Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2018/09/12/whether-in-the-state-of-haryana-land-notified-under-the-provisions-of-the-punjab-land-preservation-act-1900-for-short-the-plp-act-is-forest-land-or-is-required-to-be-treated-as-forest-land-if-so/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:51:23+00:00

Document:
whether, in the State of Haryana, land notified under the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short the PLP Act) is forest land or is required to be treated as forest land. If so, whether construction carried out by the applicant R. Kant & Co. on this land is in contravention of the notification dated 18th August, 1992 issued under the provisions of the PLP Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and decisions of this Court. = Our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative.
time supporting the Forest Department.
will be felt in the years to come, only time and nature will tell.
meet the requirement of this population for the next 20 to 25 years.
in view.” [Emphasis supplied by us].
conditions imposed by the Chief Minister in his order dated 11th July, 1990.
applicant, but nothing further happened in this regard.
area between and around Badkal Lake and Surajkund Tourist Complexes.
recommendations but they have not been provided, for whatever reason.
even by the Divisional Forest Officer.
Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India.
2/1900/S.3/92, dated 10th April, 1992.
Division before according such permission.
necessary in the interest of forest conservancy.
4. The setting on fire of trees, timber of forest produce.
the rising population in the National Capital Region.
subject to certain terms and conditions on or about 19th December, 1991.
complete its project of a Film Studio and Allied Complex within 5 years.
the other favouring environmental protection and conservation.
in the closed area of the notification.
land was not de-notified and no further event of note took place.
coupled with other environmental issues.
it, where it had proposed to establish a Film Studio and Allied Complex.
permitted beyond two and a half storeys subject to Building Byelaws/Rules.
5-1996 shall not be affected by this direction.
buildings by the authorities concerned.
within the 5 km radius of Badkal Lake and Surajkund.
per the Development Plan and building by-laws in force.
constructed and not tall buildings as originally conceived.
orders in that behalf.” [Emphasis supplied by us].
then disposed of by this Court on 12th October, 1998.
given by Dist. Revenue Authority from time to time, M/s R.
27.3.92 executed by the company with the Government.
Enclave is permissible.” [Emphasis supplied by us].
disregard of a statutory notification.
pragmatic definition to the word ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’.
Conservator of Forests, Haryana in Environment Awareness Forum v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir.
see later, this was always so.
the PLP Act is “counted as forest” only during the currency of the closure.
forest cover in the State of Haryana is now 149,680.49 hectares.
Country Planning Department, but we leave it at that.
th December, 2001 (being IA No.
Ridge and also in the Aravalli Hills. [Emphasis supplied by us].
have been mentioned in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.
afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues.
significant and appear, generally, to have been overlooked.
Badkal Lakes in terms of the order passed by this Court on 10th May, 1996.
question whether areas covered under the PLP Act are ‘forest’ of any kind.
time to time, including by Shri S.K. Maheshwari and Shri Banarsi Das.
Central Government to divert such closed land for non-forestry purposes.
issue of the notification under Sections 4 and/or 5 of the [PLP] Act.
Government for diversion of such land for non-forestry purpose.
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
of the PLP Act, including areas for which the notifications have expired.
prohibited zone for mining activity.
interest and after obtaining permission from this Court.
or regulated in those areas by various enactments and orders of this Court.
unavoidable and in public interest.
in blatant violation of the environmental laws and the orders of this Court.
under the provisions of the PLP Act.
PLP Act and other forest areas and rehabilitation of such areas.
the area already earmarked for urbanisation in the final Development Plan.
this Court on this issue.
already completed in terms of sanctions or approvals earlier granted.
of plots and sanction building plans as well as issue completion certificates.
Secretary of Haryana to file an affidavit in response to the application I.A.
this Court rendered on 18th March, 2004 in this regard.
considered and rejected by a Bench of three learned judges of this Court.
open to any further discussion or examination.
this Court on 12th December, 1996.
provisions of the PLP Act, the closed land does not become ‘forest land’.
provisions of the PLP Act is forest land or not.
under the PLP Act are such that are not normally carried on in a forest.
of this Court in Godavarman (decided on 12th December, 1996).
73. This Court also examined the two decisions rendered in M.C.
Central Government as mandated by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
basis was not correct in law.
(v) for the preservation of the public health.
77. We leave it at that because of the distinguishing features in the M.C.
Mehta set of orders as contrasted and recognized with the facts in Sandhu.
make constructions on the land owned by it and known as Kant Enclave.
maintainable. Reference was made to Point No. 1 discussed in the decision.
even it be in chambers where the review petitions are listed.
applications and that is precisely what has been done.
18th August, 1992 is a forest and should be treated as a forest.
by this Court from time to time.
submissions having been made, we will deal with each of them.
Is the notified land a forest or treated as a forest?
land. This submission is clearly liable to be rejected.
th December, 1996 was filed in Environmental Awareness Forum v.
any controversy arose in the matter.
some cut-off date was required for identification of forests and forest land.
“counted as forest” during the currency of the closure under the PLP Act.
spirit of the PLP Act.
land, even if such lands are not recorded as ‘forest’ in Government records.
suggested a possible reprieve to the applicants.
environmental degradation of the Aravalli hills.
orders passed by this Court from time to time in Godavarman and in M.C.
and forest land and need to be treated as forest land.
Surajkund and all open areas shall be converted into green belts.
“The Badkal lake and Surajkund are monsoon-fed water bodies.
been done and appears to be irreversible.
are nothing but forest land and deserve to be treated as such.
passed on 6th May, 2002 deserved to be confirmed.
destruction of ground water sources.
to time. These have already been adverted to and need not be repeated.
the applicant were illegal, but obviously, to no effect.
was specifically and categorically reiterated.
were made in respect of these I.As.
imagination, come to the aid of the applicants.
but forest or forest land.
for the State of Haryana.
this Court, which has nothing to do with the facts of the present case.
date is illegal and impermissible in law.
in, amongst other things a parched Badkal Lake.
of the State of Haryana to keep this land out of the rigours of the PLP Act.
the rigours of the notification.
boundaries of Faridabad Complex as a controlled area.
area declared under Section 29 of the said Act to be a controlled area.
result that integrated development of this area was not possible.
Act has no relevance or reference to the provisions of the PLP Act.
a correct interpretation of the decision rendered by this Court in Sandhu.
should not be demolished as suggested by the CEC.
concerned authorities had acted bona fide.
them is a single-storey hutment.
4. Film Studio (FS-2) constructed 1 no.
7. Pumping Station (Functional) 1 no.
10. Parks (fully developed) 14 nos.
11. Roads completed 136460 Sq. Mtr.
12. Street lights poles erected and energised 627 nos.
14. Storm water drain completed and functional 18000 Mtrs.
18. Electric sub-station for 650 KV transformer 2 nos.
total lack of concern for the environment and ecology of the Aravalli hills.
have to be strictly implemented.” [Emphasis supplied by us].
constructions are pre or post 18th August, 1992.
those who have been conveyed land and have made constructions.
of the investment. We order accordingly.
before 31st December, 2018. We direct accordingly.
August, 1992 and the restrictions placed by the notification. R. Kant & Co.
the State of Haryana. To compensate them for the land, we direct that R.
18th August, 1992 and whose construction is directed to be demolished.
The quantified amount will be paid, in equal proportion, by R. Kant & Co.
and the Town & Country Planning Department of the State of Haryana.
the cause of action arising as on today.
Welfare Forum v. Union of India.
for compliance of this direction in the first half of November 2018.
or before 31st December, 2018.
Previous Post In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises 51 consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion. ii. The declaration of the aforesaid reading down of Section 377 shall not, however, lead to the reopening of any concluded prosecutions, but can certainly be relied upon in all pending matters whether they are at the trial, appellate, or revisional stages. iii. The provisions of Section 377 will continue to govern non-consensual sexual acts against adults, all acts of carnal intercouse against minors, and acts of beastiality. iv. The judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors.57 is hereby overruled for the reasons stated in paragraph 19.
Next Post framing of substantial questions on both the issues as provided under Section 100(4) and (5) of the Code.= whether two Courts below were right in their respective jurisdiction in holding that the plaintiffs were able to prove their title over the suit land on the basis of evidence (oral/documentary) adduced by them and, if so, whether such finding should be upheld or not.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.