AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Government of Uttar Pradesh (in Short 'U.P.') set up a Cement Factory at Churk and Dalla in 1954 after acquiring 130.46 hectares of land vide Notification 160/18 dated 20th February, 1965. On 01st April, 1972 U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. (in short 'UPCCL') was incorporated. On the same day, all the assets owned by the Government Cement Factory at Churk and Dala were transferred to UPCCL by a transfer deed, executed between UPCCL and Government of U.P.. On 30th April, 1976 mining lease was granted to UPCCL for Dalla Lime Stone Mines over an area admeasuring 751 hectares in village Kota for a period of 20 years ending with 30th April, 1996. 1266 hectares of land in Markundi, Makribari and Beranchua villages was granted on mining lease to UPCCL on 29th January, 1977. Another mining lease was granted to UPCCL over 87 hectares of land in Panarai village on 24th October, 1974. All these leases provide a renewal clause.
On 01st January, 1967 a Notification was issued under Section 4 of Indian Forest Act (in short 'Forest Act') declaring the intention to constitute Reserved Forest admeasuring 399.51 hectares in village Makribari. On 29th September, 1969 and 21st December, 1973, Notifications were also issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act in respect of 18709.612 hectares in Village Panari. On 01st May, 1970, a Notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act in respect of 1680.400 hectares in village Markundi was also issued. On 30th January, 1977, Notification under Section 4 of the Forest was also issued declaring the intention to constitute Reserved Forest of around 2168 hectares of land in Kota village. On 02nd March, 1977 another Notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was also issued in respect of 19437.78 hectares in Kota Village. On 10th August, 1982, while the Notification under Section 4 dated 1st May, 1970 in respect of Markundi village was prevailing, vide Notification dated 10th August, 1982, 495.3 hectares, out of the 1680.400 hectares, was declared under Section 18(1) of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, including it in Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary. UPCCL became a sick industry in 1992 and came under liquidation, by order dated 08th December, 1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Company Application 4/97. On the recommendations of BIFR, UPCCL was wound up by the Hon'ble High Court. The assets of UPCCL were thereafter put to auction by the official liquidator. M/s. Jay Prakash Associates Ltd. (in short 'M/s. JAL') who quoted Rs. 459 Crores, was the highest bidder. It was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 30th January, 2006. By order dated 11th October, 2006, the sale was confirmed. The assets to be transferred to M/s. JAL included the Kajarahat (Kota) Lime Stone, having a total mining lease area of 815.82 hectare, Ghurma (Markundi/Makribari) Mines having a mining lease area of 1266 hectares and Panari (Ningha) Marble Mining lease, having a mining lease area of 87 hectares which originally belonged to Uttar Pradesh Cement Corporation and Bhalua Lime Stone having a mining lease area of 643.433 hectare, Julgul Mines having a mining lease area of 384 hectares and Bari Mines, having a mine lease area of 670.575 hectares, which originally belonged to UP State Mineral Development Corporation (in short 'UPSMDC'). The successful bidder M/s. JAL, filed Civil Miscellaneous Application 145925 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court for a direction to the State of U.P. to renew and transfer the mining leases detailed in the Memorandum of Information (MoI). By order dated 12th October, 2007, Hon'ble High Court disposed the said application directing that the mining lease of UPCCL will be renewed by the State Government in favour of M/s. UPCCL and transferred to M/s. JAL without any further delay and the entire formalities with regard to renewal of lease, including preparation of mining plans will be completed within a period of six weeks and the lease will be transferred to M/s. JAL within the same period either by the same order or by separate orders. It was further held that the objection of the State Government for renewal of the mining leases in respect of 1033.66 hectares out of 2168 hectares, the area covered under the mining leases, but included within the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, is not sustainable.
The state of U.P. from time to time had issued Notifications under Section 4 of the Forest Act declaring the intention to constitute the reserved forest in respect of about 7.89 lakhs area falling in Tehsil Dudhi and Robartganj. It was the subject matter of lis the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1061 of 1982 (Banwasi Seva Ashram Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgement dated 20th November, 1986 laid down a detailed procedure for settlement of claims, in respect of the land notified under Section 4 of the Forest, based on the grievances relating to the claims of the Adivasis living the Dudhi and Robertganj Tehsils in the District of Mirzapur. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that within six weeks from 01st July, 1986 the demarcation pillars shall be raised by the Forest Department identifying the land covered under the Notifications issued under section 4 of the Forest Act. The fact that Notifications had been published under Section 4 of the Forest Act and demarcating pillars have been raised in the locality to clearly identify the property subjected to the Notifications, shall be directed to be widely published by beat of drum in all the villages and copies of notices printed in Hindi will be circulated in abundant number through Gramasabhas, giving reasonable specifications which are covered by the notifications to enable the people of the area who are likely to be affected by the notifications to get the information as to whether their lands are affected by the notification, so as to enable them to decide whether any claim need to be filed. In regard to the lands notified under Section 4, but no notification of reserved forest under Section 20 of the Forest Act has been made, and no claim has been filed within the time specified in the notification as required Section 6(c) of the Forest Act, such claim shall be allowed to be filed. The demarcation shall be completed by 15th January, 1987. Within three months from that date, claims as contemplated under Section 6(c) shall be received. Adequate number of Record Officers shall be appointed by 31st December, 1986. Five experienced Additional District Judges are to be posted to exercise the powers of Appellate Authority as provided under Section 17 of the Forest Act. After the Forest Settlement Officer entered the findings, the records shall be placed before the Additional District Judge of the area, even though no appeal is filed. The appeals are to be disposed by the Additional District Judge. When the Appellate Authority finds that the claim is admissible, the State Government shall honour it and proceed to implement the same. Until the determination by the Appellate Authority, Status Quo as then stood was directed to be continued and it was directed not to notify under Section 20 of the Act in respected of these lands, till the matter was decided by the Additional District Judge. Pursuant to the said directions, the Forest Settlement Officers decided the claims and they were examined by the Additional District Judges as Appellate Authority, either in appeal filed by the parties or suo-moto, in respect of 433 villages, except 12 villages. In village Kota and Obra (Panari) also, after elaborate settlement of rights, decisions were finally made, which include the mining lease area of UPCCL and UPSDMC which were later transferred to M/s. JAL in the auction sale.
The details of the said villages, the dates of decisions made by the Forest Settlement Officer and the Additional Judges are as follows:-
Sl. No.
Name of the Village
FSO Case & Order Date
DJ Case & Order Date
1.
Kota
3884/91 Dated 16.04.1992
4766/92 Dated 28.10.1993
2.
Kota
3875/91 Dated 16.04.1992
4760/92 Dated 28.10.1993
3.
Kota
11272/91 Dated 16.04.1992
4771/92 Dated 28.10.1993
4.
Kota
11236/91 Dated 10.03.1992
3866/92 Dated 02.07.1993
5.
Kota
3876/91 Dated 24.04.1992
4845/92 Dated 07.10.1993
6.
Kota
3169/91 Dated 31.03.1992
4382/92 Dated 16.09.1993
7.
Kota
3883/91 Dated 16.04.1992
4401/92 Dated 17.09.1993
8.
Kota
3156/91 Dated 31.03.1992
4416/92 Dated 20.10.1993
9.
Kota
3186/91 Dated 30.03.1992
4415/92 Dated 20.10.1993
10.
Kota
3050/91 Dated 31.03.1992
4375/92 Dated 16.09.1993
11.
Kota
-
226/94 Dated 08.02.1996
12.
Kota
11235/91 Dated 20.07.1992
4027/92 Dated 21.12.1993
13.
Kota
4053/91 Dated 25.03.1992
3902/92 Dated 06.07.1993
14.
Kota
-
Rev. 762/94 Dated 08.02.1996
15.
Kota
4115/91 Dated 25.03.1992
3976/93 Dated 06.07.1993
16.
Kota
11161/91 Dated 28.12.1992
-
17.
Obra (Panari)
2945/91 Dated 02.05.1991
1257/91 Dated 28.09.1993
18.
Obra (Panari)
2970/91 Dated 04.05.1991
1282/91 Dated 28.04.1993
19.
Obra (Panari)
2864/91 Dated 02.05.1991
1176/91 Dated 28.09.1993
20.
Obra (Panari)
2933/91 Dated 18.04.1991
1245/91 Dated 30.04.1994
21.
Obra (Panari)
2565/91 Dated 02.05.1991
877/91 Dated 30.04.1994
22.
Obra (Panari)
2963/91 Dated 18.04.1991
1275/91 Dated 29.09.1993
23.
Obra (Panari)
2635/91 Dated 02.05.1991
947/91 Dated 06.08.1993
24.
Obra (Panari)
2665/91 Dated 01.05.1991
977/91 Dated 30.04.1994
25.
Obra (Panari)
2909/91 Dated 02.05.1991
1221/91 Dated 30.09.1993
26.
Obra (Panari)
2934/91 Dated 01.05.1991
1246/91 Dated 30.04.1994
27.
Obra (Panari)
2941/91 Dated 02.05.1991
1253/91 Dated 30.04.1994
Based on a letter received by the Central Empowered Committee (in short 'CEC') appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CEC informed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P., letter dated 08th September, 2008 to ensure that no land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is allowed to be used/leased for mining and other non-forest uses, without first obtaining approval under the Forest Conservation Act 1980 (in short 'FC Act) and the permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the dereservation. It was also stated that the same should be ensured, even if the Forest Settlement Officer has decided for delineation of the area.
The CEC examined the entire matter in detail and submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the following recommendations dated 07th August, 2009:-
i. The orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer for exclusion of 1083.231 ha. of area notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, from the Reserved Forest should be set aside. All these areas should be included in the Reserved Forest. The renewal/transfer of mining leases in favour of M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. should be allowed only after obtaining the approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act for the above areas. In respect of the area of the mining lease falling in Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary, the renewal/transfer should be allowed only if the permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also received.
ii. All permissions granted for grant/renewal of the mining leases and other non-forestry activities on areas notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act and for which the settlement of rights was earlier done as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement dated 20.11.1986 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1061 of 1982 should immediately be revoked by the State of U.P. It should be ensured that all non-forestry activities, including mining thereon are immediately stopped; and
iii. The notifications issued under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act in respect of village falling in Tehsil Dudhi and Robertganj should be modified so as to include areas originally decided to be kept as Reserved Forest under the settlement proceedings carried out as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1061 of 1982. These will include areas excluded on the ground that they are under existing/proposed mining leases.
In Writ Petition 202/1995, (T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others) State of U.P. filed the IA 2469/09 raising the following prayers:-
"A. Permit the State Government to renew the mining leases to comply with the judgement of Hon'ble High Court dated 12.10.2007 as the lands for mining purpose fall under the category of non-forest land after the settlement under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
B. That the relief regarding non-forest purpose is being claimed for the land not notified under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act and the notification of Section 20 issued on 25.11.2008 (Annexure A-5) may kindly be confirmed."
The State of U.P. in the application contended that the aim of setting of UPCCL was mainly to develop cement industry in the belt where limestone was available. It was set up dry process slack cement plant in place of wet process and to install split location plant having clinkerisation at Dala and Chunar. Unfortunately being unable to meet the rising cost of input and increased competition in the market, UPCCL became a sick industry in 1992 and by the orders of Hon'ble High Court in Company Application 4/97, it was wound up on 08th December, 1999. The assets of UPCCL was put to auction and successfully purchased by M/s. JAL. In the advertisement inviting bidders, two types of properties were shown, firstly free hold properties, secondly the leased properties. M/s. JAL after depositing amount of auction demanded renewal of mining lease. The Hon'ble High Court on 12th October, 2007 held that the purchaser of the assets, with express promise of mining leases of the company in liquidation, is not asking for grant of fresh leases or bringing fresh areas, either intended to be declared or declared as forest for the purpose of mining. It is a case of renewal and transfer of expired mining leases in the area, which were prospected by the UPCCL, since 1976 upto February, 1998, after which production was stopped due to commercial losses. Objection of the State Government for renewal of mining leases in respect of 1033.66 hectares, on the ground that it is covered by notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act as such cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble High Court also directed the State Government to renew the leases in favour of UPCCL and transfer them to M/s. JAL without any further delay with a direction to complete preparation of mining plan within a period of 6 weeks and to transfer the same to M/s. JAL either by the same orders or by separate orders. The State of U.P. also contended that notification under Section 4 of Forest Act is an expression of intention to acquire the land for forest and a complete procedure is provided under Section 6 to 19 and Section 20 provides the ultimate final declaration. The notification under Section 20 regarding all the lands mentioned in the notification under Section 4 had not been issued and till Section 20 notification is issued, the land would not be deemed to be a reserved forest area and therefore there was no occasion for the State Government to approach the CEC, or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, before issuing final notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act. In the meanwhile, the notice dated 08th September, 2008 issued by CEC was received by the State Government calling for comments on the allegation that land covered under Section 4 is a forest land and therefore permission of Central Government is necessary. It is contended that mining leases of the land falling under the category of non-forest land, after the settlement by Forest Settlement Officer under the provision of Forest Act, has not been renewed. It was also contended that the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12th December, 1996 in NTPC case is confined to forest, as defined by the Hon'ble Court in the said Judgment and the definition given in different judgments, in particular NTPC case, will not apply, as they would apply only to the lands statutorily recognised forest, lands recorded as forest in the revenue record and such land which can the termed to be forest as per its dictionary meaning.
It is their case that Section 4 of the Forest Act cannot be read in isolation but is to be read with the aid of other sections of the Forest Act and a perusal of Section 4 to 20 would reveal that after issuance of notification Section 4, a person as notified may object that the land should not be declared as reserved forest. In case he succeeds to show that the land is not a forest land, the same will settle with him. The disputed lands were being used for mining activity. Forest Settlement Officers after due process of settlement reached the conclusion that certain land is not a forest land. The Government has to fulfill its obligation arising out of the auction proceedings. Since the matter of lands has now been settled and certain land has been held to be out of the preview of the reserved forest, no permission of Central Government is needed with regard to the same. It was contended that the transfer of mining leases, with relief and concessions constitute the essential and integral part of the component and the reliefs and concessions were extended by way of special consideration in the larger interest of the State to keep the industry running, making production and providing employment to the people. Therefore without renewal of the mining leases it is not possible to carry on the activity and the whole process will be frustrated. Notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act will not convert a land into a land of Forest area. After the decisions of Settlement Officers, the consequential order for non-forestry purpose is required only for the portion of the land falling within the area notification issued under Section 20 and not for the excluded portion. It is on these contentions of the State sought to the reliefs stated earlier.
On 17th January, 2007 M/s. JPA preferred claim petitions under Section 9 and 11 of the Forest Act, before the Forest Settlement Officers (in short 'FSO') for the lands covered by the mining leases in village Kota, Panari, Markundi and Makribari, for exclusion of the said area from the notification issued under Section 4. The Forest Department filed objections explaining the factual position, including the decisions taken in respect of the land earlier which have already attained finality. The FSO on 05th February, 2007 dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the FSO has already completed the settlement and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order and therefore it is not competent to entertain fresh claims. The records were sent to the Appellant Court. As Additional District Judge was not posted at that time, District Judge, Sonbhadra by order dated 27th August, 2007 finding that M/s. JAL was not a party in the earlier proceedings and therefore the finding of the FSO that in view of the earlier decisions he cannot entertain the application filed by M/s. JAL, is not sustainable. The decision of the Forest Settlement Officer was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh settlement, Forests Settlement Officer by order dated 19th September, 2007 the FSO after remand, upheld the claims and directed to exclude the lands from the notification issued under Section 4. Suo-moto appeal was again sent to the District Judge. By order dated 07th January, 2008, the District Judge confirmed the order of the Forest Settlement Officer and upheld the exclusion of the area from section 4 of notification. The area included 599.211 hectares of land of Obra Forest Division, 230.844 hectares of land of Sonbhadra Forest Division and 253.176 hectares of land of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, being a total of 1083.231 hectares.
Later State of U.P. changed their stand and filed an additional affidavit dated 01st May, 2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court praying that "since the matter involves larger public interest involved, including a majority population of tribal and backward communities, as well as ecological benefits due to the involvement of a large area of forest land which will have direct implications on the sustainable environment management of the area and ecological benefits, IA 2469 of 2009 filed earlier be disposed off in the light of the submissions and the recommendations of the CEC". The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to number the additional affidavit as IA 3877 of 2015. The State in the said additional affidavit filed by Shri Sunil Pandey, Secretary of Forest contended that the CEC submitted its recommendation on 07th August, 2009 and thereafter an affidavit on behalf of Union of India was filed, wherein the Ministry was in agreement with the findings and recommendations of the CEC and on such facts and circumstances, the State Government reviewed the matter and found that settlement of rights in 433 villages lying south of Kaimur hill range, including the four villages which are subject matter in the case, have already been settled in the light of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20th November, 1986 in Banwasi Seva Ashram case. In the settlement proceedings carried out by the FSOs in 2007-2008, on the basis of the claim filed by the M/s. JAL, overlooked the fact that the settlement in the concerned villages have already been carried out earlier in 1986 and those decisions have attained finality. Mining being a commercial as well as non-forest activity, requires permission under the FC Act. Hence provisions of the FC Act will have to be followed. The area measuring 253.176 hectare of Markundi village fall in Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary. As per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no area of any protected sanctuary, can be denotified without the consent of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Board for Wildlife. Yet the FSO excluded 253.176 hectares which falls within the Wildlife Sanctuary and settled claims in favour of M/s. JAL and it is bad in law. All the forest areas of the state are managed on the basis of working plans, which prescribes the various operations for the improvement and management on a sustainable basis so that the benefit can accrue from forests. Revised Working Action Plan which has been submitted to MoEF on 22nd February, 2013 have not been approved on account of exclusion of 1083.231 hectare. Hence management of forest is being affected, causing not only loss of financial resources to the State but loss of livelihood to the local villagers having significant impact on the ecological balance and tribal rights and concessions. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India in Audit Memo No. 19 of 19th March, 2012 have mentioned a loss of Rs. 409.09 Crore to the State. The exclusion of large area from Section 4 of notification, has resulted loss of forest land. In view of the said facts State Government realised that a request is to be made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to dispose the matter in the light of the recommendations of the CEC.
The Ministry of Environment and Forest (in short 'MoEF') through the Conservator of Forest, Central Regional Office, Lucknow filed an affidavit in I.A. No. 2469 of 2009, submitting that he was appointed as the Inquiry Officer in the matter by CEC and he submitted four reports and thus conversant with the facts of the case. It was contended that in respect of above 7.89 Acres of land in Tehsil Dudhi and Robertganj, issued notifications from time to time under Section 4 of the Forest Act which was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1061 of 1982.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued various directions by orders dated 20th November, 1986, and later on 08th February, 1989. Referring the said orders it was contended that the land which are subject to the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act would also come within the purview of Section 2 of the FC Act, 1980 and therefore it would be necessary to obtain appropriate clearance under that Act from the appropriate Authority. Pursuant to the above orders the process of settlement of rights by the Forest Settlement Officer and Suo-moto examination of the decisions of the Forest Settlement Officer and by the Additional Judges as Appellate Authorities had taken place in all 430 villages. By 1993-1994 except 12 villages the settlement of the remaining were completed. In the villages Kota and Obra (Panari) where the mining leases of UPCCL and USDMC before transfer to M/s. JAL are located, elaborate process of settlement of rights in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court took place.
As per the information provided by the State of Uttar Pradesh, forest area falling in the mining leases to be transferred to M/s. JAL have so far been broken for mining by UPCCL. The details of the areas broken for mining by UPCCL are Kota (Kajarahat) 44.99 hectares, Kota Padrach Nil, Obra (Panari) 3.53 hectares Makribari Nil the total being 48.52 hectares. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed the settlement progress and passed an order on 18th July, 1994 that "it has been stated by Justice Loomba in his 14th report that an area about 26947 acres in about 12 villages covered by notification Section 4 of Forest Act, as in fact being dealt with under Section 54 of U.P. land revenue Act. We direct revenue Secretary, Govt. of U.P. to set up special officers to deal with this area in terms of our order dated 20th November, 1986. We further directed revenue Secretary to implement the decisions given by the Forest Additional District Judges in various appeals and review decided by the Learned Judges. We close the proceedings of this case. We however, give liberty to parties to approach this court as and when become necessary to do so for obtaining necessary directions". According to the MoEF after the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18th July, 1994, the Government of U.P. vide Office Memorandum dated 21st July, 1995 appointed Shri Shivbux Lal, Assistant Record Officer, Sonbhadra as Special Officer for remaining 12 villages. It clearly shows that settlement process were completed and appeals were decided in 421 villages out of 433 villages as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore there was no further scope for re-settlements of forest land.
The UPCCL, having thousands of employees working in Limestone Mining situated inside the forests area, filed various claims under Section 6 of the Forest Act before the FSO such as a Forest Settlement case 3891/1991 and 5020/1992, in which Shri Bhagwat Singh, Clerk appeared for UPCCL on 28th October, 1992 and sought for exclusion of 164.513 hectares, the FSO passed an order for the exclusion of 164.513 hectares, from the Section 4 notified land in favour of UPCCL. It was therefore clear that settlement process were completed as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram case. But the FSO Shri B.K. Srivastava after a gap of more than 15 years heard the case filed by M/s. JAL under Section 7, 9 &
The act the FSO was without jurisdiction, as settlement process were completed and even appeal was finalized under Section 17 of the Forest Act. Shri B.K. Srivastava could have heard the forest settlement cases, only in respect of the remaining 12 villages. The said FSO thereafter in various appeals filed by M/s. JAL passed orders excluding 1083.231 hectares, in orders in Forest Settlement cases 180/353, 181/354, 386/388, 395/397, 396/398, 399/401 and 398/400 dated 25th January, 2008. These orders were confirmed by orders dated 07th January, 2008, 10th July, 2008, 14th July, 2008 and 16th July, 2008 respectively. It is surprising that the State Government, which did not issue notification under Section 20 even after lapse of 12-15 years of confirmation of the areas under Section 17 of the Forest Act instructed by letter dated 14th February, 2008 to submit draft notification under Section 20 within two days of the orders excluding 1083.23 hectares from the forest land in favour of M/s. JAL. The FSO could not have excluded the notified land under Section 4, under Section 11, by which only claims of community rights, rights of way or rights of pasture or rights of various produce or water course only could have been excluded. The State of U.P. did not provide Government pleaders to the Forest Department in respect of the various cases filed by M/s. JAL. The special prosecutor (Forest) was not allowed by the FSO to represent. The facts submitted by the Government counsel that the disputed plot was never a forest land and accepting the case that since 1372 disputed plot was entered as mountain and the disputed plot is not under the category, as described in Section 3 of the FC Act, and therefore it was irregularly notified under Section 4 and the disputed plot is not fit for being declared as a reserved forest. These facts are totally false and fabricated. Notification under Section 4 was issued by the Forest Department of State of U.P. after proper scrutiny. Many areas recorded as jungle in revenue records have good forest density upto 0.9. Photographs taken in May, 2009 shows good quality miscellaneous forest in the land excluded by the FSO. The forest area of Makribari village is part of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary notified on 10th August, 1982 by which a total of 495.3 hectare of Makribari Reserve Forest is included in the Sanctuary. The said land could not been excluded by the FSO. By order dated 25th January, 2008, the FSO excluded 253.176 hectares in FS case 398/400. The said order is without jurisdiction and in violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13th November, 2000 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed pending further orders, no dereservation of forest/sanctuary/national park shall be affected. 399.51 hectares of land of Makribari villages is notified under Section 20 of Forest Act as a reserved forests by then Secretary (Forest) notification dated 26th February, 1986. However FSO, Sonbhadra in Case No. 399/401 dated 07th January, 2008, excluded 230.44 hectares, despite its non-confirmation by District Judge and State Government arbitrarily reduced the forest area by notification dated 25th November, 2008. The exclusion of 1083.27 hectares by FSO and their confirmation by the Additional District Judge was illegal. So also the change of the status of the forest in revenue record to non-forest land is illegal and in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavaran Vs. Union of India dated 12th December, 1986. The change of status of the forest land in revenue records is also contrary to the directions of the MoEF. It has resulted in monetary benefit to M/s. JAL due to non-payment of money of NPV, compensatory aforestation and development of tribal and wildlife to the tune of Rs. 409 Crores namely NPV 192.80 Crores, cost of non-forest land being Rs. 133.78 Crores, cost of penal compensatory afforestation Rs. 21.64 Crores and cost of development of tribal and wildlife of Rs. 50 Crores. On receipt of the complaints the Divisional Commissioner, Mirzapur was directed to enquire the matter. The Divisional Commissioner constituted a committee who submitted inquiry report on 07th June, 2008 which was accepted by the Divisional Commissioner. The disputed land is reserved forest land. Seven cases which were decided by FSO relate to the land owned by the Central Government. Shri B.K. Srivastava, the FSO was found to be guilty and recommendations submitted to take punitive and criminal proceedings against him. Pursuant to the application filed by the State of U.P., CEC was directed to submit a report on the facts along with the recommendations. The recommendations submitted by the CEC is accepted by the Ministry of Environment & Forest. Shri Balram Singh, the applicant in Original Application in Writ Petition 130 of 2011, filed a complaint before the Hon'ble Prime Minister dated 23rd October, 2009 that 24,000 hectares of forest area, have been excluded from notified forest in favour of M/s. JAL for unauthorized construction of J.P. Super Cement Plant project, illegal mining and other non-forest activities. It was forwarded to Secretary, MoEF. The CCFL (Central) Regional office deputed Mr. Y.K. Singh Chauhan as an Inquiry Officer. He conducted inquiry and submitted the recommendations including action to be taken against the concerned. By letter dated 01st June, 2010, the Divisional Forest Officer, Obra was directed to immediately stop and explain what action has been taken by the Divisional Officer for illegal construction by M/s. J.P. Super Cement Plant. The Divisional Forest Officer informed that construction is being carried on plot 3200 instead of excluded plots from Section 4 notified area. M/s. JAL was directed to stop further construction immediately. In the reply M/s. JAL denied violation and contended that it has stated in the tender document that the freehold land did not have any forest and mining activity is taking place on it. The 35 hectares of land in plot 3200 is a freehold land owned by M/s. JAL and is not a lease hold land. These assets were sold to M/s. JAL, being a successful bidder on as a whole and as is where is and whatever their basis and as a going concern. Repair of the roads have been undertaken only on the free hold land. The recommendations submitted by CEC are not the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the matter is subjudice. The prayer of the State of U.P. to exclude 1083.231 hectares, include the land within the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary. By letter dated 27th March, 2009 and 10th June, 2009 Regional Office of MoEF requested the Principal Secretary, Forest U.P. to stop illegal construction and other non-forest activity being carried out by M/s. JAL is in violation of FC Act. Still no action was taken. On 08th September, 2008 the CEC requested the U.P. Forest Department to ensure that no land notified under Section 4 is allowed to be used/leased for mining and other non-forest uses without first obtaining the approval from Central Government under the FC Act and the permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for dereservation of the same. Regional Office, MoEF issued various letters requesting the Chief Conservator of Forest, Mirzapur, U.P. and PCCF, U.P. to stop the illegal construction and non-forest activity carried out by M/s. JAL. However, no effective steps were taken. The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 10th December, 2012, directing renewal of the lease in respect of 1033.66 hectares was not challenged by the State of U.P. As per the guidelines and clarification for Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, published by the Government of India, MoEF on June 2004, under 1.1(i) lands which are notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act would also come within the preview of the FC Act. These guidelines and clarifications were approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01st August, 2003 in I.A. No. 944 and 800 and was directed that the Central Government to take appropriate decision after examining the same in accordance with Act, Rules framed there under guidelines on National Forest Policy, 1988. When the State Government has violated the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has not complied with the order dated 12th December, 1996, their prayer in I.A. 2469 of 2009 can only be dismissed. The Ministry sought direction staying further construction of J.P. Super Cement Plant in Kota Reserve Forest on plot 3200 and not to allow non-forest activities in plot 3205, 3206 and 3211.
M/s. JAL in response to the said affidavit filed by MoEF, filed a counter affidavit contending that in terms of the notification dated 14th September, 2006 they applied for grant of Environmental Clearance not for just revival of operation of the factory of UPPC, but for its new Cement Plant on plot 3200 of Village Kota, District Sonbhadra also. They sought site clearance as well as Environmental Clearance for factory. It was granted by letter dated 29th September, 2008. The grant of Environmental Clearance was preceded by Terms of Reference and detailed inquiry by expert agency culminating in preparation of Environment Impact Assessment Report, Public hearing undertaken in the area in question. It was thereafter clearance was granted. The area includes the mining lease areas which have been promised to be renewed and transferred in favour of M/s. JAL. As Environmental Clearance was granted, there was no requirement to take any clearance either from CEC or under the provision of Forest Act. Similar exercise was undertaken in respect of proposed new cement plant to be established on plot 3200 of village Kota. After completion of the process as envisaged in the EIA Notification, clearance was granted by the Ministry on 30th September, 2010. The said clearance also do not require to obtain any further clearance from either CEC or from appropriate authority under the provision of FC Act. As the proposed factory is within 10 Kms. radial distance of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, condition was imposed to obtain clearance from National Board of Wildlife in accordance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation case. Pursuant to the order M/s. JAL approached to the State Wildlife Board, which granted approval dated 24th November, 2010. The grant of clearance to the said project is under consideration by the National Board for Wildlife. In this background the Ministry had changed the stand for unknown reason. The order dated 20th November, 1986 in Banwasi Seva Ashram laid down special procedure to safeguard the interest of those persons who were otherwise unable to seek redressal from the courts of law. But such directions cannot override the provisions of the FC Act. The observations therein do not apply to the lands, which are no longer included in the notification under Section 4 of the Act, in view of the orders passed by the FSO and the Additional District Judge. As far as M/s. JAL is concerned, the mining leases were promised to be renewed and transferred in terms of the details in para 4 of the MoI forming part of bid documents circulated by the official liquidator acting under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, irrespective of the extent which mining may have been undertaken by the UPCCL. The Government cement factory was established in 1954 and these mining blocks have been envisaged is to be inclusive. It is evident from the duly approved mining plan. In fact the Government cement factory itself is located in this area. The Government cement factory had carried out mining activity uninterrupted from 1954 till the production was stopped in 1999-2000 in the freehold, UPCCL established township, administrative offices, township for employees, hospitals, schools, stackers reclaimers etc. The figures of broken area did not take into account the facilities which were otherwise established over the plots. The order relied on by the Ministry is the only proceedings, where the UPCCL have participated in the settlement of proceedings initiated by the Forest Settlement Officer. There are sufficient reasons for non-participation by UPCCL. The primary reason was closure, because of the agitation of the workers. In fact the agitation took a violent turn on 02nd June, 1991 when the police had to open fire causing the death of nine labourers. In 1991-1992 agitation came to such a stage that on several occasions police authorities had to open fire. In such a situation UPCCL could not have participated in the survey undertaken by the district officials. If such a survey was carried out, it cannot be imagined that the factory and the mining areas and the other constructions would not have been omitted so as to include them in Section 4 notification.
The allegation of collusion was denied. The sale of assets of UPCCL was undertaken by official liquidator acting under orders of the Court. Neither the bid document nor the MoI indicated or disclosed any forest land. State did not take steps to renew the mining lease. The FSO originally reflected the claims of M/s. JAL. It was on remand the claims were later upheld and they were confirmed by the District Judge. The stone pillars in the area were placed pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 13th December, 2006.
It was under Section 9, M/s. JAL filed claims before the Forest Settlement Officer, as no claim has been preferred earlier under Section 6 to the knowledge of M/s. JAL and no notification under Section 20 was issued, M/s. JAL is within the right to prefer the claim before the FSO in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court till the final notification under Section 20 is issued and the land continue to be under notified area and the Forest Settlement Officer is competent to decide the application on merits. As the order against the disputed land were passed earlier ex-parte without affording opportunity to UPCCL, the principles of res judicata will not apply. In fact the notification issued under Section 4, include the land, which have been acquired by the State earlier for the Cement Factory. Therefore M/s. JAL is entitled to take recourse to Section 9 and matter was enquired subsequently and the lands were excluded by the FSO. The lands excluded at the behest of M/s. JAL constituted only 8% of the total land excluded. Out of 38548.102 hectares notified under Section 4, till the publishing of the notification under Section 20, 8774.532 hectares were excluded. The land excluded under the behest of M/s. JAL is only 778.99 hectares. Though a draft notification under Section 20 appears to have been drawn up in 1986, the same was not notified and published in the financial gazette. Actually survey and record operations could be undertaken only in 1991-1992. Thereafter matter also remained pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The State of U.P. thereafter issued directions for the publication under Section 20, by communication dated 12th September, 2008. The actual notification came to be published in financial gazette on 25th November, 2008. The disputed lands were not included in the said notification. The freehold land was not liable to be included under Section 4 as they do not stand covered by any category of land provided in Section 3 of the FC Act. The special Public Prosecutor (Forest) was not authorized to represent the department as indicated by the District Judge on 29th May, 2007. If the Forest department thought it is necessary and appropriate, steps should have been taken to obtain necessary clearances and approval. The disputed lands do not stand included in the report that the State Government prepared with respect to forest area pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12th December, 1996. Even the Survey of India map including land plan, photographs extract of EIA report establish that the disputed lands do not answer the description of forest. Although notification for setting up the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary was issued on 10th August, 1982, no survey of demarcation of the said sanctuary had been undertaken. This fact was taken note of by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Kamal Kumar Pande Vs. State of U.P.. In any case with regard to the area covered under the wildlife sanctuary M/s. JAL has to take proper clearance required under law as incorporated in the Environment Clearance. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13th November, 2000 dealt with the issue of dereservation of forest which pre-suppose existence of the reserved forest. As Section 20 notification has not been issued, dereservation has no application. The order dated 12th December, 1996 make it clear that the entries in revenue records should be one, existing for long time. None of the tender documents or documents prepared by the official liquidator, under the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad given any indication of the leasehold and freehold rights of UPCCL was affected by any notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. Instead the tender document assert that none of the lands are forest lands. The issue of lands in question, being affected by the notification under Section 4 was raised for first time by the State of U.P. when they expressed inability to renew and transfer the mining lease. The area excluded at the behest of the M/s. JAL was pertains to only 778.99 hectare and not 1083.23 hectare. No part of the area 178.99 hectare falls within the boundary of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary till demarcation take place. It is not known on what basis the Secretary (Forest) directed all construction activities on plot 3400 have immediately stopped. The decision of U.P. not to challenge order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 12th October, 2007 is based upon the legal opinion. That the decision was bonafide taken in the larger public interest. While constituting reserve forest it is open for the State Government to include not just forest land but also waste land or any other land having proprietary right, in the reserve forest. It is thus clear that mere including land under Section 4 does not if ipsofacto compel one to arrive to the conclusion that the land is forest land. M/s. JAL from in October, 2006 till the filing IA 2939/2010 had spent Rs. 2100 Crores, towards the modernization and refurbishing of plant and machinery of UPCCL to seek revival operation.
M/s JAL filed IA No. 2939/2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court praying for a direction to the State of U.P to renew and transfer the mining leases as promised to the Applicant and detailed in the MOI issued by the Official Liquidator, UP and Uttarakhand and to declare the right of the Applicant to be granted renewal and transfer of mining leases as promised in the Court sale confirmed in its favor, without any fetters or encumbrances.
Cases of M/s JAL in their Application is that the State Government issued Global Notices notifying offers for the purchase of the assets of UPCCL, which also provided various reliefs and concessions to the successful bidder, which inter alia include exemption from payment of trade tax, exemption from payment of royalty on minerals as well as renewal and transfer of various mining leases detailed in part IV of the MOI. The Applicant and others submitted the bid based on the promise of renewal and transfer of various limestone leases present in the area in question, which had been developed right from 1952 as 'captive mines' of the factory of UPCCL. These limestone mines represented the only limestone deposit available in the State of U.P. Post confirmation of the sale in favour of the Applicant, they moved the State to renew and transfer various mining leases as detailed in the MOI in respect of which Application for renewal had already been submitted before the State Government by UPCCL before commencing of the liquidation proceedings The Applicant was surprised to learn later that Notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act include not only areas comprised in the promised mining lease, but also free hold land of UPCCL as also the land on which existed administrative, offices, hospitals, residential township, crusher plants, rope ways etc. The Applicant approached the Forest Settlement Officer for exclusion of the affected area from the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. Pursuant to the proceedings of the Forest Settlement Officer, the Applications/Objections made by the Applicant came to be allowed and the affected areas were excluded from the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. The Orders of the Forest Settlement Officer were taken before the Additional District Judge concerned in suo-moto Appeal as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram & others. These proceedings have since attained finality having not been challenged by any party till date. Applicant approached the Hon'ble Company Judge of the High Court, who by Order dated 12.10.2007 directed the State Government to renew and transfer the mining lease in favour of the Applicant as promised. Pursuant to the directions, the State Government renewed Dala mining lease for 370 hectares against the 751 hectares as promised and 713 hectares of Ghurma Mines against 1266 hectares, as promised in the tender documents. The mining leases so renewed were those which were not included under Section 4 Notification and also those areas which had earlier been included but later stood excluded. The lands which were not excluded, the lease was neither renewed earlier nor renewed or transferred to the Applicant till date. About this time, CEC received some complaint based on which, it issued Notice to the Chief Conservator of Forest to ensure that land notified under Section 4, is not leased out to the applicant without obtaining the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, pursuant to the confirmation of the sale, possession of the unit and assets of the company in liquidation were made over to M/s. JAL. Sale certificates were also issued by the Official Liquidator in its favour. The factory of the applicant commenced commercial production on 01.04.2008. M/s. JAL thereafter made further investment amounting to approximately Rs. 2141.12 crores towards refurbishment of plant and machinery, installation of new plant and machinery and other works for restarting the plant, which had been lying closed right from 1998. Approximately 2010 officers and employees are working there. The operations of the plant also provide indirect employment to approximately 5000 persons, apart from making available indirect employment opportunity to the residents of the entire region. The factories of the company were situated in a backward region where agriculture was never the main source of livelihood, due to the nature of soil and topography. At the time when UPCCL shut down its factories, it caused a loss of employment of 6000 workers. Rs. 459 crores deposited by M/s. JAL with the Official Liquidator has since been disbursed amongst the workers and secured creditors. Out of the amount deposited, Rs. 305.63 crores has been distributed amongst the secured creditors, Rs. 116.34 crores had been distributed amongst the workers, the balance was accounted towards liquidation expenses. M/s. JAL had paid some of Rs. 17.25 crores towards Central Excise and Service Tax dues. These are shown in a list. The comparative chart of mineral reserve between the promised (MoI) and leased out reserve. The mineral reserve as per MOI which was promised was 231.175 million tons which is comprised in an area of 3949.780 hectares. The area actually made over to M/s. JAL is only 2400.622. The limestone reserve in the area leased to M/s. JAL is only 59.870 million tons. According to M/s. JAL, the District of Sonbhadra and Mirzapur are the only places where limestone deposits were found in the State of UP. It was to exploit the said deposit that in 1952 and 1954, a Government cement factory was commissioned by the State at Churkh. The factory was established to exploit the limestone deposits in areas now commonly known as the Ghurma mines. To establish a second unit at Dala, the State issued Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.01.1964 and 22.02.1965 acquiring initially 1.67 acres. It was followed by another set of land acquisition notifications on 20.02.1965 and 30.03.1965 acquiring respectively 320.46 acres in village Kota. The cement factory at Dala came to be commissioned in 1969 and 1971. The factory commenced commercial production using limestone obtained from the area now called Dala Limestone Mines. It also utilized marble which was mined at Ningha Marble Mines. On 29.03.1972, UPCCL was incorporated with the State Government as the sole shareholder. By order dated 31.03.1972, State of U.P transferred the assets of the existing cement factories to vest in the UPCCL with effect from 01.04.1972. On or about 25.10.1972, applications were made by the UPCCL for grant of mining lease for areas falling in Dala limestone, Ningha Marbles Mines and Ghurma Mines. The leases were granted on 24.10.1972, 21.10.1972 and 29.01.1977 respectively. Formal lease deeds were executed in respect of 751 hectares of the Dala Limestone Mines for a period of 20 years i.e. from 30.04.1976 to 30.04.1996. Similar lease deed in respect of 1266 hectares of Ghurma Limestone Mines was executed on 27.09.1978 for the period 27.09.1978 to 26.09.1998. Mining lease deed for Ningha Marble Mines measuring 87 hectares was executed on 12..03.1987 for the period 12.03.1987 to 11.03.1987. Consequent to the promulgation of abolition of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950, Zamindari in the State came to be abolished but the abolition of Zamindari in different areas of the State is to become effective from different dates as notified. As far as the area in which the cement factory of UPCCL was existing, the abolition of Zamindari came into effect on 30.06.1953. The area falling south of Kalmur range, the entire forest area formed part of the Kingdom of the then Vijaygarh State. When the Zamindari was abolished, the entire Kingdom was handed over by the Revenue Authorities of State of Uttar Pradesh, to the Forest Department of the State. However, no land records in these areas were compiled or properly maintained. Therefore, the land which was to vest in the appropriate local bodies were never classified, categorized or recorded in the Revenue records. The State did not inherit any revenue record worthy of acceptance from the erstwhile Zamindari. The management of these mines was based on the Government Notification dated 10.10.1953, which provided that forest of 50 acres or more which were found to be contiguous to the Government forests were to be handed over to the forest Department for management. The Forest land which is the uncultivable area would be surplus of the need of the Gaon Sabha would be taken over by the Forest Department. The area in question thus, came to be vested in the Gaon Sabha in terms of Section 117 of U.P Zamindari Abolition Act and Land Reforms Act, 1950 by Notification dated 18.06.1958. This Notification was later repealed when a fresh notification under Section 117 of the Notification dated 23.02.1965 was issued. In the absence of proper documents and records of title maintained by the erstwhile Zamindari as well as Revenue Department of the state, persons found to be in possession asserted rights over the land and the area saw widespread encroachments. No settlement operations were carried out in the area. It was in this background of uncertainty to protect the areas falling under the management of Forest Department that the first notifications of Forest Act came to issued on 01.01.1967 and 29.09.1969. The first notification covered areas falling in the Ghurma mines while the second notification covered areas falling in Ningha Marble Mines. The Maheshwar Prasad Committee had gone into these aspects and recorded that in forest areas residential land, agriculture land and cultivable land were put under the control of the Forest Department in several areas. Actual land of the tenant were also placed under the control of the Forest Department and erroneously notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Committee therefore, recommended for fresh settlements operations to be undertaken in the entire region. The Assistant Record Officer, Obra on 23.01.1971 passed an order requiring recording of 256.148 hectares of land in the name of Govt. Cement Factory, Dala in the relevant revenue records. But, this order was never translated into actual entry in the revenue records. The second set notifications of Indian Forest Act came to be issued on 30.04.1977 and 22.02.1978. The said notifications taking certain areas falling in Dala Limestone Mines as well as factory complex township, administrative building and crusher unit of the cement factory which had been in existence from 1969-1971. The third unit of UPCCL at Chunar came to be set up and established, around 27.06.1981. By that time of the three units of the Corporation were functioning and were carrying on mining operations. On 20.11.1986, taking cognizance of the letter petition, the hon'ble Supreme Court issued various directions in Banvasi Ashram Case. Though pursuant to the direction issued by the court and settlement operations have taken place and undertaken by Settlement Officer and Additional District Judge had commenced proceedings. M/s. JAL has neither been able to find any record of proclamation issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act or record of notice that may have been issued to the UPCCL which was the only major industry in that region. The survey and settlement operations were guided by various Govt. orders in terms of which the officers of the revenue department were to carry out spot inspection and draw up reports of persons found to be in possession of the land that may have been notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act. No spot inspection appeared to have been made as otherwise it would have been found that the area covered under the notification included areas over which the factories of the Corporation stood established and engaged in the production of cement. On or about April, 1991, a joint venture for taking over the UPCCL which was facing heavy loss was approved by the state of UP. The Dalmia Industries Ltd. was chosen to partner the Corporation and continue the operation. It led to widespread unrest amongst the workers and litigation subsequently. On 07.06.1991, the management declared lockout in the factory. The state finding that the net worth of the Corporation had totally eroded made a reference to the Board of Industries and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') on 10.07.1992 in accordance with the provisions of the Sick Industry Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. In the course of the proceedings before the BIFR, the Board declared the industrial a sick industry unit on 07.10.1992. The Board ultimately recommended the winding of the Company by order dated 27.07.1997. On receipt of the said report, the High Court of Allahabad registered miscellaneous company Application no. 04/1997. The winding of the Company by the Board was intimated to the central excise authority on 13.03.1998. By order dated 08.12.1999, UPCCL was ordered to wind up by the High Court and on Official Liquidator Officer was appointed. It was thereafter notices were published inviting bids and M/s. JAL submitted the bid which was finally accepted by the hon'ble High Court.
According to M/s. JAL, by carrying on mining at the time of when notifications under Section 4 were issued the lands had lost all characteristics of forest as judicially defined and interpreted. The perusal of the topography sheet of survey of Indian map drawn up in 1967 establish the area in question did not have any forest area or characteristics of forest. Prior to the commencement of the operations, M/s. JAL had undertaken an environmental impact assessment study as required and contemplated under the Govt. of India notification dated 14.09.2006. The initial EIA Report prepared establishes that land without shrubs comprised 71.2 per cent of the total study area. The report records that no forest land, major vegetation or habitat was found in the area. The study area did not have any endangered endemic or migratory birds, wildlife, etc. It was pursuant to the submission of the EIA Report, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, by order dated 29.09.2008 granted environmental clearance to the said project. In fact, the area comprises barren hills scarred by uninterrupted mining operation, hillocks of reject minerals and no vegetation therein. According to the Applicant, the prohibitions contained under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 are not attracted. It is contended that in the recommendations CEC nowhere records that the land in question satisfy the description of forest. The recommendations were based solely upon inclusion of the land in question in the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. According to M/s. JAL mere inclusion of certain land in the notification of Section 4, would not invite the prohibition provided in the FC Act. The CEC clearly misconstrued the provisions of the Forest Act read with the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act,1980 as well as the orders of the hon'ble Supreme Court. M/s. JAL therefore, contended that recommendations of the CEC cannot be accepted. They would also contend that the allegation of collusion with the State Govt. is baseless and unsubstantiated. M/s. JAL are only being facilitated by the State as they are was faced with the situation where even though it had paid the entire sum of Rs. 459 crores, the promised mining leases were not renewed or transferred. It is in the said circumstances M/s. JAL was compelled to approach the hon'ble High Court for necessary directions. It was in the course of seeking renewal and transfer of mining leases, for the first time they were apprised that the promised leases were affected by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. They also furnished a chart showing the total area affected by the initial notification under Section 4, the total area calculated in the settlement proceedings and the area excluded at the behest of M/s. JAL. While the total area of 8774.523 hectares were excluded from the area covered under Section 4 notifications, the area excluded at the behest of M/s. JAL is only 778.991 hectares which works out to be roughly 8 per cent of the total area excluded in the course of the settlement proceedings. It is therefore contended that there was no collusion between the state and M/s. JAL as alleged.
They also contended that even though the order of the hon'ble Supreme Court was made on 20.11.1986, actual settlement proceedings took place before the FSO for the first time in 1991-1992. Relying on some of the orders passed in the settlement proceedings, they would contend that UPCCL was neither represented nor notices were issued to it in the proceedings. About 1991-92, Corporation itself was lying closed due to the agitation of the workers and was finally declared lockout with effect from 07.06.1991. The Board of the Corporation made a reference to BIFR on 10.07.1992. Therefore, it is clear that at the relevant time, UPCCL was not functioning at all. Despite issuance of Notification under Section 4, no notification under Section 20 of the Act was ever issued in respect of the land in question. The MOI issued by the State Government as well as Official Liquidator carried mining plans duly approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines, which stated that the forest areas comprised in the leased area was nil. M/s. JAL were continuously pursuing the matter after confirmation of sale, with the State Government for renewal and transfer of the promised mining leases. It was only after the confirmation of the sale and during the pendency of the proceedings of the Company Court, the State disclosed the inability to renew the mining leases on the ground that it would include areas, which was included in the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act. Since, the UPCCL was neither put under the notice of the proceedings nor record of any survey taken place in respect of the property, it is clearly a case of no knowledge could be attributed of the existence of its rights during the course of enquiry under section 7 of the Forest Act.
There was sufficient cause for the company not to prefer any claim. The right to seek exclusion of the land from the initial notification of section 4 stands eclipsed only upon the issuance of the final Notification of the section 20 of the Forest Act. Though the FSO rejected the application filed by M/s. JAL holding that the settlement operation stood finalized as against them, that finding was set aside by the District Judge and remanded the case back to the Forest Settlement Officer who upheld the claim which was later approved by the District Judge in the Statutory Appeal. Therefore, the recommendation of the CEC has to be rejected as sought for.
Bali Ram, filed Writ Petition 130/2011 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for issuing an appropriate Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus to stay further construction of Super Cement plant of M/s JAL in Kota reserved forest on Plot No.3260 as well as carrying on other non forest activities on plot no. 3205, 3206 and 3211 till the matter is finally decided by the court in I.A. 2469 of 2009 in W.P No. 202/1995 and also to stop all non forest activities in areas notified under section 4 of Indian Forest Act and to set aside the orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer for exclusion of 1083.21 hectares of the area notified under section 4 from the reserved forest in favor of M/s JAL and also to set aside the environmental clearance provided to M/s JAL for the Super Cement plant and to direct the State of U.P to take punitive action against all concerned officers who connived with M/s JAL and were responsible for the violation of the Forest Conservation Act and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The applicant claiming to be an environmental activist, residing at Shamsherpur of District Chandauli, fighting for the protection of the forest and restoration of the forest land from illegal occupants and encroachers contended that the whole area in Kota forest, large scale cement plant construction, road construction and other non-forest activities are carried out in violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act and Environmental Protection Act by M/s JAL. Reiterating the facts stated earlier, applicant would contend that thought the High Court of Allahabad by order dated 17.10.2007 disposed the application filed by M/s JAL holding that objections of the State Government for renewal of mining lease in respect of 1033.66 hectares, on the ground that it is covered by Notification under section 4 of Indian Forest Act cannot be sustained, the State of U.P did not challenge that order even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 08.02.1989 in Banwasi Seva Ashram Vs. State of U.P directed that the lands which are subjected to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act would also come within the purview of section 2 of FC Act and it would be necessary for the project proponent to obtain appropriate clearance under FC Act. As per the guidelines clarifying the FC Act, 1980, published by the Ministry of Environment and Forest in June, 2000, in part 'C' Chapter I, 1.1 (i), lands which are notified under section 4 of the Forest Act would also come under the purview of the FC Act. These guidelines and clarifications were approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 01.08.2003 in I.A No. 944 and 800 and directed that diversion proposal of the Sate submitted under FC Act, the Central Government to take appropriate decision after examining the same in accordance with the Act, rules framed therein, guidelines and National Forest Policy 1988. Earlier, the State of U.P placed office memorandum dated 10.10.2006 issued by the industrial development department where under the decision of the State Cabinet regarding relaxation and concessions to be granted in favor of the proposal of the asset of UPCCL were recorded. The said office memorandum was dealt by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 10.10.2006, interalia providing that for the leases falling in the forest area, renewal is possible only after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government and payment of applicable charges. Divisional Forest Officer, Obra vide letter dated 483/Obra/ 15 mining dated 25.07.2010 had informed the regional office of MoEF, Lucknow that the construction work is being carried on plot no. 32000 instead in plot no. 3206, 3211 and 3212, which are accepted by the FSO and the same was confirmed by the District Judge, Sonbhardra. The Secretary Forest, Government of U.P notified under section 20 dated 25.11.2008, in spite of the directions of the CEC and the MoEF. Such construction work is being carried out on the plots and being non forest activity. The said area of village Kota was notified as reserved forest under section 4 of Indian Forest Act by notifications dated 02.03.1973 and 22.02.1978. Forest Settlement Officer, Obra in forest settlement case no. 3871/1991 on 16.04.1992 held that gata/plot 3200, 3206, 3211 and 3212 are reserved forest and submitted the proposal for final notification under section 20 of the Forest Act as that decision was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Chopan in appeal no. 4760/1992 dated 28.10.1993. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram case (WPC 106/1/1981) the order passed by the Additional District Judge shall be taken to be the order contemplated under the Forest Act. After the purchase of the cement factory, M/s JAL filed case no. 181/354 before the Forest Settlement Officer who by order dated 19.09.2007 excluded 15 plots having an area of 210.056 hectares, said exclusion is illegal. It is also not tenable in view of section 11 which provide the power to acquire land of which road is claimed. It is community right of way, right of pasture, right of forest produce or water course etc. the Forest Department by letter 3792 dated 12.09.2008 addressed PCCF, Government of U.P and DFO of Sonbhadra and Obra, forest to submit the proposal for notification under section 20 within 2 days. The Forest Department vide notification dated 25.11.2008 excluded the land from the land notified under section 4 for which the Forest Settlement Officer had earlier concluded the settlement proceedings in 1992 itself, to benefit the private party and to avoid applicability of the FC Act. Revenue authorities of the District changed the status of jungle recorded in the revenue records to non forest as seen in the revenue records 1372 fasli year and 1410-1415 fasli year. The applicant, contended that M/s JAL is not entitled to get 1083.23 hectares excluded which is being illegally handed over to M/s Jaypee Associates by the State Government. Illegal constructions are continuing, namely Jaypee Super Cement project K-6, power plant and packing plant and road constructions on the area. By letter dated 17.02.2005, the Ministry of Environment and Forest directed that the change in the legal status of the land recorded as jungle jhar in revenue records, without prior approval of the Central Government is illegal and violative of the FC Act. The concerned department should be directed to immediately restore the legal status of such lands to jungle jhar/forest land. The site was inspected by the Conservator of Forest (Ministry of Environment and Forest) on 22.01.2009 and a report was submitted to the CEC. It is contended that in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court once the proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer as well as the appeals before the Additional District Judge were completed, subsequently on the applications filed by the M/s JAL, at a very belated stage the decisions which have already attained finality could not have been changed. It therefore, contended that the reliefs sought fore is to be granted, till the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally decides I.A No. 2469/2009 filed in W.P of 202/1995.
M.A. No. 1163 of 2015 is an application filed by M/s. J.P. Associates limited for permission to intervene. That application was allowed and M/s. JAL was permitted to intervene.
The dispute relates to the lands covered by the mining leases originally granted in favour of UPCCL and later sold in public auction in the liquidation proceeding by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and purchased by M/s. JAL. The CEC recommended that though the Forest Settlement Officer passed orders for exclusion of 1083.231 hectares from the land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act, those orders are illegal and invalid and those excluded lands should also be treated as reserved forest and any renewal or transfer of mining lease in favour of M/s. JAL can be allowed by the State of U.P. only after obtaining prior approval as provided under Section 2 of the FC Act. It was without accepting the recommendations of the CEC, the State of U.P. originally filed IA 2469/2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, seeking permission to renew the mining leases, in order to comply with the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 12th October, 2007 in the liquidation proceedings in favour of M/s. JAL and praying to confirm the notification issued under Section 20 excluding the lands covered by the orders of FSO. But later the State of U.P. filed the additional affidavit, changing the stand accepting the findings and recommendations of the CEC and praying that the recommendations of the CEC be accepted and thereby giving up the reliefs originally sought in IA 2469 of 2009. The said affidavit was registered on IA 3877 of 2015. M/s. JAL on their part filed IA 2939 of 2015 to reject the recommendations of CEC and supporting IA 2469 of 2009 filed by the State of U.P. as practically IA 2469 of 2009 is for permission to uphold the claim of M/s. JAL.
While the interlocutory applications and the writ petition were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 5th October, 2015 the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred them to the National Green Tribunal as follows:-
"In so far as these matters are concerned, the interlocutory applications related to these 4 matters will be decided by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal alone. Registry is directed to transfer the IAs in the following 4 matters namely forest land involved in the mining leases transferred to M/s. J.P. Cement Limited (2) report of the CEC regarding Western Ghats (3) construction of Hotel at Mcleodganj on forest land in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and (4) illegal felling of trees and road construction in Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka"
The order makes it clear that all the contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the National Green Tribunal.
On receipt of the records IA 2469 of 2009, IA 3877 of 2015, IA 2782 of 2010, IA 2939 of 2010, IA 2940 of 2010 in WP 202 of 1995 were respectively numbered as M.A. No. 1166 of 2015, M.A. No. 1169 of 2015, M.A. No. 1163 of 2015, M.A. No. 1164 of 2015 and M.A. No. 1165 of 2015 in CWP 130 of 2010 numbered as Original Application No. 494 of 2015.
(A) The facts
The State of U.P. by order dated 10th October, 1953 ordered private forest and waste land lying at South of Kaimur range in the Mirzapur district to be handed over to forest department for management purpose. While preparing in the list of private forest and the land which are to be managed by the forest department the Chief Conservator of Forests was directed to follow the following guiding principles:-
With reference to your letter No. 1932/35-12 dated September, 1953 I am directed to say that the Divisional Forest Officer, Dudhi and the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned should first of all make out list of private forests and lands which will be managed by the Forest Department and those which are given over to Gaon Samajs. In preparing the lists of private forests and the lands, which are to be managed by the Forest Department, the following guiding principles should be borne in mind-
"(i) In the case of private forests the principle to be observed should be that all private forests of 50 acres or more in area or small areas which are contiguous to Govt. forests or those which form compact block of 50 acres or more should be managed by the Forest Department.
(ii) In the case of waste lands the principle to be followed should be that the uncultivated area which is surplus to the needs of the Gaon Samajs should be taken over by the Forest Department provided that the uncultivated area remaining with the Gaon Samajs if not less than 50% of the total cultivated area of the total cultivated area of the village and secondly that the area to be excluded from vesting in Gaon Samajs should not be less than 100 acres.
The Collector, Mirzapur, is being requested to help the Divisional Forest Officer in compiling these lists.
I am to add that in the mean time the Collector, Mirzapur is being asked to hand over all private forests to the Forest Department for management, but it should be clearly borne in mind that the existing rights of the people in those villages, are not interfered with any way."
The State of U.P. acquired 129.74 hectares (320.46 Acres) of land by notification dated 20th February, 1965 and 0.67 hectares (1.67 Acres) for construction of the Dalla Cement Factory at Kota village.
The UPCCL was incorporated on 01st April, 1972 and thereafter transferred all the assets owned by the Government cement factory to UPCCL. Apart from the land acquired for cement factory, for the purpose of mining leases were granted to the cement factory as well as UPCCL by various lease deeds for different periods. Later 7.89 lakh acres of land in Tehsil Dudhi and Robertganj, were notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act. While so, a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, based on a letter received from Banwasi Seva Ashram operating in the district Mirzapur, was registered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The facts of that case reveals that State declared a part of the jungle lands in the two Tehsils of Dudhi and Robertganj in the District of Mirzapur as reserved forest, as provided under Section 20 of the Forest Act and in regard to the other areas, notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was made and proceedings for final declaration of those areas also as reserved forest were undertaken. Some of the villages were in existence for some time which also falls within the prohibited area. It was found that admittedly there has been no survey and settlement in those Tehsils and in the absence any definite record it would be difficult to implement the directions of the court. Therefore the court directed that survey and record operation in the Tehsils had to be completed. Holding that forests are a much wanted national asset and on account of the depletion thereof ecology has been disturbed; climate has undergone major change and rain have become scanty. It was found that these have long term adverse effects on the national economy as also on the living process. It was held "At the same time we cannot to lose sight of the facts that for industrial growth as also for provision of improved living facilities, there is a great demand in this country for energy such as electricity. In fact for quite some time the entire country in general and specific parts thereof, in proclear, have suffered tremendous set back in industrial activity for want of energy".
Liberty was also granted to the parties to move for direction as and when necessary. Pursuant to the said directions, settlement proceedings were initiated. Forest Settlement Officers and Additional District Judges were appointed claim petitions were received and settled by the FSO in various proceedings. Those orders were placed before the designated Additional District Judges. They were heard along with appeals if any filed.
It is the case of the State of U.P. that settlement proceedings as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram was completed in respect of all villages except 12 villages by 1994. The disputed lands are part of those lands which were settled by 1994. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram case later passed an order on 18th July, 1994, relied upon by the CEC and the State of U.P. to contend that in view of the said Judgment dated 18th July, 1994, neither FSO nor the Additional District Judges were competent to entertain or decide any Application or claim in respect of the remaining villages except the 12 villages on which the settlement proceedings were not finished. The order dated 18th July, 1994 shows that with the able assistance of the Senior Counsels the gigantic task undertaken by the court was for successfully completed. The relevant portion of the order reads "pursuant to these court orders dated 13th May, 1994 only one Additional Judge is functioning. We direct that he shall function till September 30, 1996 by which date he shall conclude hearing of all the appeals and review petitions. We also see no reason to continue the remaining unit of Kulnoor Survey Agency.
We direct the closure of the same w.e.f. 01st August, 1994." It has been recorded that by Justice Loomba in his 14th report stated that an area of about 26947 acres in about 12 villages covered by notification under Section has been in fact dealt with under Section 54 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
"Pursuant to this Court's order dated May 13, 1994 only one Additional District Judge in functioning. We direct that he shall function till September 30, 1994 by which date he shall conclude the bearing of all the appeals and review petitions. We also see no reason to continue the remaining unit of Kulpoor Survey Agency. We direct the closure of the same with effect from August 1, 1994.
It has been stated by Justice Loomba in his 14th Report that an area of about 26947 acres in about 12 villages, covered by Notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, has in fact been dealt with under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. We direct the Revenue Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to set up special officers to deal with this area in terms of our order dated November, 20, 1986. We further direct the Revenue Secretary to ..plesent the decisions given by various Additional District Judge in various appeals and revels decided by the Learned Judge.
We close the proceedings of this case. We however, give liberty to the parties to approach this court as and when it becomes necessary to do so for obtaining necessary directions."
In some of the proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer, the Junior Clerk appeared on behalf of UPCCL and a portion has been excluded from the land covered under Section 4 of the notification.
That order was confirmed by the Additional District Judge and it has become final. By 1992 the Cement Factory became a sick industry and proceedings were initiated before the company court of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. By order dated 08th September, 1999, on the recommendation of BIFR the Company Judge passed an order to liquidate UPCCL and appointed official liquidator for the said purpose. For selling the assets of the Corporation through tender system a committee was constituted by the order dated 14th February, 2002. The committee was directed to invite tender/expression of interest by publishing in newspapers. In response to the tender document/expression of interest four companies including M/s. JAL submitted proposals on 30th January, 2006. M/s. JAL was declared successful bidder being the highest bid. The lands shown in the tender document include the mining lease area of UPCCL and erstwhile U.P. Cement Corporation namely 751 hectares of Dala Mines (Kagarhat) at Kota, 1266 hectares of Ghurma Mines (Markundi) mines, 87 hectares of Ningha Marble Mining lease of Obra (Panari) being a total 2104 hectares and 643.433 hectares of Balua Limestone, 384 hectares Jalgul mine 670.575 of Bari mining making total of 1698.008 hectares. The order dated 11th October, 2006 passed by the Company Judge in Miscellaneous Company 4 of 1997 shows that Advocate General has placed on record Office Memorandum dated 10th October, 2006 by which the decision of the State confirming the reliefs and concessions have been recorded by the State Government. The Office Memorandum dated 10th October, 2006 was issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Department, declares that the State Government has taken decision with regard to reliefs for exemption of the working capital, waiver of trade tax, the exemption for trade tax for 10 years, exemption for ten years the royalty payable by the company (under liquidation) and the renewal of limestone leases. The order reads "The Office Memorandum also clarifies that wherever the dues are payable in terms of the order of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, all the orders issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the requisite permissions and approvals shall be obtained after payment of the required fees. Wherever the land is situated in a sanctuary, permission for non-forest purposes shall be given after seeking approval from the Supreme Court.
"The Managing Director of M/s. JAL placed on record draft for Rs. 1,50,65,00,000/- deposited with the Official Liquidator. It was ordered that the sale shall stand confirmed. On confirmation of sale assets of the company, whatever and wherever, they shall stand transferred to and vested in M/s. JAL free from all encumbrances, charges or fetters. M/s. JAL then moved Civil Miscellaneous Application 145925 of 2005 seeking directions of the State of U.P. to forthwith renew and transfer in their favour the mining leases detailed in MoI. By order dated 12th October, 2007, the High Court rejected the case of the State Government that prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act is necessary to renew the lease holding that the mining leases of the company will be renewed by the State Government in favour of the company in liquidation and thereafter transfer them in favour of M/s. JAL without further delay and the entire formalities will have to be completed within a period of six weeks and transferred to M/s. JAL. It is by that time the CEC on getting a letter disclosing the violations, issued the directions to the forest department as stated earlier.
Mr. Pinaki Misra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. JAL argued that the recommendation of the CEC cannot be accepted as it was made under misconception of law. It was argued that the objections that no land included in any notification issued under Section 4 of Forest Act is liable to be excluded without the prior approval of the Central Government and the and the circular dated 20th August, 2004 issued by the MoEF is illegal, as the statutory provision in the Forest Act cannot be taken away or made nonest as canvassed by the CEC. It was argued that there are only two statutory restrictions under Section 2 of the FC Act which would be relevant and they are that except with the prior approval of the Central Government, no reserved forest shall cease to be revered and no non-forest activity be carried out in a forest land or any part thereof as provided under sub-section (ii). The Learned Senior Counsel argued that the dictum of the decision dated 08th February, 1989 in Banwasi Seva Ashram; that the land which are subjected to the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, would also come within the purview of the section 2 of the FC Act and therefore it would be necessary for NTPC to obtain appropriate clearance from the appropriate authority does not mean that once a land is covered under Section 4 notification and it was later excluded after enquiry as provided under Section 6 of the FC Act, it would again come within the ambit of Section 2 of the FC Act. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that when there is no notification issued under Section 20 of the FC Act, declaring the disputed land a reserved forest and when the disputed lands stand excluded from the lands notified under Section 4 by the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer and were later confirmed by the Additional District Judge, and those orders have become final, CEC so not justified in giving recommendations still permission of the Central Government is necessary as provided in Section 2 of the FC Act. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that though the earlier orders were passed declaring that the lands are included as reserve forest and those orders were confirmed by the Additional District Judge in the Suo-moto appeals, those orders were passed at a time when UPCCL was a sick industry and there was nobody to look after the affairs and management of the company. It was argued that the said orders will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings. Though the claim petition filed by M/s. JAL before the Forest Settlement Officer was rejected, finding that because of the earlier orders confirmed by the Additional District Judge, the FSO is not competent to decide the question once again and dismissed the claim petition, in appeal it was found that the said positions are not legal and correct and as M/s. JAL was not a party in the earlier proceedings and the earlier orders will not operate as res judicata and remanded the matter back to the FSO and after remand the FSO upheld the claim and those orders were confirmed in appeal and those orders was not challenged by the State or the Forest Department and therefore they stand finally excluded from Section 4 notification and only for the remaining area, Section 20 notification was issued and therefore the disputed lands are not forest land, reserved forest or forest land as and therefore Section 2 of the FC Act will not apply and hence the prior approval of the Central Government is not warranted.
The Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that out of the disputed land of 1083.231 hectares as proceedings is pending before the court regarding the area falling in Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary namely 253.176 hectares, M/s. JAL is not raising any claim in respect of that extent in this proceedings and restrict the claim to the balance of only 778.991 hectares. The Learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Jithendernath Vs. Jubilee Hills Co-op. House Building Society (2006) 10 SCC 96, Payappar Sree Dharmasastha Temple Advisory Committee Vs. A.K. Joseph and Others (2009) 14 SCC 628 and Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others (1994) 4 SCC 149. The Learned Senior Counsel also argued that though a clerk of UPCCL, without authority had appear in three cases, there was no appearance in the remaining cases and in one matter on appearance the claim was up held by the FSO and in appeal it was confirmed and that order has become final by 1994. The Learned Senior Counsel also argued that though a time limited was fixed in Banwasi Seva Ashram cases for preferring the claim under Section 6 of the Forest Act even the FSO and the Additional District Judges were appointed only later and proceedings are even now continuing and therefore based on the subsequent decision dated 18th July, 1994 that the proceedings has been closed with liberty to the parties to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that FSO is not entitled to entertain the claim, after 1995. The arguments is that as provided under Section 9 of the Forest Act, a claim can be made before the concerned authority before the final notification under Section 20 declaring in the land as reserved forest is published in the official gazette and as the notification under Section 20 was not published, the FSO is competent to entertain and decide the claim and the Additional District Judges are also competent to dispose the appeal and therefore on these grounds also it cannot be said that the M/s. JAL cannot get the lease renewed without payment of NPV or sanctioned of the Central Government. It was argued that there is no collusion and the orders area all lawful. It was also argued the revenue records prior that date of the original decisions of the FSOs do not show that the disputed lands hence Section 2 of the FC Act is not attracted and are forest lands and as those lands were excluded from the Section 4 notification by the various orders passed by FSOs and confirmed by the Appellate Authority namely the Additional District Judges, and the final notification issued under Section 20 do not include the disputed lands, question of application of Section 2 of the FC Act does not arise. It was argued that the M/s. JAL submitted the bid and then paid the amount on confirmation of sale based on the solemn promise in the tender documents that the State Government would renew and transfer the mining leases originally granted to UPCCL in favour of M/s. JAL and the State cannot take a different stand later. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that it was the specific stand of the State as against the recommendations of the CEC and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the orders passed by the FSOs excluding the disputed lands from the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, is legal and it was the State itself who approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing I.A. No. 2469 of 2010 seeking permission to renew the leases and reject the recommendation of the CEC and the State is not thereafter entitled to turn around at a later stage and pray for enforcement of the recommendation of the CEC. It was argued that as the MoEF and the Central Government were not prepared to approve Forest Management Plan submitted by the State Government and thereby the State is not able to get the money from the Central Government, the State changed the stand and now contends that the disputed lands are also the reserves forest. The State has changed their stand because of the arm twisting by the centre and therefore the said stand is to be rejected so also the recommendation of the CEC. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that M/s. JAL participated in the court monitored sale and submitted the bid without knowing that any of the mining lease area falls within any notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act and all the tender documents show that no forest land is involved and they have invested Crores for the project and interest of warrants that the promised renewal of the leases is to be granted by the State.
The Learned Amicus Curie, Mr. A.D.N. Rao in support of the recommendations of the CEC submitted that by the Judgment dated 12th December, 1996 the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that the FC Act was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance and therefore the provisions made for conservation of forests 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 the Dictionary meaning and the description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(1) of the FC Act and 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 Government record irrespective of the ownership.
The Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram by order dated 08th February, 1989, has held that the lands which are subject to the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act would also come within the purview of Section 2 of the FC Act and it would therefore be necessary for the NTPC to obtain proper clearance under the FC Act from the appropriate authority. The argument is that when it is not disputed, that the disputed lands are part of the lands covered under Section notification 4 of the Forest Act, as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 2 of FC Act would apply and therefore prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory.
It was pointed out that thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13th November, 2000 in Centre for Environmental Law Vs. Union of India and others (WPC 337/1995) held that pending further orders, no dereservation of forests/sanctuaries/national parks shall be affected. It was also pointed out that though an attempt was made to delete the word 'forest' from the said order, Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 09th February, 2004 held that there is no ground to allow the application and delete the 'forest' from the order dated 13th November, 2000.
The Learned Counsel also argued that when by 1995 the Forest Settlement Officers pursuant to the Judgment in Banwasi Seva Ashram case had passed orders in respect of all the 1083.231 hectares of the disputed lands and by confirmation of the orders by the Additional District Judges in Appeal including Suo-moto Appeals and even the notification under Section 20 of FC Act was sent to the press for publication, though it was not published approvals provided under Section 2 of FC Act for any non-forest activity including mining is mandatory. It was also argued that once the said orders have become final as provided in the Judgment in Banwasi Seva Ashram case dated 20th November, 1986, at the instance of M/s. JAL, the question could not have been reopened or the claim of M/s. JAL could not have entertained and therefore, the recommendations of CEC is to be accepted. Learned Amicus Curie pointed out that CEC did not recommend that no mining lease, shall be granted but recommended only that prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act and M/s. JAL is bound to pay the NPV and make other payments before getting the approval.
The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Harin P. Rawal appearing for the State of U.P. argued that though M.A. No. 1166 of 2015 was earlier filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court contending that the recommendations of the CEC cannot be accepted and in view of the orders of FSOs and Additional District Judges in favour of M/s. JAL provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is not applicable, after the reply of the MoEF was submitted before the Court realizing the mistake the State filed another affidavit which is numbered as M.A. No. 1169 of 2015 seeking acceptance of the recommendations of CEC and thereby giving the plea raised earlier in M.A. No. 1166 of 2015. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that the change in the stand was not due to any political interference but in fact was the stand taken by the Forest Department even initially. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that the provisions in the FC Act, must apply to all forests as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12th December, 1996 and the Government of India in furtherance to the implementation of the FC Act issued a memorandum dated 26th March, 1992 wherein certain clarification relating to the FC Act were issued. It was clarified that the term "forest land" mentioned in Section 2 of the FC Act refers to the reserved forest, protected forest or any area recorded as forest in the Government records and all proposals for diversification of such area for any non-forest purpose, even if the area is privately owned, would require prior approval of the Central Government under the FC Act. It was also clarified that whether the Learned Senior Counsel argued that the orders passed by the FSOs later to exclude 1083.231 hectares of land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act from reserved forest should be set aside and all those areas should be included in the reserved forest and for the renewal/transfer of mining leases in favour of M/s. JAL could only be after obtaining approval of the Central Government and in respect of the area falling in Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, the renewal/transfer could be allowed only with the permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Board for Wildlife. It was argued that a detailed procedure for the settlement of rights in respect of the areas notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act was extrapolated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and settlement of rights of the disputed lands had been carried out by the FSOs and suo-moto appeals came to be decided by the Additional District Judges and settlement proceedings in village Mukaribari was completed by 1986. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed the progress of the settlement and by order dated 18th July, 1994 recording that fact closed the case and therefore in law, the FSO could not have entertained the claims prepared by M/s. JAL and the orders passed by the FSO and Additional District Judge after the order dated 18th July, 1984 are inherit jurisdiction and are bad in law.
It is also argued that the Forest Settlement Officer and the Additional District Judge has excluded 256.148 hectares falling within the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary which could not have been done and that itself shows the non-application of mind by the FSO and District Judge.
The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Original Application No. 494 of 2015 also supported the stand taken by the State of U.P. and also sought the same directions as sought for by the CEC and the State of U.P.
The learned counsel appearing for the MoEF argued in support of the recommendations of the CEC and satisfying the circular issued clarifying the stand on dereervation of the Reserved Forest, falling in the area notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act.
The questions to be settled are the affect of the declaration issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, when no notification under Section 20 is published and whether Section 2 of the FC Act would apply in such cases and also the effect of the orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Additional District Judge as directed in Banwasi Seva Ashram cases by 1994, in view of the completion of the settlement proceedings in all the villages except
12 villages and the liberty granted to the parties to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the later orders passed by the FSO and confirmed by the District Judge.
Before considering the questions, it is necessary to appreciate the background, the objects and scope of the Forest Act. The statement of the objections and reasons as given by the law committee is as follows:-
"The general law relating to forest in British India is contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1878, and its amending Acts. The present Bill brings the law together within the scope of one enactment. The Bill is a straight forward consolidating Bill but the original Act having been passed before the General Clauses Act of 1897 (X of 1897), it has been possible to shorten the language of the Bill by taking advantage of that Act. The ambiguous languages of the second paragraph of Section 42 of Act VII of 1878 has been altered in Clause 42(2) so as to bring it into conformity with what appears to have been the original intention of the law. The only other point which calls for further notice is the extent clause. The original Act extended to the Province of Assam, but by Regulation VII of 1891 the Indian Forest Act, 1878 was repealed as far as it relates to Assam. The Bill accordingly omits Assam from the extent clause"
The first chapter deals with the short title and extent of the Act and interpretation clauses. The second chapter deals with the law relating to reserves forest. The word "reserved" has not been defined in the Act. Section 3 deals with the powers to reserve forest.
"3. Power to reserve forests - The State Government may constitute any forest land or waste-land which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided.
The State of U.P. by amendment of Act XXIII of 1965, amended the Section w.e.f. 23rd November, 1965 adding "or any other land not being comprised in any holding or grove or any village abadi which is the proprietary of the Government". An explanation was also added on the expression "holding" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and the expressions of the "village of the Abadi" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the U.P. Village Abadi Act, 1947. Therefore the classes of the lands included in Section 3 of the Forest Act, are (1) forest land which is the property of the Government or over which Government has proprietary right (2) waste land which is property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary right. In the State of U.P. any other land which is the property of the Government or over which local government has proprietary right except the land comprised in any holding, grove or in any village abadi could also be constituted as reserved forest. Section 4 deals with the notification by the State Government. Under the section whenever it has been decided to constitute any land, a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the official gazette declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest specifying as nearly as possible the situation and the limits of such land and appointing an officer called the Forest Settlement Officer, to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour any person in or over any land comprised within such limits or in or over any forest produce and to deal with the same as provided in chapter-II. Though Section 4 provide for declaring any other land, a reserved forest as provided under Section 3, such a land should be either a forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which Government has proprietary right. In the State of U.P. after 23rd November, 1965, such land could also be any other land not being, in the State of U.P. which is not the company land comprised in any holding or grove or in any village abadi provided it is the property of the Government over which the Government has a proprietary right. Section 5 deals with the bar of accrual of forest rights. The Section reads
"5. Bar of accrual of forest rights. - After the issue of a notification under Section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government of some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf."
Section 6 provides proclamation by Forest Settlement Officer.
Under the section, when a notification has been issued under Section 4, the Forest Settlement Officer shall publish in the local vernacular in every town and village in the neighbourhood or land comprised therein proclamation specifying the situation and the limits of the proposed forest, explaining the consequences which will ensue on the reservation of such forest and fixing the period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation and requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in Section 4 or 5 within such period either to present to the Forest Settlement Officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him and state the nature of such right and the amount of compensation if any claimed in respect thereof. Section 7 deals with the inquiry by the Forest Settlement Officer on a claim preferred under Section 6. Section 8 deals with the powers of the Forest Settlement Officer. Section 9 deals with extension of rights. Section 9 reads:
"9. Extinction of Rights. - Rights in respect on which no claim has been preferred under Section 6, and of the existence of which no knowledge has been acquired by inquiry under Section 7, shall be extinguished, unless, before the notification under Section 20 is published, the person claiming them satisfies the Forest Settlement Officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within the period fixed under Section 6."
Therefore under Section 9, till a notification under Section 20 is published, any person who has not preferred a claim under Section 6 is granted a right to prefer a claim by satisfying sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within the period fixed under Section 6.
Section 12 deals with order on the claims of pasture to or forest produce. Section 13 deals with the record to be made by Forest Settlement Officer while passing such orders under Section 12.
Section 14 provide that If he Forest Settlement Officer admits in whole or in part any claim under Section 12, he shall also record the extent to which the claim is so admitted, during which such pasture is permitted, the quantity of timber and other forest From the order passed under Section 11, 12 or 13. Section 17 provides for appeal and Section 18 provides the procedure for the appeal and the order. Section 20 deals with notification declaring the forest reserve. The Sections reads:-
"20. Notification declaring forest reserved. - (1) When the following event have occurred, namely:
(a) The period fixed under Section 6 for referring claims has elapsed, and all claims, if any made under that section or Section 9 have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer;
(b) If any such claims have been made, the period limited by Section 17 for appealing from the order passed on such claims has elapsed and all appeals (if any) presented within such period have been disposed of by the Appellate Officer or Court; and
(c) All lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement Officer has, under Section 11, elected to acquire under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), have become vested I the government under Section 16 of that Act.
The State Government shall publish a notification in the official Gazette specifying definitely, according to boundary marks elected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and declaring in same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification.
(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be reserved forest."
Chapter IV deals with protected forests under sub-section (1), of Section 29 the State Government by notification published in the official gazette declare the provisions of Chapter 4 applicable to any forest land or waste land which is not included in the reserved forest, but which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary right or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which Government is entitled. Sub section 2 provides that forest land and waste land comprised in any such notification shall be called a protected forest. It is provided under sub-Section 3 that no such notification shall be made unless the nature and extend of the right of the Government and of private person in or over the forest land or waste land comprised therein have been enquired and recorded at a survey or settlement or into and in such other miner as the State Government think sufficient and every such record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.
When section 3 empowers the State Government to constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights, Section 29 enables the State Government to declare the provisions of Chapter IV applicable to any forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserved forest, but which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary right. Therefore it is clear that the State Government has all the powers to constitute any forest land or waste land which belongs to the State a reserved forest or to declare such land as a protected forest by a notification under section 4 or Section 29 of the Forest Act. Once a notification under Section 4 is issued, as provided in Section 5, no right can be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued. Once a notification declaring that it has decided to constitute such land a reserved forest, after completing the procedure provided under Section 6 to 17 a final notification has to be issued under Section 20 declaring to be reserved from a date to be fixed in the notification by publishing notification in the official gazette. From the date so fixed only such land would be a reserved forest.
When the Forest Act was enacted in 1927, conservation of the forest was not all a live issue. The Britain was ruling the country and was exploiting the nation including the forest. The primary object of the Indian Forest Act was to consolidate the laws relating to forest, the transit of the forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce. The purpose was to exploit the forest and its produce along with some effort to preserve them to enable the exploitation. After independence, when the extent of forest cover available in the country was being reduced drastically, necessity was felt for preservation and conservation of the forest. The Government of India declared its National Forest Policy in 1952. It lays down that forest should occupy 33% of the land surface as against then existing 23 percent. Consequent to the growth of population, spread of economic development and consequential demand for more timber as raw material and fuel and also more space, excession exploitation of forest was the order of the day. Therefore notwithstanding the National Forest Policy, the forest cover started further dwindling. The National Commission on Agriculture in 1976 noticed the inadequate implementation of the National Forest Policy and proposed amendments including provision for prior approval of the Central Government before taking steps for dereservation or diversion of forest lands to non-forest use. It was to meet this alarming situation the President Promulgated the Forest (Conservation) ordinance of 1980 and thereafter the Forest Conservation Act was enacted in 1980. The Statement of Objects and Reasons show 'deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental degradation. Deforestation have been taking place on a large scale in the country and it has caused widespread concern'. Section 2 of the FC Act provides restriction on de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. The section reads:
Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing-
(i). that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii). That any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii). That any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
(iv). [That any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation].
[Explanation- For the purposes of this section "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for-
(a). The cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants;
(b). Any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes].
Section 2 A was later incorporated by Act 19 of 2010 providing appeal to the Tribunal against any order or decision of the State Government or other authorities made under Section 2 on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Section 3 provides for constitution of Advisory Committee and Section 3 A, provides Penalty for Contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 3 B provides offences by authorities and Government departments. Section 4 provides the power to make rules.
As is clear from section 2, prior approval from the Central Government is necessary for any order directing that any reserved forest or any portion thereof shall ceased to be reserved or that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose or that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government or that any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Thus, clause (i) of Section 2 deals with reserved forest, providing that for any order that a reserved forest within the meaning of the expression 'reserved forest' shall cease to be reserved, prior approval of the Central Government is necessary. The said clause deals with the reserved forest, as provided under the Forest Act. Though Forest Act does not define the reserved forest, reserved forest is the one as provided under the Forest Act, which would be as declared by the final Notification under section 20 pursuant to a notification under section 4 and finalization of the enquiry on a claim filed under section 6 or 9 and the order passed under section 11 or 12 and finalized under section 18 of the Act. Clause (ii) of Section 2 deals with any forest land or any portion thereof that may be used for any non-forest purpose. Clause (iii) and (iv) also deals with any forest land or portion thereof. Forest land is also not defined in the FC Act. What is the meaning of the word forest land contemplated under Section 2 of the FC Act is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgement dated 12.12.1996 in T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India, [(1997) 2 SCC 267].
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and ford 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 recognized 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 the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works V. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V. State of U.P and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee V. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority) The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar V. Banshi Ram Modi has therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any Sate Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that nay Sate Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct, its stance and to take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.
Therefore, the forest land occurring in Section 2 of the FC Act shall include not only the forest as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record, irrespective of its ownership.
When Section 2 of the FC Act is so understood, it is easy to resolve the dispute regarding the non notifying of reserve forest under section 20 of the Forest Act after promulgation of a notification under Section 4. As stated earlier, the Notification contemplated under section 4 of the Forest Act is by the State Government declaring that it has decided to constitute such land a reserved forest specifying the situations and limits of such land as nearly as possible and appointing an officer called the 'Forest Settlement Officer' to enquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person, in or over any land comprised within such limits or in or over any forest produce. Section 3 of the Forest Act enables the State to constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which Government has a proprietary right as reserved forest. Therefore, by virtue of the power vested under Section 3 of the Forest Act, a State Government is entitled to constitute any forest land or waste land which is its property or over which it has a proprietary right or to the whole or in part of the forest produce of which it is entitled. Forest land is also not defined in the Forest Act. Once a Notification is issued under Section 4, as provided under Section 6, the Forest Settlement Officer shall publish a proclamation specifying the situation and limits of the proposed forest, and explaining the consequences that will ensure on the reservation of such forest, fixing a period of not less than 3 months from the date of such proclamation, requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in Section 4 or 5 on or over the land, to prefer a claim before him. After enquiry, the Forest Settlement Officer has to pass an order under Section 11 or 12 or 14 or 15 and the aggrieved person is entitled to file an appeal as provided under section 17. Once the appeal is decided as provided under section 18, a final Notification as provided under Section 20 shall be published in the official gazette specifying definitely, according to boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved and declaring the same to be reserved from A date fixed by the Notification Sub-Section 2 of Section 20 provides that from the date so fixed, such forest shall be deemed a reserved forest. Therefore, in a case where a Notification is issued under Section 4 of Forest Act declaring that it has decided to constitute such land a reserve forest and a claim is preferred as provided under section 6 and that claim on enquiry is upheld and the order has become final, either by non filing of an appeal or after dismissal of the appeal under Section 18 and hence the land is excluded from the Notification issued under Section 4, the legal position would be that the said land will not form part of the reserved forest. The resultant position would be that the land would be relegated to the pre section 4 Notification stage. When under Section 3 of the Forest Act, the State Government is empowered to constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has propriety right on such exclusion of the land from the Section 4 Notification, the status of the land would be reverted back to the status of the land prior to the Notification issued under Section 4. If that be so, if it was a forest land, it would continue to be a forest land. If it was a waste land, it would continue to be a waste land. If Sections 3, 4 and 20 of the Forest Act are so understood, based on such non-exclusion of the land, it is not possible to hold that Section 2 of the FC Act is not applicable at all to such land. FC Act is applicable not only to the reserved forest, but also to the protected forest to the forest irrespective of the ownership as understood in the dictionary sense If also applied to any area recorded as forest in the Government record, irrespective of the ownership. Therefore, M/s JAL cannot contend that, as their claim was subsequently upheld by the Forest Settlement Officer and the orders was confirmed by the Appellate Authority namely Additional District Judge, such land would not be a forest land as provided under Section 2 of the FC act. Irrespective of the order passed in the application filed under Section 6 or 9, if the said land otherwise come within the purview of Section 2 of the FC Act, the orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer or the Additional District Judge (the validity and the effect of the said orders would be considered a little later) will make no difference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement dated 08.02.1999 in Banwasi Seva Ashram Vs. State of U.P & Ors considered the effect of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. As in the present case, the land involved in that case was also part of the land covered by the Banwasi Seva Ashram Judgement dated 20.11.1986. The facts of the case reveal that the land sought to be acquired for the super power thermal power project of the NTPC the land was 153 acres for ash Pipe Line and 1643 acres for ash dyko located in villages Khamakya, Mithanai, Parobatwo, Jheeltole, Dodha and Jharaha. The requirement of NTPC was later increased to 2495 acres out of which 1322 acres are under occupancy, 185 acres constitute Gaon Sabha lands and 987 acres are lease which have been notified as reserved forest under section 20 of the Forest Act and by earlier order treated outside the purview of the Writ Petition. It was clarified that as regards, the said land, it can only be by satisfying the requirements of the FC Act. With regard to the land which are part of the land covered by the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act but for which no final Notification under Section 20 was issued, their lordships held 'We are of the view that the lands which are subjected to the Notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act would also come within the purview of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and it would therefore be necessary for the NTPC to obtain appropriate clearance under that Act from the appropriate authority.
The arguments of the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for M/s JAL is that, this finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable only to such lands, for which there has been a Notification issued under Section 4 and the final Notification under Section 20 is yet to be issued and no claim is preferred under Section 6 or the one preferred has been finally settled. It is argued that with regard to the land declared as reserved forest, as declared in that Judgement, Section 2 applies and for the land, for which final Notification is yet to be issued and the cloud of Section 4 Notification still hangs, prior approval of the Central Government is provided under Section 2 is necessary. The argument is that if the claim preferred under section 6 has been finally settled and the area claimed is excluded and for the remaining area alone Notification under Section 20 is issued, such excluded land will not come within the purview of Section 2 of the FC Act. True, as far as the land covered under the Notification under Section 20 as such land is deemed a reserved forest, Section 2 of the FC Act would definitely apply the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for M/s JAL would also not dispute the fact that as regards the land which are not excluded from Section 4 notification, Section 2 of FC Act applied. But we cannot accept the argument of the Learned Senior Counsel that the land which stands excluded by upholding the claim would then automatically goes out of the ambit of Section 2 of the FC Act. As stated earlier, if such land was a waste land, or a forest land within the ambit of the forest land as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Judgement dated 12.12.1986, Section 2 of the FC Act would definitely apply.
(B) The directions in Banwasi Seva Ashram case dated 20th November, 1986 and the decisions taken there under by the State.
Though the State Government declared a part of the Jungle land in two Tehsils Dudhi and Robertganj in the District of Mirzapur as reserved forest, as protected under Section 20 of the Forest Act, with regard to the remaining area notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was made and proceedings for final declaration were undertaken while so based on a letter addressed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceedings were initiated under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Finding that admittedly there have been no survey and settlement of these Tehsils and in the absence of any definite record to safeguard it would be difficult to implement the directions of the court, it was directed that survey and record operation be completed. But later, on behalf of the State Government it was represented that completion of such operation within a short span of time would be difficult. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Judgment dated 20th November, 1986 held that the lands which have already been declared as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Forest Act would not form part of the Writ Petition and for the remaining lands notified under Section 4, even were no claim has been filed within the specified time in the notification as required under sub-section 'C' of the Section 6, such claim shall be allowed to be filed as indicated in the Judgment. The Forest Settlement Officers of the State Government were directed to raise demarcating pillars identifying the land covered by the notification under Section 4, in the locality to clearly identify the property subjected to the notification and it shall be widely published and sufficient number of inquiry booths would be set up within the notified area, so as to enable the people of the area likely to be affected by the notification, to get the information as to whether their land are affected by the notification and whether any claim needs to be filed. That exercise was directed to be completed within six weeks from 01st December, 1986. Directions were also issued to appoint adequate number of record officers by 31st December, 1986 and the Allahabad High Court was requested to make services of 5 experienced Senior Additional District Judges by 15th December, 1986 so that they could be posted and one of each has to be located at Dudhi, Mohirpur, Kirbil of Dudhi Tehsil and Robertganj and Tilbudwa of Robertganj Tehsil. It was further directed that after the Forest Settlement Office has done the needful under the provision of the Act finding with the requisite papers shall be placed before the Additional District Judge of the area, even though no appeal is filed and the same shall be scrutinized as if an appeal has been taken against order of the Authority and order of the Additional District Judge, passed therein shall be taken to be the order contemplated under the Act. It was then directed.
"(3) When the Appellate Authority finds that the claim is admissible, the State Government shall (and it is agreed before us) honour the said decision and proceed to implement the same. Status quo in regard to possession in respect of lands covered by the notification under Section 4 shall continue as at present until the determination by the appellate authority and no notification under Section 20 of the Act shall be made in regard to these lands until such appellate decision has been made."
Liberty was granted to the parties to move for directions as and when necessary. Pursuant to the Judgment the Forest Settlement Officers and the Additional District Judges were appointed and they have settled the claims.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was monitoring the progress of the settlement proceedings pursuant to the judgement dated 20th November, 1986 and were giving directions from time to time. On 18th July, 1994 the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order :-
"This Court has been monitoring these proceedings as a result of the Judgement dated November 20, 1986 and the various orders passed from time to time. We are glad that with the able assistance of late Mr. Ramamurti, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krlamamurti, Advocate and other learned counsel, we have successfully completed the gigantic task undertaken by this Court. We place on record our thanks and special appreciation for Justic D.L. Loomba (Retd.) who has rendered valuable help to this Court in completing the task.
Pursuant to this Court's order dated May 13, 1994 only one Additional District Judge is functioning. We direct that he shall function till September 30, 1994 by which date he shall conclude the hearing of all the appeals and review petitions. We also see no reason to continue the remaining unit of Kulnoor Survey Agency. We direct the closure of the same with effect from August 1, 1994.
It has been stated by Justice Loomba in his 14th Report that an area of about 26947 acres in about 12 villages, covered by Notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, has in fact been dealt with under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. We direct the Revenue Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to set up special officer to deal with this area in terms of our order dated November 20, 1986. We further direct the Revenue Secretary to impliement the decisions given by various Additional District Judges in various appeals and reviews decided by the Learned Judges.
We close the proceedings of the Case. However, give liberty to the parties to approach this Court as and when it becomes necessary to do so for obtaining necessary directions."
It is not disputed that the lands involved in this case are not included within the 12 villages where the settlement proceedings were yet to be completed as stated in the said order. Instead the said lands form part of the area where settlement proceedings were reported to be completed. The directions in the order to close the proceeding of the case and granting liberty to the parties to approach the court, as and when becomes necessary to do so for obtaining necessary directions is to be appreciated in that background. The directions in the judgement dated 20th November, 1986 are also relevant at this juncture. Their Lordships categorically directed that even if no appeal is filed as against the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer, the Forest Settlement Officer has to place the findings with the requisite papers before the Additional District Judge of the area and the same shall be scrutinized as if an appeal has been taken against the order of the F S O and the order of the Additional District Judge passed therein shall be taken to be an order contemplated under that Act. It was the direction that "when the Appellate Authority finds that the claim is admissible, the State Government shall (and it is agreed before us) honour the said decision and proceed to implement the same. It is therefore absolutely clear that the order passed by the Additional District Judge, if not reviewed, shall be treated as final and the State Government had unambiguously admitted to honour the same and implement it. Therefore, once the proceedings has become final by the order of the Appellate Authority, as a natural corollary the State was expected to proceed further if the claim is rejected, to notify the area as a reserved forest as provided under Section 20 of the Forest Act.
(C) The orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and the Additional District Judges and their effect on the validity of the subsequent orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Additional District Judges in respect of the same lands later, involved in the case.
The fact that pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram case dated 20th November 1986, due publication of the Section 4 notification was effected, information was furnished to the interested persons making aware of the notification, the areas covered under the notification and their right to file claim before the Forest Settlement Officer and claim petitions were entertained by the Forest Settlement Officers and orders were passed which were subjected to appeal and the appeals were also disposed, are not disputed. The case of M/s. JAL is not that there was no proper publication of the notification under Section 4 or the affected persons were not aware of the factum of the notification or the necessity to prefer a claim or that the UPCCL was not aware of their right, if any. The only case is that as the UPCCL was then a sick industry proper action could not have been taken and therefore, there was no valid legal settlement of the rights. It is also admitted by all concerned that in respect of the entire disputed land of 1033.231hectors, the settlement proceedings were finalized and appeals were also disposed of are also not indispute. It is also admitted that in some matters the UPCCL had appeared and contested, though only a junior clerk had appeared before the Forest Settlement Officer. It is also admitted that in some proceedings, orders were passed by the Forest Settlement Officer directing exclusion of the area claimed by UPCCL falling within the area covered under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act and the Additional District Judge also confirmed those orders. It is also true that in the majority of the cases UPCCL did not participate in the proceedings. But, whether a party has participated or not, the value of the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and the Additional District Judge would be the same in respect of the land. The settlement proceedings in respect of the lands which the UPCCL claimed rights either as acquired lands or lands having mining lease hold rights, when orders were passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and confirmed or modified or set aside by the Additional District Judges, the said orders would become final as held in the order dated 20th November, 1986. When this fact is appreciated in the light of the later order dated 18th July 1994 it is clear that when that order has become final, if any person is aggrieved by the same, the remedy is to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking necessary directions as liberty was granted by the order dated 20th November, 1986 as well as by order dated 18th July 1994. Even if a party was not represented before the Forest Settlement Officer or the Additional District Judge and he is aggrieved by the order passed against him, the remedy is to approach the Forest Settlement Officer to review the order, if no appeal was taken up or approach the Additional District Judge to review the decision, if the order of the Forest Settlement Officer has already been finalized in the Appeal. What M/s. JAL has done subsequent to their purchase of the rights of UPCCL was different.
It was on 10th July, 1992 State Government made a reference to BIFR under Section 15(1) of the sick industrial companies (Special Provisions Act, 1985) in relation to UPSCCL. On 07th October, 1992 UPCCL was declared a sick industrial undertaking by BIFR. Still on 31st May, 1995, UPCCL had filed an application to renew the mining lease of Dalla mines. On 09th September, 1996 a similar application for renew of the mining lease of Ningha Mines was filed. It was on 08th December, 1999 the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad ordered winding up of UPCCL. On 08th August, 2005 the official liquidator issued notice inviting expression of interest for sale of cement plants and assets of M/s. UPCCL. M/s. JAL submitted the bid thereafter and on 11th/12thOctober, 2006 the sale in favour of M/s. JAL was confirmed. Till then M/s. JAL has nothing to do with UPCCL. Even though the Learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that M/s. JAL is not the successor in interest of UPCCL, as they bid in the auction conducted by the Official Liquidator monitored by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, pursuant to the tender inviting expression of interest, and it was the High Court which confirmed the same, we have no hesitation to hold that the right which was put up for sale pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the liquidation proceedings and purchased by M/s. JAL is the rights which was available with the M/s. JAL. No better right or any right in excess of the right which was available with UPCCL could be claimed by M/s. JAL. Though it was argued that the MOI and the details furnished in the tender documents do not show that any forest land was involved and if M/s. JAL was aware that any land or assets belonging to M/s. JAL put up for sale were forest lands, they would not have submitted the bids and would not have purchased the same and therefore, in view of the tender of documents, the lands are to be taken as not included in any forest area, as otherwise it would be prejudicial to M/s. JAL. That plea cannot be accepted, though the submission appears attractive. If the lands which were reported to be available with UPCCL and were put up for sale as the properties of UPCCL, irrespective the fact whether it was published in the tender documents or not, if the said lands are part of the forest land, the provisions of the Forest Act would definitely apply. Even if M/s. JAL suffered any loss on account of the omission of such material facts, whether intentionally concealed or accidently omitted to be shown, the remedy of M/s. JAL is different. We do not intent to dwell upon the same in this proceedings as it is neither relevant nor necessary.
If a land over which "A" has any right or interest and it falls within the land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act as reserved, as provided under Section 6 of the Forest Act, he is entitled to put forth his claim before the Forest Settlement Officer as provided therein. If he prefers such a claim and an order has been passed rejecting his claim and later "B" purchases the rights of "A" over the said land, the remedy of "B" is only to challenge the order passed earlier and not to prefer a separate claim under Section 6 of the Act.. Even if "A" did not file a claim and "B" purchases the rights of "A", he can file a claim under Section 6 if it is within time or can prefer a claim as provided under Section 9, explaining sufficient cause as provided therein for not preferring the claim within the stipulated time, provided no final notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has been issued till then. The original notifications under Section 4 in respect of the disputed land were issued much earlier to the date of the first judgement in Banwasi Seva Ashram case. Considering the facts of the case and finding that there was no demarcation of the areas covered under the notification, and consequent to that persons who would be prejudicially affected by the notification were not aware of the consequences of the notification and therefore could not prefer the claim under Section 6 of the Forest Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed demarcation of the land covered by the notification publish of the same in vernacular language and to make aware the affected parties their right to prefer the claim as provided under Section 6 and granted opportunity to file claims within three months from the date of finalization of demarcation and publication of the same, directing that such claims shall be treated as claims preferred within the time provided under Section 6 of the Forest Act. As the direction was to finalize the settlement proceedings within a time frame and being aware that there may be cases were such claims may not have properly considered, contested and decided, the Forest Settlement Officers were directed to place the said findings along with the records before the Additional District Judge deputed by that Judgement and directed the Additional District Judges to consider them as appeals against the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer. When any such order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer was confirmed by the Additional District Judge it was declared to be final. Hence it would be binding not only on the persons claiming right over the land on the date when the order was passed, the order would be binding on the land itself as it was specifically declared that such order passed by the Additional District Judge shall be treated as final and Government shall implement the same, which was in fact undertaken by State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the legal position is so understood, if in respect of the land claimed by "A" an order has been passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Additional District Judges, that order would be binding not only on "A" or his assignees or successors, but on the land itself. If so, later when later "B" purchases the rights of "A", "B" cannot file a claim under Section 6 ignoring the order passed earlier, either by contending that "A" was ignorant or due to some disability he could not have preferred a claim within the time. His remedy is to challenge the order binding on "A" as well as the land obtained by "B" from "A". Even though any person has a right to prefer a claim, as provided under Section 9, if a claim under Section 6 could not have been preferred within the stipulated time on satisfying the conditions provided therein, "B" cannot seek the remedy available under Section 9 of the Forest Act so long as the previous order passed subsists, which is binding on the land as well as "A". This position will not change for the reason that "B" purchased the property not on a private sale or that it was a court sale or that the true facts were not disclosed at the time of the sale. The consequences of the sale would be the same as against the property and the rights prefer a claim as provided under section 6 of the Forest Act.. This exactly is the position herein. The Forest Settlement Officer had passed orders in respect of the entire area involved in the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Actexcept those in the 12 villages much earlier to the date of purchase of the rights of the UPCCL by M/s. JAL. Therefore, what was put up for sale in the liquidation proceedings and purchased by M/s. JAL by tendering the bid are the properties of UPCCL carrying the binding orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officers and the Additional District Judges. The question whether M/s. JAL was aware of the orders then, makes no difference on the validity or binding nature of those orders. Even if the case of M/s. JAL is that because the UPCCL at that time was a sick industry and a junior clerk had participated only in some of the proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer or the Additional District Judges and therefore those orders were not passed after proper consideration of the facts and the law, their remedy as the successor in interest of UPCCL was to challenge that order before the appropriate Authority and not to prefer a separate claim before the Forest Settlement Officer. As stated earlier even if M/s. JAL had a right under Section 9 of the Forest Act to prefer a claim after satisfying the conditions provided therein, when there exist valid and binding orders in respect of the said lands, passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and Additional District Judges, pursuant to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram case, M/s. JAL has no legal right to prefer such claim ignoring the previous orders. Neither the Forest Settlement Officers nor the Additional District Judges were competent to pass fresh orders contrary to the binding previous orders holding that the previous orders will not be binding on M/s. JAL. M/S JAL otherwise should have opted the remedy of approaching the Honorable supreme Court availing the liberty reserved in the judgment dated 12th December, 1986 or 18th July 1994.
Though Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pinaki Misra relied on the decisions in Jitender Nath Vs. Jublee Hills Building Society and Another.((2006) 10 SCC 96), Payappar Sree Dharmashastha Temple Advisory Committee Vs. A.K. Joseph and Ors. ((2009) 14 SCC 628) and State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. Vs. K. Shyamsunder & Ors. ((2011 8 SCC 737) and ((1999) 4 SCC 149), in the light of the view we had taken earlier, the said decisions are not very relevant. What was considered and decided in Dharmashashtra Case (Supra) was that in the earlier suit, which was held to be binding and therefore operate as res judicata by the Hon'ble High Court, the Board though was a necessary party was not arrayed as a party and the said decree was obtained only against the State. Therefore the said decree at the most would be binding only against the State and not against the Board and hence the said judgement would not operate as res judicata for the later suit. In Jitender Nath (Supra) it was held that the award was a nullity and therefore the principles of res judicata will not operate. It was also held that an order which was passed by the Authority without jurisdiction need not be set aside being a nullity, in the eye of the law it never existed. The earlier decision in Balavant N Viswamitra Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule ((2004) 8 SCC 706) was relied upon. The orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer or the Additional District Judge cannot be said to be a nullity. They are valid and binding orders, not only on the parties to the said lis, but also on the lands involved. Therefore, when those orders were subsisting, the Forest Settlement Officer or the Additional District Judge could not have entertained another independent claim petition by the successor in interest of UPCCL and exclude the same from the purview of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. By order dated 20th November 1986the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already directed that the order passed by the Additional District Judge in the appeal shall be taken to be the order contemplated under the Forest Act and the State Government shall honour and implement the decision. Once the claim stands rejected, the final notification under Section 20 should have been issued without any delay, including the land covered in the claim which was rejected and excluding those claims which were upheld. In any case, even exercising the powers available under Section 9 of the Forest Act, the Forest Settlement Officer could not have entertained or upheld the claim. The fact that the orders passed by the Additional District Judges confirming the order of the Forest Settlement Officers later holding the previous orders passed against UPCCL do not operate as res judicata, excluding the lands from the area covered under notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, were not challenged and therefore are binding on the State as argued by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. JAL, cannot be accepted. The subsequent orders were passed years after the earlier orders have become final and much after the said fact was reported to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as recorded in the order dated 18th July, 1994. We hold that those orders in favour of M/s. JAL, excluding the lands from the land notified under Section 4 are bad in law and are not valid or binding orders. When binding previous valid orders holding that those lands cannot be excluded from the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act legally subsist and are in force, a contradictory order excluding those lands from the purview of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act cannot be valid or binding even though the state did not challenge the orders of the Appellate Authority. Hence those orders are to be ignored as not valid or binding ignored as void orders.
The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the M/s. JAL argued that even though the total area covered under the said orders excluding lands from the purview of Section 4 at the behest of M/s. JAL constitute only 8% of the total area excluded by the orders of the FSO and Additional District Judges and neither the State Government nor the CEC had taken any objection and in fact the State has granted mining leases in respect of such lands without approval of the Central Government and M/s. JAL was singled out for political reasons. The stand taken by the State of U.P. in respect of such excluded lands from the area covered under the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, is that such lands were excluded by the orders of the Forest Settlement Officers and Additional District Judges before July 1994 as reported and recorded in the order dated 18th July, 1994. The fact that the lands involved in this proceedings constituted only a small portion of the area excluded by various orders of the FSO and Additional District Judges from the lands covered by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act is also not disputed. The stand taken by the CEC is that the only matter brought to the notice of CEC was in respect of the lands claimed by M/s. JAL and the other details were not furnished. The stand taken by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. is that though the State has originally taken a stand against the recommendations of the CEC and in fact filed M.A. 1166 of 2016 (I.A. 2469 of 2010) to reject the recommendations and to permit issuing notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act in respect of the balance area after the exclusion of the area by the orders of the Forest Settlement Officers and Additional District Judges, after being aware of the stand taken by the MoEF, on reappraisal of the whole facts,in the larger perspective took a final view and ordered enquiry on the circumstances as to the entertaining of the claims preferred after the earlier orders passed by the Additional District Judges were finalized, and decided finally to change its stand accepting the recommendations of the CEC. When the arguments were concluded, the Learned Senior Counsel sought permission to make available records relating to the said enquiry and decisions taken. Pursuant to that submission, the State of U.P. filed an additional Affidavit of Mr. Sujoy Banerjee, the Conservator of Forest In-charge of Court Case Division, Forest Department, Uttar Pradesh and produced a communication addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest by the Special Secretary dated 22nd April, 2016.
The letter reads as under:-
"Please take reference of your letter No. Ko.Ke.2539/C.O.(A.C.) dated 20.04.2016 wherein it has been prayed to modify the notification No. 4951/14-2-2008-20(16)/2008 dated 25.11.2008 issued under Section 20 of the Act by which the land admeasuring 778.991 Hect. Was separated by declaring the same as non-forest land while it was notified as forest land under Section 4 of the Act.
In this regard, I have been directed to say that the said forest land admeasuring 778.991 hectare is also included in Government notification No. 4951/14-2-2008-20(16)/2008 dated 25.11.2008 in which regard the proceedings of forest land settlement was already completed on or before 18.07.1994. Therefore, the aforesaid notification dated 25.11.2008 by which the forest land admeasuring 778.991 hectare. Was declared as non-forest land, the same to the said extent is not in accordance to law, as upto which limit the proceedings concerning to forest land settlement was already completed on or before 18.07.1994.
Therefore, after considering the issue with regard to forest land which was declared as non-forest land, it has been decided to modify the aforementioned Government notification No. 4951/14-2-2008-20(16)/2008 dated 25.11.2008 as follows:
"In compliance of orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Petition No. 1061/1982 in the matter of Vanvaasi Seva Ashram Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, the proceedings of forest land settlement were completed in village Kota, Panaari, Padrach and Maarkundi of Sonbhadra District, and the government notification issued in the year 1986 under Section 20 with regard to village Makribaari of Sonbhadra District was not published, hence, in view of above settlement proceedings, and in the light of recommendations dated 10.08.2009 of Central Empowered Committee of Hon'ble High Court, in continuation of revised settlement conducted in the year 2007 and 2008, by using the powers provided under Section 21 of General Clauses Act the notification dated 25.11.2008 issued under Section 20 of the Act may be modified to the extent by complying the legal procedure".
Therefore, in view of above, you are requested to please ensure to initiate the proceedings"
Along with the affidavit O.M. No. 946A/14-2-2016-405(96)/96 dated 22nd April, 2016 constituting an enquiry committee consisting of Principal Secretary, Forest and Geology Department as Chairman and Principal Secretary Industrial Development Department as Organizing Secretary/Member and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Principal Secretary, Geology and Mining Department as members to conduct inquiry in respect of the forest land which have been included in the auction proceedings of properties of UPCCL and in the matter in which forest land was declared as non-forest land. The State has also produced various orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officers and the Additional District Judges which have become final by July, 1994 in respect of the disputed lands.
M/S JAL filed a reply to the said affidavit and documents stating that the attempt is to over reach the court at the belated stage and it is only a farce and the orders of the FSOs and Additional District Judges show that the settlement proceedings were not completed in 1994 as contented by the State and in fact it continued even in 2006 and even now proceedings are pending and in any case there cannot be a reserved forest without a notification published in the official gazette as provided under section 20 of the Forest Act and therefore the additional documents produced cannot be relied on at all.
We do not consider it necessary to go in detail on the inquiry being conducted or the action intended to be taken as they are irrelevant and unnecessary for our purpose in resolving the disputes involved in this case. If M/S JAL is aggrieved by the actions or orders they are at liberty to challenge them before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. But we cannot ignore the fact that effective action is not taken in respect of the parts of the lands involved in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, when allegations are made that State is even granting mining leases in respect of the forest land covered under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, without the prior approval of the central government much less challenge the exclusion of those lands from the purview of the notification, as they are doing as against M/S JAL. The affidavit referred to earlier filed for the State reporting the intention to issue further notification in compliance of the orders in Banwasi Seva Ashram case, in respect of villages Kota, Panari, Padrach and Markundi of Sonbhadra District prior to 1985,to modify the earlier notification dated 25th November, 2008, does not disclose any steps in respect of the remaining lands excluded from the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. The intention is only to act in respect of the lands claimed by M/s. JAL and were excluded by the orders of Forest Settlement Officer and the Additional District Judge. In such circumstances we see it necessary to issue directions to the State of U.P. to conduct a proper inquiry in respect of the entire lands covered under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act and coming within the purview of section 2 of the FC Act. The state shall not grant any mining lease or renew a mining lease or permit any non-forest activity in any portion of the land covered under the notification issued under section 4 of the Forest Act, without the prior approval of the Central Government as provided under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act.
The fact that private forest and waste land lying South of Kaimur in the Mirzapur District, were declared as forest land by the State of U.P. in 1953 was not disputed and in fact it is the very basis of the decision in Banwasi Seva Ashram case. The revenue records show that the lands are either waste land or jungle land. Later subsequent to the settlement proceedings the entire lands involved in this case are shown as forest land, is not in disputed. But the case of M/s. JAL is that the change of land use pursuant to the decisions of the Forest Settlement Officers and Additional District Judges at a time when UPCCL was a sick industry and therefore based on such entry it cannot be held that the lands are forest lands. It was also pointed out that subsequent to the later orders of the Forest Settlement Officer and the Additional District Judges, the land use in the revenue record were also changed. We find that even in the counter affidavit filed by M.S JAL it was specifically admitted that earlier the entire land covered by the notification were jungle or cliff or mountain. If so it would satisfy the forest land as explained in the decision in Banavasi seva samaj case. In view of the fact that the lands covered by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act would also be treated as forest land as provided under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, requiring prior approval of the Central Government, we do not find it necessary to go into the question further, except holding that the disputed lands which form part of the area notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act would attract the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, requiring the prior approval of the Central Government.
Though the Learned Senior Counsel relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Sandhu and Ors. Vs. Govt. of India & Ors. (AIR 2014 SC 3409) argued that the definition of forest land as understood in the decision dated 12th December, 1996 in Godavarman Thirumulakpad (Supra) was explained and for the sole reason that the land is shown as forest in the forest records, it cannot be said that Section 2 would be attracted. It was a case registered as PIL by the Hon'ble High Court Suo-moto based on a news item published in the Hindustan Times that Forest Hill Golf and Country Club is being developed in village Karoran in blatant violation of environment and forest laws as well as the orders passed by the State of Punjab. The land was shown as forest area in the Annual Administration Report of the Forest Department. It was also found that the land was included in the land notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLP). Their Lordships held:
"15. It will be clear from the language of Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 extracted above that for the better preservation and protection of any local area, situated within or adjacent to Shivalik Mountain Range which is liable to be affected deboisement of forests in that range or by the action of "cho", 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 (1), (b), (c), (d), (e), (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, heard, pasture or retain cattle generally other than sheep and goats. These activities are also not normally carried on in forest. In our view, therefore, land which is notified Under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and regulated by order of the local Government Under Section 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900 may or may not be 'forest land'. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court in the impugned order that the entire land of village Karoran, District Ropar, which has been notified Under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and is regulated by prohibitory directions notified Under Section 4 and 5 thereof is 'forest land' is not at all correct in law. The basis for inclusion of the entire area in village Karoran, District Ropar, in the list of forest areas in the State of Punjab pursuant to the order dated 12.12.1996 of this Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V. Union of India and Ors. (supra) is legally not correct. 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 Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act is 'forest land' is also legally not correct."
After noting the relevant facts, how to understand the word "forest land" is explained in the judgement dated12th December, 1996. It was held that it would show that the Forest Act was enacted with a view to check further deforestation and was applied to all forest area, irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof and FC Act puts a restriction on further deforestation of the forest land and would apply to any land which at the time of enactment of the FC Act 1980,irrespective of the classification or ownership. It was also held that the relevant fact is whether the said land was forest land as on 25th October, 1980, the date on which the FC Act came into force. It was found on facts that 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. Several decades before the enactment of the FC Act by recording the blanket finding that all the land in village Karoran was forest land for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, the Hon'ble High Court has affected the legal rights of several villagers, Agriculturist, Farmers, Shop owners and inhabitance of the village who were carrying on respective occupations on their land, even before the enactment of FC Act. The findings of the Hon'ble High Court that the entire land in Village Karoran is forest land for the purpose of Section 2 of FC Act was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. That decision does not change the view expressed in the order dated 12th December, 1996 and reiterated in various subsequent decisions would clarify that the factual question is whether on the commencement of the Forest Act on 25th November, 1990, the land is a forest land. Though the Learned Counsel appearing for M/s. JAL would argue that the Cement Factory of UPCCL was established and were operating and the mining license were granted to UPCCL, much prior to 1980 and the UPCCL was mining the limestone much earlier to1980 and the said land cannot be termed a forest land and therefore Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act is not attracted and the prior approval of the Central Government is not necessary, cannot be accepted. Even if the land was granted on mining lease to a party and thereafter a notification is issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act and the mining lease area form a part of the land thus notified under Section 4, it cannot be said that, Section 2 of the FC Act is not attracted or the prior approval of the Central Government is not required. The legal position is already settled.
The question of renewal of mining leases in Gujarat came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat ((1987) 1 SCC 213). In that case the appellant have been granted a quarry lease for the miner mineral black trap in the State of Gujarat for a period of 10 years on November 8, 1971. When the term of above was to expire the appellant applied for renewal of lease. The forest department refused to grant consent on the ground that the land fell under the reserved forest area and hence section 2 of the FC Act applied to the land. The contention of the appellant was that by the order granting lease for the purpose of quarrying, the lands have been dereserved from the reserved area and therefore the FC Act has no application. Their Lordships held:
"15. The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation of 1980 Act. '1980 Act' was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. That was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980. Therefore the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals."
Though appellant had relied on the earlier decision in State of Bihar Vs. Banshi Ram Modi ((1985) 3 SCC 643) on the facts it was distinguished as depriving the collection of feldspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on mining operation for Winning Mica would lead to a unreasonable result which would not in any way sub-serve the objective as their exist a lease wherein mining operation was being carrying on and what was due by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on some other mineral were available, he was giving the right to collect them and the new lease only permitted utilization or collection of the said other minerals and does not extend the area of the lease. Their Lordships therefore held:
"19. In the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the appellants' demands in these cases because the facts are entirely different here. The primary purpose of the Act which must sub-serve the interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent further deforestation. The Central Government has not granted approval. If the State Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where the State Government cannot apparently seek such approval in a matter in respect of which, in our opinion, it has come to the conclusion that no renewal should be granted."
The Honourable Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. (1989 Supp.(1) SCC 504) reiterated that whether it is a case of fresh lease or renewal following exercise of the option by the lessee, the compliance of Section 2 of FC Act is a necessary condition precedent. It was held as follows:
"The ratio of the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan V. Hari Shankar Rajindra Pal7 has obviously no application to the facts of this case. In Banshi Ram Modi case6 what was being considered was extension of the leases for another mineral which was found while exploitation under the existing mining lease was undertaken. We agree with the view expressed by Brother Mukharji that the Conservation Act of 1980 applies to renewals as well and even if there was a provision for renewal in the lease agreement on exercise of lessee's option, the requirements of 1980 Act had to be satisfied before such renewal could be granted."
M/s. JAL therefore cannot contend that as the mining lease was granted to UPCCL prior to the commencement of the FC Act, there was braking of the land due to resultant mining and therefore it is not a forest land or that Section 2 of the FC Act has no application or that being the renewal of the lease pursuant to the option available under original lease as well as the specific provision in the tender documents or on the statement given before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the liquidation proceeding by the State Government that the successful bidder would be entitled to get renewal of the lease, M/S JAL is entitled to get renewal of the lease without the prior approval of the Central Government as provided under Section 2 of the FC Act. While granting or refusing the grant of the lease or renewal of the lease, the following directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Anupama Minerals (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 117) is relevant.
"2.... The purpose of the Act is conservation of forests and to prevent the depletion of forest. In other words the Act intended not only to protect the existing forests but also to conserve and protect the existing forests in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In view of the prohibition for grant of lease in the reserved forest area, grant of renewal in the fact os the prohibited area will be in violation of law."
(D) The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central for Environmental Law Vs. Union of India dated 13thNovember, 2000 and the Circular dated 16th August, 2004 / 20th August, 2004 of Ministry of Environment & Forest.
On 13th November, 2000 the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order in IA 2 in Writ Petition (Civil) 337/1995
"Four weeks for filing of affidavits by the State that have not already done so. List after five weeks. Pending further orders no dereservation of forest/sanctuary/national park shall be affected".
The Ministry sought to modify the order by deleting the word "forest" in that order by filing IA 16. On 09th February, 2004 the said application was dismissed as follows:-
"We see no ground to allow the application and delete the word "forest" from the order 13th November, 2000".
The impact of the order dated 13th November, 2000 is that pending the disposal of the matter, there shall be no dereservation of forest sanctuary or national park. It is thereafter the MoEF issued the circular dated 16th/2OthAugust, 2004 which reads as follows:-
"I am directed to bring to your kind notice that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 13-11-2000 in Writ Petition (C) No. 337 of 1995, has banned dereservation of forest/national parks/sanctuaries. The same order has been reiterated by the Apex Court on 09-02-2004. In view of the orders of the Court, the matter was placed before the Forest Advisory Committee on 26-07-2004. Taking the fact into account the Ministry of Environment and Forests has already filed an affidavit for vacation of the order. The Committee decided that all such proposals shall be closed temporarily and the respective State/UT Governments would be advised to approach the Supreme Court first, and seek the vacation of the order banning dereservation. All such proposals for conversion of forest villages into revenue villages, and deletion of Section 4 area shall be processed by the Central Government only after the concerned State/UT Government obtains the permission of Supreme Court after final decision in the case."
The arguments of the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. JAL is that the Statutory provision under the Forest Act cannot be interfered or nullified by the Ministry and the order dated 13th November, 2000 only prohibits dereservation and necessarily it implies that there should be a declaration of reserved forest as provided under Section 20 of the Forest Act and the Ministry was wrong in stating that prior approval of the central Government is necessary for deletion of an area from the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. True, as stated earlier a reserved forest would come into existence only on the notification issued under Section 20 of the Forest Act. Section 20 makes it clear that the notification shall be published in the official gazette declaring the land to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification and from the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest. By issuing a notification under Section 4, by exercising the powers under Section 3, the State Government is only declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest. Though the bar provided under Section 5 would start to operate from the date of such publication of the notification, the land covered under the said notification will not automatically become a reserved forest. It is only after completing the procedure provided under the Act like proclamation by the Forest Settlement Officer, the determination of the claim if any preferred under Section 6 or 9 as well as the appeal if any preferred under Section 17 and its decision under Section 18, a notification as provided under Section 20 can be issued. The said land/forest would become a reserved forest only from the date so fixed in the notification published in the official gazette under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that exclusion of a land, whole or part, from an area covered under the notification issued under section 4 of the Forest Act would amount to dereservation. Section 27 of the Forest Act empowers the State Government by notification in the official gazette direct that any forest or any portion thereof reserved under the Act shall cease to be a reserved forest from a date fixed by that notification and from the date so fixed, such forest or portion thereof shall cease to be a reserved forest. Therefore, though it is not provided under Section 27 of the Act, by virtue of the order dated 30th November, 2000 which admittedly subsists even today, before issuing a notification under Section 27 declaring the forest no longer a reserved forest, prior approval of the Central Government is necessary. Even after a notification under Section 4 of the forest Act is issued declaring the decision to constitute such land a reserved forest, nothing in the Forest Act prevents the State Government from issuing a notification in modification of the earlier notification by deleting the whole or part of a land covered under the notification constituting a reserved forest. In view of the decision dated 08th February, 1999, holding that the lands which are subject to the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act would also come within the purview of the Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, it would be necessary to obtain appropriate clearance from the appropriate Authority, a prior approval as provided under Section 2 of the FC Act is mandatory. In view of the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the ratio of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land. If that be so, it cannot be said that the direction in the said circular issued by the Ministry. in the light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is illegal or invalid.
The lands excluded by the Forest Settlement Officer and upheld by the Additional District Judge, include 253.176 hectares in Markundi village. By order dated 25th January, 2008 in Case No. 398/400 the said land was excluded. That order was confirmed by order dated 28th November, 2008. Admittedly this land forms part of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary. A land notified in the Wildlife Sanctuary, cannot be excluded from the sanctuary without the permission of the National Board for Wildlife and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fairness, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. JAL submitted that though this 253.176 hectares also form part of the land excluded by the Forest Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Additional District Judge and also form part of the land included in the report of the CEC, as proceedings before pending before the District Court in respect of the said land M/s. JAL is not pressing the claim in respect of the said 253.176 hectares and their claim now is restricted to 778.991 out of 1083.231 hectares mentioned in the report of CEC. As the said land forms the part of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, without the sanction of the National Board for Wildlife and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no mining license could be renewed or permission for non-forest activities could be permitted in the said land.
In view of the above discussions we hold that exclusion of 778.991 hectares and 253.148 hectares covered under the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary are bad in law and they form part of the lands notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act. We further hold that as the settlement proceedings were finalized in respect of all those lands before M/s. JAL submitted the bid and purchased the rights of UPCCL, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 23rd November, 1986 in Banwasi Seva Ashram case, the notification under Section 20 should have been issued by the state government without delay much earlier to the date when the M/s. JAL obtained rights over the said lands. Though M/s. JAL is entitled to get renewal of the mining lease, as purchaser of the rights and assets of UPCCL in the liquidation proceedings, such lease could be renewed by the State of UP only after getting prior approval from the Central Government. With regard to the land which is part of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, approval of the National Board for Wildlife and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is necessary. The orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Additional District Judge in the claims preferred by M/s. JAL subsequent to the finalization of the orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officers and Additional District Judges pursuant to the directions in Banwasi Seva Ashram case dated 20th November, 1986 are not valid in law. The following observation of the honourable Supreme Court in Rural litigation and entitlement Kendra ( supra )is relevant.
"It is clear from the directions contained in the order of March 12, 1985, as also the ratio of the judgment in the Ambica Quarry Works case5 that even if there has been an order of the court and no challenge is raised against such order this Court could invoke its jurisdiction to nullify the direction or order and if any order, direction of decree has been passed ignoring the provisions of the Conservation Act of 1980 the same would not be binding. We have been given to understand during the hearing of these cases that appeals have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh where decrees have been passed directing renewal. When this Court left the litigations to be continued, the Conservation Act of 1980 and not been noticed. Therefore, liberty had been granted to agitate the disputes arising out of refusal to renew. In view of the provisions in the Conservation Act and the opinion expressed in Ambica Quarry Works case5, with which we are in agreement, the decrees also would not be sustainable where prior approval of the Central Government has not been obtained. We agree with Brother Mukharji that whether it is a case of first grant or renewal following exercise of option by the lessee, the compliance of Section 2 of the Conservation Act is necessary as a condition precedent."
Those orders were passed in violation of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court that the order passed by the Additional District Judge would be final and it is to be honoured by the state and is to be implemented. We therefore hold that the said orders were passed without jurisdiction and are therefore to be treated as non est and the exclusions from the area covered by the notification issued under section 4 of the Forest Act by the said orders will have no force.
In the light of the aforesaid discussions the recommendations of the CEC are accepted with the following directions:
a. The orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officers for exclusion 1083.231 hectares of the land notified under Section 4 of Indian Forest Act are declared null and void as the settlement proceedings directed by the Supreme court was finalized several years prior to M/s. JAL obtained right over the land and also because the Forest Settlement Officer or the Additional District Judge has no power to exclude the said lands from the notification issued under Section 4 which has already been finalized. The fact that no notification under Section 20 in respect of the said land were issued by the state, as against the unambiguous direction of the Supreme Court and the solemn assurance made to the Supreme Court by the state, and as per the judgement on determination of the appeal the order of the Additional District Judge would become final and is an order passed under the Forest Act, will not empower the Forest Settlement Officer or the Additional District Judge to entertain any subsequent application in respect of already settled lands. In view of the declaration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram case dated 20th November, 1986 the order of the Additional District Judge would be final and the Government had to implement the order. The failure of the State Government to notify the said lands as reserved forest would not enable the State Government or the Forest Settlement Officer to exclude the very same land, when earlier it was found that the lands cannot be excluded and the order has already become final and nobody exercised the liberty reserved by the Supreme Court in the judgment to approach the court if directions are necessary. Therefore, renewal of the mining lease, in favour of M/s. JAL can only be after obtaining prior approval of Central Government as provided under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and that too on payment of NPV and other payments warranted under law. In respect of 256.176 hectares which form part of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary additionally prior approval of the National Board for Wildlife and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is necessary to renew the lease.
b. The State of U.P. shall cancel all mining leases whether fresh or renewal and all other non-forestry activities on the areas notified under Section 4 of the forest Act for which settlement rights have been finalized pursuant to the Judgement in Banavasi Seva Asram case dated 20th November, 1986 and shall ensure that there is no non-forest activity including mining in any such land without the permission/approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
c. The notification under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act shall be issued immediately in respect of the lands falling in Tehsil Dudhi and Robertganj, in accordance with the findings in this judgement modifying the one issued earlier, including all the lands for which settlement proceedings were carried out as per the Judgement dated 20th November, 1986 and become final.
d. The State of UP shall take appropriate action to protect and conserve the forest and prevent any violation of the provisions of FC Act and the rules. The state shall also take appropriate action against all the officers found liable for the failure to take action including non publication of the notification under section 20 of the Forest Act as directed by the Supreme Court and thereby prevented the implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court.
M.A. 1166 of 2015 (IA 2469 of 2009) stands dismissed.
M.A. 1164 of 2015 (IA 2939 of 2010) stands dismissed.
The Original Application 494 of 2015 (CWP 130/2011) stands disposed of in the light of the directions issued.
M.A. 1169 of 2015 (IA 3877 of 2015) stands allowed.
All the applications are disposed accordingly, but without any order as to cost.
M.A. No. 1165 of 2015 was only an application for exemption from filing official English translation of some of the exhibits filed. That application also later disposed, as translations were already filed. M.A. No. 1164A of 2015 (IA 3023 of 2011) filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only application to receive additional documents to bring on record, as evidence. That application was allowed and disposed. M.A. No. 1164B of 2015 (IA 3024 of 2011) is an application for exemption from filing official English translation. It was also disposed as later translations were filed. M.A. No. 1164C of 2015 (IA 3030 of 2011) is an application filed for interim directions by M/s. JAL to continue the construction in plot 3200. No interim directions were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the matter is finally disposed, the application is also disposed. M.A. No. 1164D of 2015 (IA 3032 of 2011) is an application filed for permission to file additional documents. It was also allowed and the additional documents were permitted to be filed. The petition also stands disposed.
M.A. No. 1164A of 2015 (I.A. No. 3023 of 2010), M.A. No. 1164B of 2015 (I.A. No. 3024 of 2010), M.A. No. 1164C of 2015 (I.A. No. 3030 of 2010) and M.A. No. 1164D of 2015 (I.A. No. 3032 of 2010)
Accordingly, M.A. No. 1164A of 2015 (I.A. No. 3023 of 2010), M.A. No. 1164B of 2015 (I.A. No. 3024 of 2010), M.A. No. 1164C of 2015 (I.A. No. 3030 of 2010) and M.A. No. 1164D of 2015 (I.A. No. 3032 of 2010) stand disposed of.