Government”. The affidavit further states “these lands have not been recorded as ‘Forest” anywhere in Government records.  These lands are neither Reserve Forest nor Protected Forest nor recorded forest”.  

Para 11 further states that  “the land purchased by Ansal is covered under General Section 4 of Punjab land (Preservation) Act.  In respect of this land ownership as well as possession of the land is with individuals and not with Government. 

These lands have not been recorded as “Forest” anywhere in Government records. 

These lands are neither Reserve Forest, nor Protected Forest, nor recorded forest. 

As land purchased by Aggarwal and Ansals is not recorded as Forest in Government records, Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is not applicable to such lands. 

Copy of Order dated 27.01.1995 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is available at PAGE NO. 2635

2.     In CWP Nos. 5603, 6688, 668 and 6690 of 2015A in the matter of M/s Delhi Towers and Estates Pvt. Ltd. V/s State of Haryana before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana an Affidavit has been submitted by Mr. T L Satyaprkash, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon based on a communication No. 867 G dated 17.7.2015 from the Divisional Forest Officer and the relevant extract from the Affidavit reads as under:

‘That as per report of Tehsildar, Sohna, the petitioner and its associate companies have purchased the land in the revenue estate of Raiseena Tehsil Sohna and not in the revenue estate of village Gairatpur Bass.  The land purchased by the petitioner is not covered under section 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and Aravali Plantation Scheme and Reserve Forest/Protected Forest as reported  by the Divisional Officer Forest vide letter No. No. 867 G dated 17.7.2015.  However the general section 4 of Punjab Land Preservation Act is applicable in the area pf Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon as per Haryana Government Notification dated 4.1.2013….

3.     As per report of the Patwari on the instructions of the Tehsildar regarding the Ansals Aravali Retreat it reads – As per consolidation of year 1955-56 up to date is ownership of private owners.  This ownership of this area never remained with the Government of Haryana or Gram Panchayat.

4.     The entire area in 1988 was a barren hilly area  and 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)   

5.     That in his  reply Shri Kulwinder Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Gurgaon has said in uncertain terms as under:

“Land parcels seem to be in Section 4 of  PLPA 1900.  For areas covered in general section 4 only permission for tree felling is required  from forest department. If the offender does not take the permission  only compensation for trees is realised as per the provision of the  said Act.

6.      That the Conservator of Forests, South Circle, Gurgaon wrote to M/s Ansal Properties & industries Ltd vide letter No. 1344 dated 29.6.1993 upon a query by the later that the Khasra Number in question in the village Raisina was not closed under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900 and the restriction under the said Act does not apply thereto.

SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF B S SANDHU VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4682-4683 OF 2005 ON 21.5.2014 OBSERVED:

“Thus the basis of including the entire land in village Karoran as forest area in the affidavit of the State Government in this Court is that the land was closed as per the PLP Act, 1900 and therefore was forest area.

Hence the first question that we have to decide is whether conclusion of the High Court that the land which is notified under section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 is regulated by the prohibitory directions notified under Sections 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Act is “forest land” is correct in law.

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900 as it was originally enacted are extracted herein below:

3. Whenever it appears to the Local Government that it is desirable to provide for the better preservation and protection of any local area, situated within or adjacent to the Sivalik mountain range or affected or liable to be affected by the deboisement of forest in that range or by the action of chos, such Government may, by notification, make a direction accordingly.

4.  In respect of areas notified under Section 3, generally, or the whole or any part of any such area, the Local Government, may by general or special order, temporarily or permanently, regulate, restrict or prohibit – 

a. the clearing or breaking up or cultivating of land not ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under section 3;

b. the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime, at places where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been so-quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3;

c. the cutting of trees or timber or  the removal or subjection to any manufacturing process, otherwise than as described in clause (b) of this sub-section of any forest-produce other than grass, save for bonafide domestic or agricultural purposes; 

d. the setting on fire of trees, timber or forest product;

e. the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of sheep or goats;

f. the examination of forest produce passing out of any such area and

g. the granting of permits to the inhabitants of towns and villagers situated within the limits or in the vicinity of any such area, to take any tree, timber or forest produce for their own use therefrom, or to pasture sheep or goats or to cultivate or erect buildings therein and the production and return of such permits by such persons.

5. In respect of any specified village or villages, or part or parts thereof, comprised within the limits of any area notified under section 3, the Local Government may, by general or  special order, temporarily or permanently regulate, restrict or prohibit –

a.  The cultivating of any land ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under section 3: 

b.  the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime, at places where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been so-quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3;

c.  the cutting of trees or timber or  the removal or subjection to any manufacturing process, otherwise than as described in clause (b) of this sub-section of any forest-produce other than grass, save for bonafide domestic or agricultural purposes;

d.  the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of castle generally, other than sheep and goats or of any class or description of such cattle.

It will be clear from the language of Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 extracted above that for the better preservation and protectionof any local area, situated within or adjacent to the Sivalik mountain range or affected or liable to be affected by the deboisement of forest in that range or by the action of chos, such Government may, by notification, make a direction accordingly.

The expression “local area” has not been defined in the PLP Act 1900 and may include not only “forest land” but also other land.  In Section 4 of the PLP Act, 1900 extracted above, the local Government was empowered by general or special order, temporarily or permanently to regulate, restrict or prohibit various activities mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), €, (f) and (g) thereof.

A reading of these clauses would show that activities such as cultivation, pasturing of sheep and goats and erection of buildings by the inhabitants of towns and villages situated within the limits of the area notified under Section 3 can be regulated, restricted or prohibited by a general or special order of the local Government.  All these activities are not normally carried on in forests. 

Similarly under Section 5 of the PLP Act, 1900, the local Government was empowered by special order, temporarily or permanently to regulate, restrict or prohibit the cultivating of any land or to admit, herd, pasture or retain cattle generally other than sheep and goats.  These activities are also not normally carried on in forests.

In our view, therefore, land which is notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and regulated by orders of the local Government under Section 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900 may or may not be “forest land”.  

Similarly, the conclusion of the High Court in the impugned order that the entire land in village Karoran, District Ropar, having been notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and being under the regulatory regime of Section 4 and 5 of the said Act is “forest land” is also legally not correct.

In fact, the High Court failed to appreciate the meaning of ”forest” and “forest land” in section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as given by this court in the order dated 12.12.1996 in the case of T N Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India & others. 

The relevant portions of the order dated 12.12.1996 in the case of T N Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & others on the meaning of the words “forest “and “forest land” is extracted below”

The forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act.

The term “forest land” occurring in Section 2 will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.  This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act.  The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act 1980 for the conservation of forests and matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof.

The underlined portion of the order dated 12.12.1996 in the case of T N Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & others would show that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check “further deforestation” and was to apply to all forest irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof.  Hence, section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 puts a restriction on further deforestation of “forest land” and would apply to any land which at the time of enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was “forest land” irrespective of its classification or ownership.

Thus, what the high Court was called upon to decide is whether the land on which the Forest Hill Golf and Country Club of Col B S Sandhu was situated was “forest land” as on 25.10.1980 irrespective of its classification or ownership.  

This is factual question and the High Court should have decided this factual question on the basis of Government records as on 25.10.1980 and other materials filed before the High Court, but the High Court has instead decided this question by reference to the Provisions of the PLP Act 1900 and the records of the Forest Department in which the land was shown to be under the Forest Department because of the fact that the land was closed under the PLP Act, 1900 several decades before the enactment of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Warm Regards 

Kuldeep Kumar Kohli