Gurdyal Verma vs State of HP & Ors

These Applications have been filed in disposed of matters with prayer to seek restoration of E.A No. 21/2022 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 11.10.2022 as follows:-

“1. This Execution Application has been filed with a grievance that compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 16. 07.2015 has still not been paid to the applicant. By the said order, the Tribunal deal with M.A. No. 387/2015, seeking enforcement of order dated 21.11.2014 as under:-

“1to4……..xxxx……………………….xxx………………………..xxx

In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the conduct of the respondent No. 6 is not only illegal but also his conduct before the Tribunal by filing false affidavit and reply cannot be accepted any by stretch of imagination. The Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6 initially requested for a short pass over of the case to enable him to inform his client and take up the matter at the end of the Board. However the 6th Respondent has not chosen to appear when the matter was taken up at the end of the Board. In any event it is astonishing to note that the Learned Counsel has even chosen to argue that the 6th Respondent has not committed any mistake. The said contention cannot be accepted by the Tribunal, on the face of record. In such circumstances we cannot condone the illegality and consequential environmental disaster made by the 6th respondent by illegal mining. Further, it is not in dispute that the said respondent has not obtained any EC or permission from the competent authority for mining of sand which is illegal. Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Respondent No. 6 is solely responsible for the illegal removal of sand by mining through JCB.

In fact three JCB have been recovered by the Police Department during the time of inspection. But it remains a fact that after finding the JCBs in the place of the applicant, the Police Department as well as Forest Department have been lethargic in taking any action by seizing the JCB. It is also not in dispute as stated by the Foresee Department as well as that the Respondent No. 6, as stated earlier, that he has not obtained any EC for the purpose of making the mining activity in the said area. In such view of the matter the Respondent No. 6 cannot be exonerated from any liability.

Accordingly, we allow the application filed by the applicant with the following directions.

The Respondent No. 6 shall pay an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Forest Department within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and that amount shall be utilised by the Forest Department for the purpose of restoring the land of the applicant to its original position and the remaining amount if any shall be used for planting native trees in the area which shall be maintained by the Department till they are self sustainable.

In addition to the above each owner of the JCB machine as should be identified by the State, used for the excavation purpose shall be liable to pay Rs. 50,000, which shall be paid to the applicant towards the damages caused to the land of the applicant. The said amount shall be paid to the Forest Department which in turn shall forward the same to the applicant within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the above said two conditions are not complied within the time stipulated it will be open to the applicant to approach this Tribunal for further action to enforce the order. With the above said direction the application stands allowed in the above terms.

The Forest Department and the Government shall complete the process of restoration of land of the applicant expeditiously in any event within 4 weeks from the date when the 6th respondent deposit the amount.

At this point of time the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 has submitted that the time for complying with the directions given above may be extended by one more week or

10 days. Accordingly respecting the submissions expressed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 we direct that instead of one week or 10 days, for payment of amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, the time shall be 3 weeks.”

Order dated 16.07.2015 in MA 387/2015 is as follows:-

“Learned Counsel appearing for the State of HP submits that they would restore the land of the applicant affected by the action of Respondent no. 6 having taken out sand by means of illegal mining to its original position by making appropriate constructions after taking stability report. He further states that they would make appropriate construction to ensure that it sustains the weather and does not get washed away.

Respondent No. 6 has already paid a sum of Rs. Five Lakhs in terms of judgment of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2014.

We again direct the Respondent no. 6 – Mr. Ramesh Kumar to pay a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to the applicant being the amount payable at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-each JCB. The amount should be paid within four weeks from today. If now, Mr. Ramesh Kumar defaults, liberty to the applicant to file fresh application to the Tribunal on which the Tribunal would be compelled to take serious view of the default.

With the above directions, M.A. No. 387 of 2015 stands disposed of.”

Again, MA 11/2017 was filed against non compliance which was dealt with by order dated 19.06.2017 as follows:

“We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The D.F.O., Shimla is directed to visit the site and inform the Tribunal by filing personal affidavit, if the land of the Applicant is restored to its original position by the order dated 24th November, 2016.

In the meanwhile, we issue bailable warrant against Respondent No. 6 in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, in exercise of our powers and in terms of provision of Section 19(4) (a) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with order XVI Rule 10(3) and Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for securing their presence before the Tribunal on the next date.

List this matter on 10th August, 2017.

In the meanwhile, the Department may also construct the wall in order to ensure restoration of land to its original position and report before the Tribunal. The cost incurred may be recovered from the Respondent No. 6.

List this matter on 10th August, 2017.”

M.A. 11/2017 was disposed on 06.03.2018, passing following order:

“M.A. No. 11/2017 is filed seeking direction against Respondents to comply with order of this Tribunal.

Applicant is absent.

Learned counsel appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh is present she submits that she has been engaged recently as the former counsel has relinquished his assignment.

However, on perusal we find the Applicant had sought time to comply with the directions passed in COPC Case No. 387 of 2015 as well as order dated 01st November, 2014. It needs no mention that when orders are passed with a specific direction the Respondents against whom the such direction issued are required to comply with the same. Hence we dispose of M.A. No. 11 of 2017 directing the Respondents concerned to comply with order passed on 16th July, 2017 and 01st November, 2014 in COPC Case No. 387 of 2015.

Accordingly, M.A. No. 11 of 2017 stands disposed of without any order as to costs.”

Vide order dated 25.08.2022 in above EA, the Tribunal directed the Respondent No. 4, Divisional Forest officer (DFO) and Respondent No. 6, Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Tara Chand, r/o village Kothi Ogli, Tehsil Suni District, Shimla, HP to file their respective response.

DFO, Shimla has filed affidavit on 15.09.2022 that a sum of Rs.

5 lakhs was deposited by R-6, Ramesh Verma for restoration work of land of the applicant and restoration work was executed accordingly. However, there is no response about grievance of non payment of Rs.1.5 lac to the applicant. There is no appearance by respondent No.6.

In view of above, since order of this Tribunal dated 16.07.2015 in M.A. No. 387/2015 is executable as decree of Civil Court under Section 25 of the NGT Act, a copy thereof may be remitted to the District Judge, Shimla for being assigned to the concerned Civil Court for execution in accordance with Section 25 (2) of the NGT Act, 2010.

The Application is disposed of accordingly.”

We do not find any ground for passing any further order in the matter.

The Application is disposed of.