Supreme Court Clarifies “Forest Land” Under Punjab Land Preservation Act: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 September 2018

Citation: I.A. No.2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Is land notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLP Act) automatically considered forest land? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning illegal construction in the Aravalli hills. The court’s decision has significant implications for environmental protection and land use regulations. This judgment clarifies that land notified under the PLP Act must be treated as forest land, reinforcing the need to protect ecologically sensitive zones.

The bench, comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, delivered a unanimous judgment. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to environmental laws and judicial orders to prevent further ecological damage.

Case Background

In 1984, R. Kant & Co. received an exemption to establish a Film Studio and Allied Complex on land in Anangpur village, Faridabad, under Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. However, the company did not fully comply with the terms of this exemption. A show cause notice was issued, but later dropped, with additional conditions imposed in 1990, including concerns about water availability.

By 1992, R. Kant & Co. had entered into an agreement with the State of Haryana to complete the project within five years. Simultaneously, the State of Haryana was concerned about environmental degradation in the Aravalli hills. This led to a notification on 18th August, 1992, under Section 4 of the PLP Act, prohibiting land clearing and construction in the area, including the land owned by R. Kant & Co. This created a conflict between the Town & Country Planning Department, which favored development, and the Forest Department, which sought environmental protection.

Despite the notification, the Town & Country Planning Department continued to support R. Kant & Co.’s construction activities. This conflict of interest between the departments led to a complex legal battle, culminating in the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLP Act): This section empowers the government to prohibit certain activities in specified areas to prevent land degradation. The notification dated 18th August, 1992, was issued under this provision, prohibiting clearing of land, quarrying, cutting of trees, and other activities in the notified area.
  “No. S.O.104/P.A. -2/1900/S.3/92 – Whereas the Governor of Haryana is satisfied after the due enquiry that the prohibitions hereinafter contained are necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Punjab Land Prevention Act, 1900; Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the said Act, the Governor of Haryana hereby prohibits the following acts for a period of thirty years(30 years) with effect from the date of publication of this order in the official Gazette in the areas specified in the schedule annexed hereto, the said area forming part of the village Anangpur in Ballabhgarh, Tehsil Faridabad District specified in the schedule annexed Haryana Government Forest Department Notification No.S.O.59/P.A. -2/1900/S.3/92, dated 10th April, 1992. 1. The clearing or breaking up of the land not ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of Haryana Government Forest Department Notification No.S.O.59/P.A. -2/1900/S.3/92 dated 10th April, 1992 provided that the breaking in the land for cultivation may be permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad Forest Division. 2. The quarrying of stones or the burnings of lime at place where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been as quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the said notification except with the permission of the Collector of Faridabad District who will consult the Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad Forest Division before according such permission. 3. The cutting of trees or timber or the collection or removal or subjection to any manufacturing process of any forest produce other than grass, flower, fruit and honey save for the bona fide domestic or agricultural purpose of right holders in the land provided that owners of the land may sell trees or timber after first obtaining a permit to do so from the Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad Forest Division. Such permit will prescribe such conditions for sale as may from time to time appear necessary in the interest of forest conservancy. 4. The setting on fire of trees, timber of forest produce. 5. The admission, herding or pasturing, retention of sheep, goats or camels provided that in case where sickness necessitates for the keeping of goats, for milk , Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad Division may issue a permit at his discretion for the retention of a limited number of stall -fed goat, to be specified for a specified period.”
• Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975: This section allows the government to exempt certain areas from the provisions of the Act. R. Kant & Co. initially obtained an exemption under this section.
  “23. Power to exempt – If the Government is of the opinion that the operation of any of the provisions of this Act causes undue hardship or circumstances exist which render it expedient so to do, it may, subject to such terms and conditions as it may impose, by a general or special order , exempt any class of persons or areas from all or any of the provisions of this Act.”
• The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: This act requires prior approval from the Central Government for any non-forest activity in forest areas. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include areas notified under the PLP Act.
• Section 29 of the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971: This section allows the declaration of controlled areas within the Faridabad Complex.
  “Section 29 – Declaration of controlled area (1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force the Chief Administrator may, with the previous approval of the State Government by notification, declare the whole or any part of the area within the Faridabad Complex including an area within a distance of 8 kilometers on the outer sides of the boundaries of Faridabad Complex as a controlled area. (2) to (6) ———- (7) After considering the objections, suggestions and representations, if any, and the recommendations of the Chief Administrator thereon, the State Government shall decide as to the final plans showing the controlled area and signifying therein the nature of restrictions and conditions applicable to the controlled area and publish the same in the Official gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed.”

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, applies to all areas that are considered “forest” in the dictionary sense or are recorded as forests in government records, irrespective of ownership. This interpretation is crucial in understanding the court’s stance on the PLP Act.

Arguments

The arguments presented in this case revolved around the interpretation of the PLP Act and its interaction with other environmental laws.

Arguments by R. Kant & Co. (Applicant):

• Exemption under Haryana Act: The applicant argued that the exemption granted in 1984 under Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, allowed them to proceed with construction activities. They claimed that this exemption superseded any subsequent notifications under the PLP Act.
• PLP Act Not Applicable: The applicant contended that the notification under the PLP Act was not applicable to their land, as it was intended for a Film Studio and Allied Complex, and not for activities typically prohibited by the PLP Act like mining or quarrying.
• Orders of the Court: The applicant argued that the orders passed by the Supreme Court were mining-centric and did not restrict their construction activities. They also argued that the orders passed on 17th March, 1997 and 13th May, 1998 allowed them to construct.
• Land Not Forest: The applicant argued that the land notified under the PLP Act does not automatically become forest land. They relied on the decision in B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India and others [ (2014) 12 SCC 172] to argue that the land should have been an existing forest as on 25th October 1980.
• Inclusion was a Mistake: The applicant contended that the inclusion of their land in the notification of 18th August 1992 was a mistake and that the State always intended to keep it out of the purview of the PLP Act.

Arguments by the State of Haryana and Forest Department:

• PLP Act Notification: The State of Haryana, through its Forest Department, argued that the notification issued under Section 4 of the PLP Act on 18th August, 1992, clearly prohibited construction activities in the specified area, including the applicant’s land.
• Land as Forest: The State contended that land notified under the PLP Act has always been treated as forest land by the Forest Department, and this was also supported by previous affidavits submitted to the Supreme Court.
• Applicability of Forest (Conservation) Act: The State argued that since the land was treated as forest, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, applied, requiring prior approval from the Central Government for any non-forest activities.
• Environmental Concerns: The State highlighted the environmental degradation in the Aravalli hills and the need to protect the region from further damage.
• No De-notification: The State argued that despite the efforts of the Town and Country Planning Department, the land of the applicant was never de-notified from the purview of the PLP Act notification.

The arguments of the parties can be summarised as follows:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether, in the State of Haryana, land notified under the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLP Act) is forest land or is required to be treated as forest land.
2. 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed each submission made by the parties and clarified the legal position on the status of land notified under the PLP Act.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court’s view on the authorities cited is as follows:

• T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 267]: The Court followed this authority to define “forest” and “forest land” and reiterated that areas recorded as forest in government records are to be treated as forest.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1996) 8 SCC 462] and M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes matter) v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 715]: The Court referred to these authorities for the orders passed regarding the protection of the Aravalli hills and the restrictions on mining and construction activities near Badkal Lake and Surajkund.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2004) 12 SCC 118] and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2008) 17 SCC 294]: The Court relied on these cases to reiterate that areas covered under the PLP Act are considered “forest” for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that the applicant’s construction was illegal.
• B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India and others [(2014) 12 SCC 172]: The Court distinguished this case, holding that it was specific to its facts and did not apply to the present case.
• Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban [(2000) 7 SCC 296]: The Court used this case to emphasize the need for restraint in filing review petitions and that the substance of the application is more important than its title.
• Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 3 SCC 430]: The Court referred to this case to highlight the issue of well-meaning citizens being misled by statutory permissions for unauthorized constructions.
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC 212] and Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647]: The Court referred to these cases to apply the Polluter Pays Principle.
• Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900: The Court relied on this provision to analyse the validity of the notification dated 18th August 1992.
• Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975: The Court considered this provision to analyse the validity of the exemption granted to the applicant in 1984.
• The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: The Court relied on this Act to highlight the requirement of prior approval for non-forest activities in forest areas.
• Section 29 of the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971: The Court considered this provision to reject the argument that the notification dated 18th August 1992 was not applicable to controlled areas.
• Section 35(1) of the Indian ForestAct, 1927: The Court considered this provision to understand the scope of protection of forests for special purposes.

Sentiment Analysis

The sentiment of the judgment is strongly pro-environment. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of environmental protection and the need to adhere to environmental laws. The Court was critical of the Town & Country Planning Department for prioritizing development over environmental protection. The judgment also indicates a strong disapproval of illegal constructions in ecologically sensitive zones. The Court’s reliance on previous judgments and the dictionary meaning of “forest” shows a consistent approach to environmental jurisprudence.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that land notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, is to be treated as forest land. The Court also held that the construction carried out by R. Kant & Co. was in contravention of the notification dated 18th August, 1992, issued under the provisions of the PLP Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the decisions of the Court.

The Court directed the State of Haryana to take the following steps:

• Demolition of illegal structures: The State was directed to demolish all illegal structures constructed by R. Kant & Co. on the notified land.
• Restoration of the area: The State was directed to restore the area to its original condition.
• No further construction: The State was directed to ensure that no further construction activities are carried out in the area without prior approval from the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• Polluter Pays Principle: The Court applied the “Polluter Pays” principle and directed R. Kant & Co. to pay for the restoration of the area.

The judgment clarified that any land notified under the PLP Act is to be treated as forest land, irrespective of its ownership or previous use. This decision reinforces the importance of environmental protection and the need to adhere to environmental laws.

Flowchart of the Case

Impact

The Supreme Court’s judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2018) has significant implications for environmental law and land use regulations in India. The key impacts include:

• Clarification of “Forest Land”: The judgment clarifies that land notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, is to be treated as forest land. This interpretation has far-reaching consequences for land use in areas covered by the PLP Act.
• Protection of Ecologically Sensitive Zones: The ruling emphasizes the need to protect ecologically sensitive zones like the Aravalli hills from illegal construction and environmental degradation.
• Enforcement of Environmental Laws: The judgment underscores the importance of strictly enforcing environmental laws and judicial orders. It sends a strong message that violations of environmental norms will not be tolerated.
• Interdepartmental Coordination: The case highlights the need for better coordination between different government departments to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure that environmental concerns are given due consideration.
• Polluter Pays Principle: The Court’s application of the “Polluter Pays” principle reinforces the concept that those who cause environmental damage must bear the cost of restoration.
• Precedent for Similar Cases: This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases involving land notified under the PLP Act and other environmental laws. It provides a clear legal framework for dealing with such issues.
• Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court’s proactive approach in this case demonstrates judicial activism in protecting the environment and ensuring that environmental laws are effectively implemented.

Overall, this judgment serves as a landmark decision in environmental jurisprudence, emphasizing the need for sustainable development and the protection of natural resources.