The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice S. J. Kathawalla and Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that when the petitioners have a no-objection letter from the concerned authority and have fulfilled the required conditions laid down for the development of a part of the land that falls under the category of the forest, the central government is to send approval under section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980. (Pecry Jamshed Driver and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department and Ors)
Facts of the case
The petitioners are the owners of the land in village Aundhol, district Pune. They purchased the said land in 1998 by a registered sale deed and also conducted the requisite due diligence. They also obtained an extract that showed that the land was neither a private forest nor a reserved forest in the revenue records. In 2003 the deputy conservator of forest asked the petitioner to produce a reference under section 35(1) of the Maharashtra private forest act as to why shouldn’t be evicted from the said land.
While the petitioner filed an application to the SDO under section 22A of the Act for restoration of land, they were given the same on the condition that the said land is a forest, they would need the central government’s permission to carry out non – forestry work and the order would be effective only after the government approval. The petitioner submitted a proposal for the development of a forest house, drinking water, septic tank, steel gate, and small water tank in 0.056HA out of the said land under section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980. After a fresh proposal was sent by the state government to the government of India in 2017, it received its approval in 2018. However, it also stated that without the formal approval of the Central government the land shall not pass to the user. Based on the letter dated 2007 by the state government and High Court Order the Central Government withdrew its approval.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel appearing for the Petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the restoration order has not been withdrawn by any of the impugned communications, save and except that both the impugned communications recommend withdrawal of the restoration order. He submitted that the Government of India granted in-principle approval after taking into consideration the recommendation letter for seeking approval under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
He submitted that Petitioners have fulfilled the prescribed conditions including payment of the Net Present Value (NPV) and filing of all undertakings and only thereupon, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial) has recommended the Petitioners' case for Stage 2 approval. In view thereof, the impugned communications issued by Respondent No. 3 attempt to put the clock back without the restoration order having being revoked cannot be permissible in law.
The learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has drawn the courts attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Aashutosh Ganpat Shendge, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Pune (on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3) and contended that though the legal status of the said land is that of private forest within the meaning of the said Act which came into force on 30.08.1975, section 22A inserted by an amendment in the year 1978 authorized the Collector to restore to the owner upto 12 ha. of private forests which stood vested as deemed reserved forests in the State Government by virtue of sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 3 of the said Act. She submitted that with effect from the date of the restoration order under section 22A, such restored forest land ceased to be reserved forest within the meaning of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. She submitted that while formulating the proposal of the Petitioners to the Government of Maharashtra, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has given his specific recommendation and is reproduced in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply.
The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 submitted that in the event if the State Government recommends the proposal of the Petitioners by following the due process of law, Respondent No. 2 shall consider the same appropriately and issue appropriate approval/sanction in accordance with law.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench noted, “On perusal of the in-principal approval accorded by the Central Government under the provisions of section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 for diversion of 0.056 HA of restored forest land, it is seen that the approval is granted in favour of the Petitioners for construction of forest house and water tank subject to fulfillment of the conditions stated therein. A Perusal of the letter of recommendation dated 27.03.2019 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Pune Forest Circle, Pune to the Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Nodal Officer, Maharashtra State Nagpur reveals that each and every condition has been fulfilled and complied with by the Petitioners as well as the Deputy Conservator of Forest in respect of the in-principle approval dated 05.05.2018 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.”
The High Court opined that the only dispute condition no. (viii) laid down which made the state government responsible to college the net Present value of the forest land being converted from the user agency and the petitioners had deposited the same. Furthermore, the petitioner had satisfied all the conditions laid down and it is the central government that has to give the approval under section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980.
The bench noted, “Thus, on consideration of the above, it is clear that formal approval is still under consideration of the Central Government and the same is yet to be granted in view of the recommendation given by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests after considering the compliances and undertakings given by the Petitioners and considering the restoration order dated 29.12.2003 passed under the provisions of section 22A of the said Act. In this background, the impugned communications dated 17.10.2019 and 10.02.2021 issued by Respondent No. 3, therefore need to be interfered with and are hereby set aside since the case of the Petitioners is pending with Respondent No. 2 i.e the Central Government.”
The High Court dismissing the writ petition remarked, “Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the compliance proposal dated 27.03.2019 sent by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Pune Forest Circle, Pune Through the Addl. Chief Conservator of Forests and Nodal Officer, Nagpur, Maharashtra State for Stage 2 approval..” and ordered the central government to “pass appropriate orders within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the same to all concerned.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Read Judgment;
SOURCE ; latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments