Case: CHANDRA PRAKASH BUDAKOTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act. He relied upon a judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 to submit that the words ‘forest? should be understood according to its dictionary meaning. He relied upon Google images from 2007 to 2014 which would show that the area which was densely populated with trees has gradually undergone a change.9. He submitted that Oak and Kukat trees were cut and construction was commenced by Respondent No.9 i.e. Mahananda Spa and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. without obtaining clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act. He referred to the reports submitted by the Forest Survey of India and the joint inspection report of the forest authorities in support of his submission that there has been a progressive reduction in the forest area in Khasra No.605. He also placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave matters) v. Union of India (2018) 18 SCC 397 and Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. State of Kerala (2019) 7 SCC 248 to argue that any construction carried out without requisite permissions is liable to be demolished.10. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.9 submitted that the land of Respondent No.9 in Khasra No.605/1 is recorded as barren (banjar) land in the revenue records. He referred to the revenue records to contend that the land in Khasra No.605 is neither a forest land nor in the nature of a forest. Initially, according to him, Mahananda Spa and Resorts Limited was to be constructed in 5702.20 sq. meters for which a sanctioned building plan was granted. According to the notification dated 14.09.2006, environment clearance is required only if the built-up area of a project is more than 20,000 sq. meters. As it was decided to increase the built-up area from 13983.67 sq. meters to 32,791 sq. meter, a fresh building plan was submitted for approval. Mr. Sundaram contended that the entire shareholding of the erstwhile promoters of the Respondent No.9 was sold to Mankind Pharmaceuticals Limited company. Thereafter, Respondent No.9 applied for grant of environment clearance on 01.02.2016 and Consent to Establish from the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board.11. Mr. Sundaram stated that the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority conducted a site inspection on 21.02.2016 pursuant to which the environment clearance was granted on 03.03.2016 permitting construction of the total built-up area of 32,686 sq. meters. He contended that there was no felling of any trees, as alleged by the Appellant. The submission of Mr. Sundaram that the construction taken up by Respondent No.9 was after obtaining all the necessary sanctions and approvals which were not subject matter of challenge in any forum. 12. The Appellant placed heavy reliance on the report of the Forest Survey of India which conducted an inspection on 01.05.2017. It is no doubt true that it was mentioned in the report that there is a gradual degradation of forest in Khasra No.605. The Committee proceeded with the inspection on the basis that Khasra No.605 is a forest on the ground that all lands with the tree canopy density between 10 % to 40 % shall be treated as open forest. The Committee made no reference to the revenue records. The Committee further proceeded on the ground that the total area of Khasra No.605 is 18.02 hectares to conclude that there is a progressive degradation due to construction of golf courts and other buildings in the area. The Tribunal rightly refused to accept the report of the Forest Survey of India as according to the revenue records, the land in Khasra No.605 is only 10.39 hectares. The Tribunal observed that it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to which part of Khasra No.605 has been degraded as the report of FSI refers to Khasra No.605 to be more than the area recorded in the revenue records.13. The Appellant filed M.A. No.1672 of 2018 in O.A. 626 of 2016 seeking a direction for a site inspection in view of fact that Respondent No.9 is continuing with the construction in the forest area. By an order dated 19.12.2018, the Tribunal directed the Regional office of Ministry of Environment and Forest, Climate Change, Dehradun to conduct an inspection. After conducting an inspection, a report was submitted on 07.01.2019. The clear findings recorded in the report are that the revenue records show that Khasra No.605 is banjar or barren land. In NOIDA Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, In Re v. (2011) 1 SCC 744 , this Court held that due weight has to be given to revenue records, especially those pertaining to a period when the dispute regarding the land being a forest land did not exist. In the instant case, the revenue records relied upon by the Respondent No.9 are very old when nobody could have imagined about the project. 14. The observation in the report dated 07.01.2019 is to the effect that the land in Khasra No.605 was not considered as a deemed forest by the Forest Department in the report filed in Godavarman?s case. There is no evidence of blasting operations. There is also no sign of any fresh felling of trees and finally it was concluded that the land in Khasra No.605 cannot qualify as deemed forest. There is a reference in the report to the judgment of this Court in Godavarman?s case wherein it was held that the Forest Conservation Act would be applicable to all lands recorded as forest in the revenue records. The provisions of the Forest Conservation Act are not applicable to Khasra No.605. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the land falling in Khasra No.605 is banjar or barren land and the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act is not applicable.15. In so far as Khasra No.512 and 514 are concerned, the Forest Department, State of Uttarakhand, Ministry of Environment and Forest have been remiss in not initiating the proceedings as directed by the Tribunal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. Before we proceed further it is relevant to mention that the direction issued by the Tribunal in respect of Khasra No.512 and 514 has not been challenged by the Respondents.The Appellant placed heavy reliance on the report of the Forest Survey of India which conducted an inspection on 01.05.2017. It is no doubt true that it was mentioned in the report that there is a gradual degradation of forest in Khasra No.605. The Committee proceeded with the inspection on the basis that Khasra No.605 is a forest on the ground that all lands with the tree canopy density between 10 % to 40 % shall be treated as open forest. The Committee made no reference to the revenue records. The Committee further proceeded on the ground that the total area of Khasra No.605 is 18.02 hectares to conclude that there is a progressive degradation due to construction of golf courts and other buildings in the area. The Tribunal rightly refused to accept the report of the Forest Survey of India as according to the revenue records, the land in Khasra No.605 is only 10.39 hectares. The Tribunal observed that it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to which part of Khasra No.605 has been degraded as the report of FSI refers to Khasra No.605 to be more than the area recorded in the revenue records.13. The Appellant filed M.A. No.1672 of 2018 in O.A. 626 of 2016 seeking a direction for a site inspection in view of fact that Respondent No.9 is continuing with the construction in the forest area. By an order dated 19.12.2018, the Tribunal directed the Regional office of Ministry of Environment and Forest, Climate Change, Dehradun to conduct an inspection. After conducting an inspection, a report was submitted on 07.01.2019. The clear findings recorded in the report are that the revenue records show that Khasra No.605 is banjar or barrenthe instant case, the revenue records relied upon by the Respondent No.9 are very old when nobody could have imagined about the project. 14. The observation in the report dated 07.01.2019 is to the effect that the land in Khasra No.605 was not considered as a deemed forest by the Forest Department in the report filed in Godavarman?s case. There is no evidence of blasting operations. There is also no sign of any fresh felling of trees and finally it was concluded that the land in Khasra No.605 cannot qualify as deemed forest. There is a reference in the report to the judgment of this Court in Godavarman?s case wherein it was held that the Forest Conservation Act would be applicable to all lands recorded as forest in the revenue records. The provisions of the Forest Conservation Act are not applicable to Khasra No.605. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the land falling in Khasra No.605 is banjar or barren land and the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act is not applicable.15. In so far as Khasra No.512 and 514 are concerned, the Forest Department, State of Uttarakhand, Ministry of Environment and Forest have been remiss in not initiating the proceedings as directed by the Tribunal.