National Green Tribunal
Vanashakti vs Chief Conservator Of Forests Thane on 14 October, 2024
Item No.12 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2023 (WZ)
WITH
I.A. NO.202/2023 (WZ) IN O.A. NO.14/2023 (WZ)
Vanshakti & Anr. ... Applicants
Versus
Chief Conservator of Forests, Thane & Ors. ... Respondents
Date of Hearing : 14.10.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : Mr. Zaman Ali, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Saket Mone, Advocate for R-4/MMRDA
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for SEIAA
ORDER
1. From the side of the applicants, learned counsel Mr. Zaman Ali has appeared and states that he has filed an affidavit/objections dated 20.02.2024 against the Joint Committee report, wherein it is stated by the applicant that the Joint Committee has not placed complete facts in its report as it has failed to take cognizance of Marathi letter dated 23.05.2023 issued by the Deputy superintendent of Land Records (DSLR), Bhiwandi to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Thane Forest Division, English version of which is annexed as Annexure-R1 to the affidavit, wherein our attention is drawn to the following :
"It is observed from the above table that there is a discrepancy in the area in 7/12 Hissa details in S.No.106 and S.No.107 and the area as per the Original Records Akarband. Similarly, the Certified gat Book Records were not prepared in the area of both the survey numbers 106 Page 1 of 5 and 107 at the time of original jamabandi measurements, it is imperative to take reference of Village Map for deciding the boundaries of the said Survey Numbers. Accordingly, on perusal of this office Original Village Map, it is observed that the boundary line between S.No.106 and S.No.107 has not been mentioned in the original records itself. Further, after the said measurements, the consolidated area of both these Survey numbers as per the Village Map is 54.46.20 H.R. and this area as per total area of Akarband (82.68.79 H.R.) is discrepant to the extent of 28.22.59 H.R. Therefore, so long as the discrepancy in 7/12 Record of Rights according to the original Records (Akarband) in S.No.106 and S.No.107 is not removed and boundary marks in Survey Number and Hissa Number are not created, it will be technically difficult to decide the boundary as per Survey Number/Hissa Number."
2. Having drawn our attention to the above discrepancy, it is stated by the learned counsel that it is clear that there was discrepancy to the extent of 28.22.59 H.R. in the area of Survey No.106 and Survey No.107 and therefore, so long as the discrepancy in 7/12 Record of Rights in Survey No.106 and Survey No.107 is not removed and boundary marks in survey numbers and Hissa numbers are corrected, it would be difficult to know the boundaries as per Survey Number/Hissa Number. It is also pointed out by him that in the Joint Committee Report, Survey No.107 is wrongly marked as Survey No.106, Survey No.106 is wrongly marked as Survey No.205 and Survey No.105 is not shown on the Village Maps. Therefore, it is argued that this discrepancy needs to be rectified, for which necessary steps are required to be taken by the State Authorities with the prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
3. The Joint Committee Report dated 25.11.2023 has been submitted, relevant part of which is quoted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: Page 2 of 5
"
4. The above report clearly indicates that the construction/structure of the school Vajreshwari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ganeshpuri is in Survey No.107 (part) (old Survey No.88 (part) of village Ganeshpuri, which has been deforested. We are of the view that since the Joint Committee comprised the Chief Conservator of Forests, Thane as one of the members, who has signed this report and it is this Joint Committee which found that the construction of the school done, was not in forest area, rather it was in deforest area. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the said school, is being constructed in forest area, is not found to be correct by the Joint Committee, although it is being disputed by the learned counsel for the applicants saying that this discrepancy is occurring only because Survey No.105 not being located by the Joint Committee. This correction Page 3 of 5 needs to be done before finalizing the issue. We are of the view that had this area been forest area where the construction is being carried out, the Chief Conservator of Forests would definitely have raised grievance and this would need prior approval from the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. Since the Chief Conservator of Forests has not raised any objection, we hold that the construction has not been done in forest area.
5. As regards the correction of the revenue record, the same does not fall in our domain and for that, appropriate forum i.e. revenue authorities will have to be approached by the applicant.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants has drawn our attention to Annexure-A4 (page 27 of the paper-book) which is the Final Regional Plan prepared by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and at page 28 of the paper-book is the map which is showing by horizontal lines the forest area in Survey No.106. He has also drawn our attention to page 25 of the paper-book, which is a Village Model Seven (Rights Record Sheet), wherein Survey Number and sub-division is shown as 106/3/2 and in the column of name of the occupant, it is recorded as "Divisional Forest Officer, Thane (Forest)" and based on this, it is submitted that Survey No.106 is a forest area and therefore, no construction could have been done over there without prior permission from the Central Government. The learned counsel for the applicants has also drawn aour attention to Annexure-A3 (page 26 of the paper-book), wherein Survey No.106 is shown as reserved forest. Therefore, it is being argued by him that this documentary evidence is contrary to the finding given by the Joint Committee in its report. But we have to make clear that the Joint Committee has found that the construction is being carried out in Survey No.107 (part) and not in Survey No.106.
7. On perusal of the record, we find that no other documentary evidence is produced on record in support of the argument/submissions by the Page 4 of 5 learned counsel for the applicants and therefore, we do not find any reason to order demolition of any construction raised in the area concerned.
8. From the side of respondent No.4 - MMRDA, learned counsel Mr. Saket Mone has appeared, whereas from the side of SEIAA, learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni has appeared.
9. In view of what has been observed by us hereinabove, we dismiss the Original Application.
10. In view of dismissal of Original Application, I.A. No.202/2023 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM October 14, 2024 OIGINAL APPLICATION NO.14/2023(WZ) npj Page 5 of 5