BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Original Application No. 04 of 2013 (Suo Moto)

(M.A No. 186/2013,M.A No. 568/2013, M.A No. 737/2013,
M.A No. 74/2014, M.A No. 75/2014 & M.A No. 787/2014)
And
Original Application No. 28 of 2015
(M.A. No. 61/2015)
IN THE MATTER OF:

Sonya Ghosh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

And
Haryali Welfare Society Vs. Union of India & Ors.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

Present: Applicant: Mr. Raj Panjwani, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae)

with Mr. Aagney Sail, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Choudhary and Mr. Saurabh
Sharma, Advs.
Respondents: Mr. Anil Grover, AAG with Mr. Rahul
Khurana and Mr. Mishal Vij, Advs. for State
of Haryana & HSPCB
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, Adv. For Rajasthan
Respondent N.9&10 Ms. Salonee Agarwal, Adv. – MA 74 &
75/2014

Date and Orders of the Tribunal

Remarks
Item Nos.
01-02 1. The issue taken up for consideration in these

October proceedings relates to illegal constructions raised in

23, 2018
dv violation of the Notification issued by the Ministry of

Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) dated

07.05.1992 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

prohibiting any activity in the area covered by the table

appended to the Notification in the Aravali hills without

prior permission. The areas covered by the Notification

include those mentioned as ‘forest’ in the land revenue

records maintained by the State, “Gair Mumkin Pahar”

(hillocks) apart from other categories specified in the said

table.

1
 2. The proceedings initially commenced on the basis of

a news item in the Times of India dated 07.01.2013 to the

Item Nos.
01-02 effect that private players were grabbing forest land in the

October Aravalis. Description of land which was Gair Mumkin

23, 2018
dv Pahar (unoccupied hillocks) covered by the above

Notification was wrongly got changed as ‘Gair Mumkin

Farm’ with a view to avoid the implications of the said

Notification. The land was also notified under Sections 4

and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA

Act) which could not be allowed to be diverted for non-

forest activities. The newspaper item alleged that there

was business-politico- bureaucratic-police nexus for

grabbing the forest land.

3. Reply was filed on behalf of the Haryana Pollution

Control Board to the effect that a physical survey was

being conducted of the area falling under the Notification

dated 07.05.1992. In the reply filed by the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests, Haryana, the extent of area

covered by under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA Act was

given. It was stated that the area was to be treated as

‘forest’ area in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India dated 18.03.2004 in M.C. Mehta

Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1 The State of Haryana had a

project for plantations in the said area. Out of three

villages mentioned in the news item, in 1586.36 acres of

land, plantations were raised in village Kot. In 1186.76

acres of land, plantations were raised in village Mangar.

Plantations were raised in 3813 acres of land, in village

Roz Ka Gujjar. No mining is permitted in the said land.

1
(2004) 12 SCC 118
2
 Only where permission of Central Government has been

taken under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,

Item Nos.
01-02
1980, non-forest activities have been allowed. List of
October
23, 2018 violators for illegal construction activities was annexed
dv
which mentioned names of nine persons. It was stated

that prosecution was initiated against the violators as per

the list annexed which included sixteen persons. It is

further stated that trenches were dug at the entry point of

the forest areas and a Committee headed by the DFO,

Gurgaon, was constituted to curb violations.

4. The matter has been put up for consideration on

more than 80 dates and various orders have been passed.

It is not necessary to refer to all the orders. Some of the

orders in which operative directions have been issued may

be referred to the extent relevant.

5. On 23.01.2013, stand of the State of Haryana was

noted that commercial activities of sale and purchase of

marble and construction of sheds was not permissible on

the forest land. The Tribunal injuncted such commercial

activity.

6. On 13.03.2013, the Tribunal recorded the statement

made on behalf of the State of Haryana that no non-forest

activity will be allowed in forest area in villages Kot,

Mangar and Roz Ka Gujjar.

7. On 12.04.2013, again the direction for prohibiting

non-forest activity in the forest area was reiterated.

8. On 12.02.2014, the Tribunal directed furnishing of

details whether the area was forest area in the revenue

record and covered by the Aravali Notification and whether

there was any order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with

3
 regard to area covered by the Aravali Notification. The

State was also directed to ensure that restrictions in terms

Item Nos.
01-02 of the Notification are followed.

October 9. On 28.04.2014, the Tribunal recorded the statement

23, 2018
dv made on behalf of the State of Haryana that the effect of

the Notification under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA Act

was being considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

time was required for steps being taken against 566

violators of the Aravali Notification.

10. On 21.04.2014, further direction was issued

furnishing information of unauthorised constructions in

violations of Aravali Notification. Similar direction was also

issued on 18.07.2014.

11. On 27.01.2015, the stand of the State of Rajasthan

that there are 695 cases of encroachments was noted.

12. On 05.02.2015, directions were issued against

illegal mining activities, illegal crushers in the area

surrounded by Sariska Tiger Reserve on the one side and

Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary on the other. The State of

Haryana was also required to file latest status report. It

was noted that in the State of Rajasthan there were 698

unauthorised structures in the Aravali forest area.

13. On 24.01.2018, the State of Haryana was required

to furnish complete data about structures erected on the

Gair Mumkin Pahars covered by the Aravali Notification.

14. We may also refer to the affidavit of the State of

Haryana filed on 31.03.2014 to the effect that 800 acres of

land has been notified under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA

Act in villages Kot, 1132 acres of land has been so notified

in village Mangar and 4798 acres of land has been in

4
 village Roz Ka Gujjar. The said land is recorded in the

revenue record as forest. The land covered by the

Item Nos.
01-02 Notification under PLPA Act is being treated as forest.

October However, a clarification has been sought by filing an

23, 2018
dv application in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

15. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties

and perused the documents referred to at the time of

hearing on record.

16. We have been particularly taken to the Notification

dated 07.05.1992. The table appended to the Notification

refers to four categories of areas. It will be appropriate to

quote the relevant part.

“Areas where carrying on of processes and

operations without permission is prohibited
(i) All reserved forests, protected forests or any
other area shown as "forest in the land
records maintained by the State Government
as on the date of this notification in relation
to Gurgaon District of the State of Haryana
and the Alwar District of the State of
Rajasthan.
(ii) All areas shown as: -
(a) Gair Mumkin Pahar, or
(b) Gair Mumkin Rada, or
(c) Gair Mumkin Behed, or
(d) Banjad Beed, or
(e) Rundh.
in the land records maintained by the State
Government as on the date of this notification in
relation to Gurgaon district of the State of Haryana
and the Alwar district of the State of Rajasthan.
(iii) . All areas covered by notifications issued
under section 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land
Preservation Act, 1900, as applicable to the
State of Haryana in the district of Gurgaon
up to the date of this Notification.
(iv). All areas of Sariska National Park and
Sariska Sanctuary notified under the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972).”

17. We have also noted that vide Notification dated

29.11.1999, the authority to take measures for protection

and improvement of the area notified as per Notification

dated 07.05.1992 was delegated to the State Government.

5
 Overall monitoring was to be done by Monitoring

Committees under the respective Collectors. The States

Item Nos.
01-02
were to prepare Master Plan for development of the area
October
23, 2018 and also to deal with the applications for permission to
dv
undertake non-forest activities after examining the

environment impact.

18. It has also been pointed out that the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana in its judgment dated 03.05.2012 in

Criminal Misc. No. M-51514 of 2007, M/s Ansal

Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Haryana

State Pollution Control Board and other matters, declined

the prayer for quashing criminal proceedings with the

observation that the entries of ‘Gairmumkin Farm House’

in place of Gair Mumkin Pahar’ were illegal. However, the

observations were not to be conclusive to prejudice the

pending trial. The trial court i.e. Environment Court

acquitted some of the persons against whom prosecutions

were initiated under the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986 on the ground that entry of ‘Gair Mumkin Farm

Houses’ was continuing in several Jamabandis. Thus, the

said area was not “Gair Mumkin Pahar” and was not

covered by the notification.

19. There is no dispute with the proposition that once

the land is covered by the Notification dated 07.05.1992,

no activity in violation thereof is permissible. However, the

restriction applies only to the categories of land specified

in table. While the view of the applicant is that what was

once described as “Gair Mumkin Pahar” and which is

covered by the Notification was illegally got converted to

“Gair Mumkin Farm” should be treated as “Gair Mumkin

6
 Pahar” as observed by the High Court to give effect to the

real intent of the notification, the stand of the State is that

Item Nos. once entry is changed in record as “Gair Mumkin Farm”,

01-02
the notification was not applicable.
October
23, 2018 20. It may be apt to reproduce the observations of the
dv
High Court:-

“Concededly, the developers have got

changed the kind of land from Gairmumkin
Mountain (Pahad) to Gairmumkin Farm houses.
If any Patwari without any legal authority had
made the stray entries in the Khasra Girdawari
CRM Nos. M-51514 of 2007 & 880 of 2010
(alongwith connected petitions) (Annexure P6/T
colly) for some consideration and for the
reasons best known to him, which were illegal
& without any authority and further carried out
in the column of Jamabandi (Annexure P6/T
colly) and Aksh Sizra (Annexure P21), then,
such stray and illegal entries are non est, void
and are not sufficient to hold that the land in
litigation was Gairmumkin Farm houses. Such
entries deserve to be outrightly ignored and
kind of land in dispute (Gairmumkin Mountain
(Pahad)) would remain the same for all intents
and purposes in this relevant behalf.”

21. However, the Trial Court acquitted some of the

accused taking a different view.

22. Ideally, the MoEF&CC should have clarified the

position.

23. In any case, without commenting of consequence of

our interpretation on an interprets judgment and pending

any specific clarification of the MoEF&CC, our view is that

interpretation of a notification in an eco-sensitive area

should be purposive. Even if a person is not convicted by

criminal court for which proof beyond reasonable doubt is

required, the authorities must enforce the intent of

protecting eco-sensitive area by prohibiting construction

activities.

7
 24. Hyper technical interpretation should not be
Item Nos.
preferred. If in substance the category of land is covered
01-02

October for environment protection, by mere change of

23, 2018
dv nomenclature, such areas should not be read as excluded

from the Notification by the concerned authorities.

25. We may now deal with the issue of what are the

illegal constructions in violation of notification dated

07.05.1992.

26. The Notification dated 07.05.1992 also refers to the

area shown as forest land. According to the State of

Haryana itself, the area covered by Notification under

Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA Act is treated as forest land

by the State. Area covered by PLPA notification is also part

of the above table. Moreover, in the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra), after

referring to earlier judgment in T.N. Godavarman

Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors.2, it was made clear

that area covered by the Notification under Sections 4 and

5 of the PLPA Act was to be treated as forest area.

27. In view of above, any construction raised on the

forest area or the area otherwise covered by Notification

dated 07.05.1992 without permission of the competent

authority (after the date of the said Notification) has to be

treated as illegal and such forest land has to be restored.

28. We order accordingly.

29. Since there is dispute about the identity of the land

covered by the Notification dated 07.05.1992, as far as the

land covered by Notification under the PLPA Act by the

State of Haryana is concerned, the same has to be treated

2
(1997) 2 SCC 267
8
 as forest land. With regard to any other land, identification

has to be made for executing the direction in this order.

Item Nos.
01-02
Such identification may be made by a Joint Committee
October
23, 2018 comprising of the representatives of the MoEF&CC, Forest
dv
Departments of the States of Haryana and Rajasthan and

the concerned District Magistrates in the respective

States.

30. Such Committees may assume charge within two

weeks and complete the process of identification within

three months thereafter. Action of restoring the forest land

already identified or which may be identified may be

completed within next three months.

31. In view of the above, the applications stand disposed

of.

32. A report of the action taken may be filed before this

Tribunal on or before 31.05.2019. The same may be put

up for consideration on 2nd July, 2019.

..…..…………………………….., CP
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

.…..…………………………….., JM
(Dr. Jawad Rahim)

...…..…………………………….,JM
(S.P. Wangdi)

...…..…………………………….,EM
(Dr. Nagin Nanda)
23.10.2018