Mala Ram Gurjar vs Principal Secretary (Forest) State Of ... on 11 February, 2026

[Cites 31, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

Mala Ram Gurjar vs Principal Secretary (Forest) State Of ... on 11 February, 2026

Item No.01

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)

Original Application No.106/2025(CZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mala Ram Gurjar,
Resident of Village Modi,
R/o Madu Ram Gurjar,
Tehsil Neem ka Thana,
Panchoo Kharkhara, Sikar, Rajasthan
Applicant(s)

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan,
Through its Principal Secretary
(Forest), 401 Kharji Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Respondent No.01

2. Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board,
through its Member Secretary, 4,
Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana
Dhoongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Respondent No.02

3. Collector,
Office of Collector, Collectorate
campus, National Highway 11, District
Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.03

4. Department Of Mines and Geology,
Through Its Additional Director
(Mines), Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
C-Scheme, Jaipur, Respondent No.04

5. State Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Rajasthan,
Through its Member Secretary, 10,
Bhawani Singh Lane, Sahkar Marg,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, Respondent No.05

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
6. Directorate General of Mines Safety
Ajmer Region-I,
Through Its Regional Director General
Mines Safety, Anna Sagar Link Road,
Ajmer, Rajasthan, Respondent No.06

7. Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, Rajasthan,
Aranya Bhawan, Mahatma Gandhi
Road, Jhalana Institutional Area,
Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Respondent No.07

8. Jamuvay Grit Udyog,
Through its Proprietor, Village
Kishorepura, Teh. Patan, District
Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.08

9. Maa Bhagwati Stone Crusher,
Through its Owner Dinesh, Village
Kishorepura, Teh. Patan, District
Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.09

10. Saanwariya Stone Crusher,
Through its Owner Dinesh, Village
Kishorepura, Teh. Patan, District
Sikar, Rajasthan Respondent No.10

11. New Balaji Stone Crusher,
Through Its Owner Hanuman Gurjar,
Village Kishorepura, Teh. Patan,
District Sikar, Rajasthan Respondent No.11

12. K. D. Crone Crusher,
Through Its Owner Navdeep, Village
Kishorepura, Teh. Patan, District
Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.12

13. Baba Stone Crusher,
Through its Owner Raj Singh, Village
Kishorepura, Tehsil Patan, District
Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.13

14. Karanji Stone Crusher,
Through its Owner Dinesh, Village
Kishorepura, Tehsil Patan, District
Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.14

15. Balaji Stone Crusher,
Through its Owner Purushottam
Mehta, Village Kishorepura, Tehsil
Patan, District Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.15

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
16. Shri Balaji Stone Crusher,
Through its Owner Alkesh Yadav,
Village Kishorepura, Tehsil Patan,
District Sikar, Rajasthan, Respondent No.16

17. Jai Bhawani Mines and Minerals,
Through its Owner Hanuman Gurjar,
Village Kishorepura, Tehsil Patan,
District Sikar, Rajasthan Respondent No.17

COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):

Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

Mr. Shoeb H. Khan, Adv. with
Mr. Rachit Soni, Adv. for State of Rajasthan
Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for R-5
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. for R-6
Mr. Prasen Jeet Singh, Adv. for
Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv. for R-8 to 17

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 06.02.2026
Date of uploading of order on website : 11.02.2026

JUDGMENT

1. The grievance of the Applicant is to protect Reserved Forest area land from illegal encroachment and mining activities by Respondents Nos. 8 to 17 who are actively participating in this environmentally degrading activity. It is alleged that Respondent Nos. 8 to 17 (Private Project Proponents), in collusion with the Revenue Officials, have encroached upon forest land area, particularly in Khata Nos. 476, 477 and 698, 3 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

apart from other forest land areas.). The said Respondents have not only been doing illegal encroachment but have also cut mature full- grown trees and have constructed an unauthorized road for transporting mined minerals. The land is a notified Reserved Forest under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and any non-forestry use requires prior Consent from the Central Government and clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which is violated. It is alleged that despite complaints by the villagers and the Applicants to various competent Authorities, District Collector dated 12.06.2025 and media coverage dated 29.06.2025, no action has been taken.

2. The notices were issued to the Respondents to submit the reply. Replies have been filed.

3. During the course of hearing, this Tribunal constituted a Committee consisting the representatives each from the Collector, Sikar, Divisional Forest Officer, Sikar, and the Member Secretary, Rajasthan State PCB, with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The report has been filed. A separate report with records has also been filed from the Forest Department, Rajasthan.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The contention and submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant are that the State of Rajasthan in exercise of its power conferred by Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, declared to constitute the land specified as "Reserved Forest" and to direct that the situation and limit of lands to be reserved shall be as described in the Schedule. It is pertinent to mention here that as per name of the forest division and village included in it along with Khasra number and area 4 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

shown with its boundaries cannot be used for any other purpose(s) other than forestry. The section has been reproduced below for reference:-

"Section 4: Power to make rules.

(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, makes rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule."

6. It is further submitted that the Project Proponents who were granted lease of mining Cheja Stone are mining and encroaching upon the Forest Area that lie within 100 meters of the Aravali Mountain Range wherein the mining activities are strictly prohibited by the well settled law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Tribunal. Furthermore, the Respondents Nos. 8 to 17 Project Proponents/Crusher operators, hand in glove with the Revenue Officials, are fearlessly encroaching upon the Forest Area for the purposes of the movement of their vehicles which is a serious threat to the wildlife and the ecology of the area. Respondents no. 8 to 17 Project Proponents have not only encroached illegally in the forest area but also have cut numerous full- grown trees to make an illegal path for the transportation of mines and minerals. It is stated that the Project Proponents are engaged in deep- 5 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

hole blasting for their day-to-day operations without any consideration to permissible time slots as per the directions of the Directorate General of Mine Safety. The project proponents indulge in untimely blasting causing grave inconvenience to the residents and that too without any sort of prior intimation, which again is a contravention of the conditions imposed by the DGMS. Furthermore, during the aforementioned untimely deep hole blasting operations, the schools in the vicinity are forcibly shut down, sometimes for weeks, negatively impacting the education and future prospects of the poor rural school children in the area. Moreover, there have been earlier reported fatalities of the local residents due to the careless and brazen acts of the Project Proponents/Private Respondents.

7. It is further argued that the Private Respondent Nos. 8 to 17 are utterly insensitive and inhumane towards the needs and basic necessities of the local residents. Neither, the Air Barrier Pollution Control measures are being taken, nor the boundaries are covered by a proper fence. Furthermore, no proper plantations have been carried out by the Respondents which is a vagrant contravention of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions imposed upon the Respondents. Moreover, none of the Private Respondents are equipped with water sprinkler facilities either inside the premise or outside the crusher where the heavy vehicles are plying, which further accelerates the degradation of the environment and as per the details information mines are operating in Kishorepura, Baghwala and their vehicles are plying from Khori Sonpura to Dabla Road and from there through NH-37 moving towards state of Haryana and NCR (National Capital Region), and that from Baghwala to Khori Sonpura huge chunks of forest land exists which is 6 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

being used for illegal transportation of vehicles of the crusher units. However, from Baghwala to Kishorepura the Revenue Village exists where alternative roads are there but the vehicles of PP avoid the roads preferring shorter routes through the forest area creating continuous destruction and disturbance to the flora and fauna of the region.

8. In the prayer clause the Applicant has prayed three reliefs:-

a) To constitute an independent high-powered commission for ascertaining the factual status of the impugned forest land.

b) To penalize the erring officials for the illegally allowing of Forest Land for non-forest purpose.

c) To pass any other order, direction this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice and Fair Play.

9. In response to the above contention, the learned Counsel for the Rajasthan State PCB has submitted that this Tribunal had constituted a Committee and the Committee consisting; Additional Collector, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar, Regional Officer, State PCB, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Tehsildar-Patan, Surveyor and the Mining Executive Officer, Mines and Geology Department, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar, visited the site and submitted the Inspection Report and that during the inspection, the crusher plants and mining units were found to be non-operational due to digging of slanting trench on the road approaching these units by the forest department to curb movement of transportation vehicles. It is submitted that due to digging of such trenches, the mining and crusher units have been found to be non-operational since 19.06.2025. That, due to the non-operational status of the mines and crusher units, the Regional Office, Sikar couldn't undertake ambient air monitoring and the Respondent during the inspection found shortcomings of the environmental norms and consent conditions by the Respondent No 8 7 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

to 17 in the Instant Original Application and accordingly the Regional Office, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Sikar issued show cause notices to all the units for their non-compliance of the Environmental rules and Consent conditions. Thereafter, all the crusher and mining units have submitted reply to the show cause notices issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board wherein they have attached photographic evidence regarding compliance of all the shortcomings observed by the Regional Office, Sikar during the inspection.

10. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the State PCB are that due to digging of trenches, the Mining and Crusher Units have been found to be non-operational. However, no environmental violations have been reported. The State PCB has further attached the Inspection Reports with details of all the mining which are complying the Consent conditions.

11. Compliance affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest with the facts that in compliance of the order dated 06.10.2025, a joint inspection of Khasra Nos. 476, 477, 479, and 698 of Village Kishorpura, Tehsil Patan, District Sikar, as mentioned in the Original Application, was carried out on 04.11.2025 by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sikar; Assistant Conservator of Forests (Headquarters), Sikar; Assistant Conservator of Forests, Sikar; Regional Forest Officer, Patan; and the Departmental Surveyor and during the inspection, the Forest Settlement Map and the Revenue Map of Revenue Village Kishorpura, pertaining to Forest Block Sohanpura, as notified by the State Government vide Gazette Notification No. 2(13)8/85 dated 17.05.1985, were compared on site. It is stated that upon verification, 8 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

the well situated in Khasra No. 253 and the Chomedha (चौमेंड़ा) formed by Khasra Nos. 372, 373, 433, and 432 were found to correspond accurately with the maps and the actual ground situation. These locations were accordingly treated as permanent reference points and their coordinates were recorded using GPS and on these reference points, the forest boundary of the former Khasra No. 251, situated on the forest land adjacent to the road mentioned in the Original Application, was delineated and confirmed. It was further observed that the road in question passes through Revenue Survey Nos. 476, 477, 479, and 698, as well as Survey Nos. 697 and 699/763. All the aforesaid survey numbers through which the said road passes are presently recorded in the name of the Forest Department.

12. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5, SEIAA, are that the SEIAA is a statutory authority constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate to Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with the ΕΙΑ Notification, 2006, with the mandate appraise and grant EC for projects falling under its purview at the State level. It is further submitted that EC is invariably granted only after due consideration of the applicable provisions and guidelines of the EIA Notification, 2006, including mandatory verification of the Aravalli Certificate issued by the competent authority, i.e., the Mining Engineer, and that every EC granted by SEIAA is comprehensive and conditional. The conditions are designed to ensure sustainability and compliance with environmental safeguards such as fencing of the lease area, installation of pollution control measures (PCMs) to mitigate air pollution, dust suppression systems, plantation, and proper waste management practices, 9 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

particularly applicable to mining projects. It is imperative to clarify that the role of SEIAA is limited to appraisal and grant of EC along with stipulation of enforceable conditions. Once EC has been granted the responsibility of implementation, compliance, monitoring and enforcement shifts to the concerned State Pollution Control Board and other regulatory agencies. It is further submitted that SEIAA ensures adherence to forest guidelines including compliance with forest norms, before granting EC. This includes maintaining the minimum distance required from notified forest areas, duly supported by a certificate from the concerned Forest Department officials. SEIΑΑ considers only such proposals where the project proponent proposes robust pollution control measures such as dust suppression, water sprinkling, and plantation. SEIAA also directs project proponents to construct and maintain approach roads minimize dust emissions and air pollution arising from vehicular to movement during loading and unloading.

13. It is further argued that the SEIAA has ensured the forest norms and after due verification from the Department concerned, the EC has been granted according to rules. The use of the road or pathway is within the domain of the State Administration and the SEIAA has no role to pass any order with regard to this fact.

14. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 17 Mr. Yadvendra Yadav are that the allegations of the Applicants have been instigated by a group led by Shri Mala Ram, a local resident, whose wife, Smt. Vimla Devi, was elected as Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat and whose sister-in-law, Smt. Dholi Devi, presently holds the post of Member, Panchayat Samiti. The said family has been politically active in the locality and has been in constant conflict with 10 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

the lawful operations of the answering Respondents. It is within this context that the present application has been filed, not out of any genuine environmental concern but as part of a motivated effort to exert pressure and settle personal and political scores against the answering Respondents and further that Smt. Vimla Devi, W/o Shri Mala Ram, has recently been placed under suspension from the post of Sarpanch by the competent authority on serious charges of corruption. Her sister- in-law, Smt. Dholi Devi, presently serves as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti. The concurrent involvement of both individuals in elected offices raises grave concerns about their administrative integrity and conduct. It is, therefore, evident that the present case has been instituted with ulterior motives rather than in pursuit of any legitimate grievance and that Shri Mala Ram has been blatantly misusing the official positions and influence of his wife, Smt. Vimla Devi, and his sister-in-law, Smt. Dholi Devi, to exert undue pressure upon the petitioner and other local stakeholders. By taking advantage of their elected status, Shri Mala Ram has interfered with the functioning of local governance and has engaged in arbitrary and mala fide acts contrary to the principles of natural justice and rule of law. Furthermore, Shri Hemraj Gurjar, who operates multiple dumpers plying through the said route, is acting in concert with Shri Mala Ram. In collusion with one another and certain other individuals, they have been making unlawful monetary demands from local crushers and mining units. Such coercive activities constitute clear acts of extortion, causing financial loss and disruption to lawful business operations. These actions also disturb public peace and order in the area, warranting immediate intervention. 11 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

15. It is further argued that the Respondents Nos. 8 to 17 are law-abiding citizens engaged in legitimate stone-crushing operations and have not encroached upon any portion of forest land. The revenue records explicitly identify Khasra Nos. 476 and 698 as "Gair Mumkin Sadak"

(non-agricultural public road), while Khasra No. 477 contains no road at all. The road under reference is a pre-existing public pathway used by villagers, the local Gaushala, and the general public for access and connectivity. Hence, there has been no new or unauthorized construction through any protected forest area and the said road has existed since time immemorial, long before the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. As held in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, the utilization of such pre-existing roads does not attract the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, no violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 arises in the present case. The issue concerning jurisdiction over this subject matter is already subjudice before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana. The Respondents submits that they have not carried out quarrying, mining, or blasting activities within forest land, and categorically deny all allegations of encroachment or illegal operations.

16. Learned Counsel has further argued the necessity of road and its use according to local law and revenue records as follows:-

"Existence of Villages and Dhanis Prior to 1980:

The certified voter list of the year 1980 conclusively establishes the existence of the following habitations: Dhani Bag Walla, Bhopa ki Dhani, Mario ki Dhani, Dhani Napa Vali, Mino ki Dhani, Bag Walla Gaon, and a Gaushala. The inclusion of these hamlets in the electoral roll of 1980 unequivocally proves that these settlements existed well before 1980.

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Sole Connecting Road:

It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the disputed road constitutes the only connecting access route to the aforesaid habitations. Therefore, the very existence of these villages and hamlets necessarily implies that the road was in existence prior to the enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Reconstruction by Zila Parishad in 2002:

That the Zila Parishad authorities officially undertook the gravelling and repair of this road in 2002 under a public works scheme, thereby recognizing and reinforcing its character as a public road. It is significant that this reconstruction activity was never objected to or challenged by the Forest Department at that time.

Continuity of Use and Customary Right:

That it is respectfully submitted that the villagers have been using this passage openly, continuously, and uninterruptedly since time immemorial for daily movement, transportation of goods, and access to the Gaushala. Such long-standing and peaceful use has matured into both a customary and prescriptive easementary right of way under Sections 13 and 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

Revenue Record Entry:

That the said passage is duly recorded in the revenue records as "Gair Mumkin Sadak" under separate Khasra numbers. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, AIR 1990 SC 2219, such entries in revenue records carry binding evidentiary value unless set aside by a competent court. Notably, the Forest Department has never challenged these entries under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Consequently, the entries continue to hold full legal sanctity.

Legal Consequence of Proven Pre-1980 Existence:

That since the existence of both the habitations and the connecting passage stands conclusively established as pre-1980, and the road is duly recognized by both the Revenue Department and the Zila 13 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Parishad, it cannot now be contended that the road constitutes any new encroachment or unauthorized diversion of forest land.

Applicable Legal Principle:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banshi Ram Modi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 679, categorically held that pre-existing rights of passage cannot be abrogated or curtailed by a subsequent forest notification unless expressly extinguished. The 1985 notification issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 contains no clause extinguishing the right of passage over this road. Accordingly, the pathway retains its lawful and long-standing status."

17. It is further argued that the present case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the villagers of the concerned area are indispensable parties to this litigation. Their rights of easement and passage are directly affected by the outcome of these proceedings. In fact, certain villagers have already instituted proceedings before the District Court seeking recognition of their right of easement over the same pathway. In J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2011), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that no order can be passed behind the back of a person whose rights are likely to be adversely affected, and if such an order is passed, it is liable to be ignored. Hence, proceeding in the absence of the villagers would be contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and that the question of jurisdiction also arises in the present matter. Demarcation disputes between the Forest Department and the Revenue Department are matters to be resolved by the competent statutory authorities designated under law, and until such demarcation is conclusively determined, no liability or adverse inference can be attributed to the Respondents. The proceedings are further barred by the principle of res judicata as enshrined under Section 10 of the Code 14 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

of Civil Procedure, 1908, since the same set of facts and issues are already sub judice before the Learned District Court. Entertaining the present case would lead to multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions, which is impermissible in law and that the allegations that the passage in question was created by cutting trees or encroaching upon forest land are baseless, misconceived, and devoid of factual foundation. No case of tree felling, encroachment, or any forest offence has ever been registered against the answering respondents. The Forest Department has never recorded any adverse finding against them in this regard, which clearly demonstrates that the allegations are unfounded. Further, the road in question is an existing public thoroughfare (Sadak) and therefore cannot be treated as a fresh diversion of forest land so as to attract the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. There has been no illegal felling of trees, as the said road has existed for several decades and continues to be used by the public at large for access and connectivity to nearby habitations. Significantly, the disputed road is a recognized and established public infrastructure. The Zila Parishad, acknowledging its long-standing and continuous public use, undertook graveling of this road in the year 2002 as part of its statutory duty to ensure connectivity between various Dhanis (hamlets) and the adjoining village. This action of the Zila Parishad itself demonstrates that the road is not an encroachment or unauthorized construction but a legitimate and essential public pathway serving the local population. It is stated that the present Crusher Units, i.e., Respondents No. 8 to 17, commenced their operations only between the years 2010 and 2024, whereas the Zila Parishad had already reconstructed and graveled the present road in 15 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

the year 2002. This chronology of events makes it abundantly clear that the pathway was not constructed by or for the benefit of the crusher or mining units. The existence of the road and public character predate the establishment of any crusher operations, thereby negating the baseless allegation that it was created to facilitate mining activities.

18. It is further submitted that all requisite precautionary and environmental safeguards are in place to mitigate dust and pollution, including regular sprinkling of water through tankers along the road. The applicants have failed to produce any credible evidence demonstrating ecological degradation, destruction of wildlife, disturbance of natural habitat, or contamination of water sources attributable to the answering respondents. In the absence of such material, the allegations remain speculative, unsubstantiated, and devoid of merit and that the Crusher Units of Respondents Nos. 8 to 17 neither own nor operate any dumpers or transport vehicles. The vehicular movement on the disputed road, if any, is carried out exclusively by independent third-party transporters, traders, and purchasers. The Respondents are engaged solely in the lawful processing of minerals, converting stone boulders into smaller aggregates, at their duly authorized premises. The raw materials are transported from legally operated mines to the crusher units through routes outside the disputed passage, and the processed material is thereafter lifted by outside traders using their own vehicles for transportation to other destinations. It is also submitted that the land in question falls under the ambit of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which empowers the State Government to declare certain government lands or wastelands as Protected Forests. Unlike Reserved 16 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Forests, Protected Forests can be constituted only from lands in which the State possesses proprietary rights or entitlement to forest produce. Chapter IV of the Act makes it evident that Protected Forests form a distinct statutory category meant for regulated use and management of forest resources, not for extinguishment of customary or community rights. under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the State Government may, by notification, impose specific restrictions on activities within a Protected Forest. However, the Gazette Notification dated 17.05.1985 does not impose any restriction upon the use of the pre-existing passage recorded in the revenue records as "Gair Mumkin Sadak." Thus, the continued use of the road for access and transportation remains lawful and valid. The Applicants' portrayal of the disputed land as Reserved Forest is legally untenable. The 1985 notification pertains exclusively to Protected Forest, and therefore, the pre-existing rights of passage and user, as duly reflected in the revenue entries of "Gair Mumkin Sadak", remain unaffected. Any attempt to treat the said land as Reserved Forest would impose restrictions beyond the contemplation of the statute and would be contrary to settled legal principles. Further, that no cause of action whatsoever is made out against Respondents No. 8 to 17 and the allegations levelled are omnibus, vague, and unsupported by respondent-specific evidence, and the petition, being devoid of material particulars and substantiation, deserves outright dismissal in the interest of justice.

19. It is further argued that the allegation of encroachment upon forest land within 100 meters of the Aravalli Range, or of cutting mature trees to create a road, is false, misleading, and unsupported by any credible evidence. In fact, the transportation of minerals is carried out solely 17 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

through a preexisting public road duly recorded in the revenue records as "Gair Mumkin Sadak." This road, long in existence, was formally improved and graveled by the Zila Parishad in 2002 to ensure connectivity between various Dhanis (hamlets) and adjoining villages. The same road has been used by villagers, traders, and transporters for decades. The long-standing and public nature of this pathway, well before the commencement of mining or crushing activities, clearly establishes that no fresh encroachment or illegal diversion of forest land can be attributed to the answering Respondents. The contents of para 7 are denied. The mining operations of Respondents 8 to 17 are conducted strictly in accordance with the directions of the Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) and the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearances (ECs) granted by the competent authority. The allegations of hazardous or untimely blasting within forest areas or of disturbance to school functioning are baseless and devoid of factual foundation. The Respondents 8 to 17 are operating strictly in compliance with the terms of their Environmental Clearances (ECs) and Consents to Establish/Operate (CTEs/CTOs) issued by the competent authorities. All prescribed safeguards are diligently observed, including boundary walls, greenbelt plantations, dust suppression measures, and regular water sprinkling by tankers. No adverse order, show cause notice, or noncompliance report has ever been issued against the answering respondents. The Applicants have failed to produce any credible or technical evidence of ecological damage, wildlife disturbance, or environmental degradation attributable to these respondents. The allegations are therefore speculative and devoid of merit. The certified Jamabandi records of Villages Kishorpura and Dunga Ki Nangal, Tehsil 18 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Patan, District Sikar, clearly record "Gair Mumkin Sadak" in Khasra Nos. 476 and 698, show no road in Khasra No. 477. The Forest Department has never been in possession of the said passage, which has been continuously and openly used by villagers for generations.

20. A report was also called the Tehsildar-Patan, Sikar, and vide letter dated 20.06.2025, the Tehsildar submitted the report to the Forest Department on the following points:-

(i) There are recorded pathway in Khasra No.382, 383 472, 474, 475, 605, 607, 698 in Village-Kishorepura,

(ii) Abovementioned pathway is in operation for general public.

21. Reply on behalf of the Respondent No.7 Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has been filed with the facts that mining leases have been granted to Respondent Nos. 8 to 17 by the Mining Department. However, a distance survey conducted by the Forest Department has revealed that the lease areas fall on revenue land outside the boundary of the protected forest. No mining activity has been found in Forest Department Khasra Nos. 476, 477, and 698. The Forest Department has neither permitted mining activity nor observed any such activity within the protected forest area. It is further submitted that grant and operation of mining leases fall within the jurisdiction of the Mining Department, whereas demarcation and maintenance of land records fall within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Department and that as per the demarcation records of the Forest and Revenue Departments, no mining, encroachment, or blasting activities have taken place within the forest boundary. The road situated in Khasra Nos. 476 and 698 is an old village pathway used by villagers for routine commuting. When it 19 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

was found that mining vehicles began to use the route, the Forest Department completely closed the route on 19.06.2025 and 28.06.2025. It is stated that the Forest Department has not granted permission for construction of any concrete road within forest land. In view of the genuine travel requirements of villagers, a diversion proposal under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, bearing online proposal No. FP/RJ/ROAD/553556/2025 dated 11.09.2025, has been submitted by the Block Development Officer (BDO) and is presently under consideration.

22. We have also examined the Jamabandi of Village-Kishorepura of Samvat 2075-2078 issued under P-26C in which the Khasra No.476 is recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Sadak' (area .3200), Khasra No.477 recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Pahar' (area .2500), Khasra No.698 recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Sadak' (area .1300).

23. The Committee consisting the Forest Officials has submitted the report as follows:-

"Factual Report As per direction received in order dated 25/11/2025 from the National Green Tribunal Central Zone Bench Bhopal factual report submitted in English version.

In compliance with the order dated 12.08.2025 of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in OA No. 106/2025 (CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr vs State of Rajasthan & Others, a joint inspection of the complaint site (Khasra No. 476, 477, 479 & 698), Village- Kishorpura, Tehsil - Patan, District- Sikar was conducted on 12.09.2025 by the constituted committee. By the order dated 12.08.2025 of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in OA No. 106/2025 (CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr V/s State of Rajasthan & Others, a joint committee comprising representative of the District Collector, Sikar, representative of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sikar and representative of the Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, 20 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Rajasthan was constituted and directed to submit the current status (factual report) of the site. Under this, letters were written to the concerned departments on 29.08.2025 and 09.09.2025 for the formation of a committee and conducting a joint inspection. During the inspection, Sh. Bhagirath Shakh, Additional District Collector, Neem Ka Thana, Smt. Savita, Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Sikar, Smt. Anita Kumari, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar, Sh. Subhash Kulhari, Tehsildar Patan, District Sikar, Sh. Vijay Singh, Surveyor and Sh. Harpal Singh, Mining Executive Officer-I, Department of Mines and Geology, Neem Ka Thana were present. Letters were written to the Directorate General of Mines Safety, Ajmer (Region-2) on 29.08.2025 and 09.09.2025 for a joint inspection with the constituted committee, but their representatives were not present during the joint inspection. Complainants and villagers were present during the inspection.

Khata No. 476, 477 and 698 mentioned in the complaint are not recorded in the revenue record of village Kishorpura, Tehsil Patan, District Sikar, however, from the said numbers, Khasra number 476, area 0.32, Gair Mumkin Road, Khasra number 477, area 0.25, Gair Mumkin Mountain and Khasra number 698, area 0.13, Gair Mumkin Road, Khata number 86, are recorded under the Forest Department (Jamabandi).

That according to the mutation number 129 dated 06.01.1983, revenue Village - Kishorpura, Tehsil - Patan, District - Sikar of the former Khasra number 250 area 9 Biswa, 251 area 253 Bigha 17 Biswa, 253 area 30 Bigha 12 Biswa and 358 area 3 Biswa total area 284 Bigha 16 Biswa land was allotted to the Forest Department in the year 1983, which land is currently situated in the revenue limits of village Kishorpura and newly created village Bagawala.

Administrative approval was obtained on 1 November, 2002 and financial approval of ₹2.30 lakh was obtained through GPC/SGR/02/1358-63 for the construction of a gravel road from Bhopa Ki Dhani to Tan Kishorpura Khori. The gravel road was constructed by the implementing agency, Gram Panchayat Dunga Ki Nangal.

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

During the Second Revenue Land Management Settlement, Samvat, 2065 to 2085, the above-mentioned road connecting village Bagawala, village Kishorpura, village Khori and other hamlets and fields was recorded as a Gair Mumkeen Sadak in the revenue records. This Gair Mumkeen Sadak is recorded in the Forest Department/Sivaychak/Khatedari lands, which is on the attached map trace Annexure-04. Through this road, there has been movement of common people, trucks, tractors etc. That on 24.06.2025, the Tehsildar, Patan, District Sikar, received a complaint from the villagers of Revenue Village Kishorpura/Bagawala regarding the closure of the public road. According to the mauka report of Patwari Halka, Dunga of Nangal Tehsil Patan, District - Sikar, the public road was found to have been completely closed by the Forest Department by digging a ditch. The said road was opened for public convenience on 27.06.2025 with the help of a police force. Later, the Forest Department partially closed it again, which currently remains in the same condition.

During the joint inspection, the 9 crushers and 1 mining lease mentioned in the writ case were inspected and whose detailed inspection report is attached in Annexure 5. The 05 crushers mentioned in the case are operated on mining lease and 04 crushers are operated on converted land. All the above-mentioned crushers and mining lease are operated with valid consent to operate. On the basis of deficiencies found during the joint inspection, show cause notices were issued to the units. (Copy Annexure 06). During the inspection, Ambient air quality could not be assessed at the site due to non-operational of crushers and mines. Due to the shutdown of operations, it was not possible to verify whether water was being sprayed or not during mining activity.

The State Government Gazette Notification No. F 2 (13) 8/85, dated 17.05.1985, has declared 107.00 hectares of land in the villages of Khori, Kishorpura and Dunga Ki Nangal of Sohanpura forest block as protected forest. The said notification does not mention any public/commercial road. The Mining Department has granted permission for the operation of mining leases and crushers to the defendants mentioned in serial numbers 8 to 17 in the case in Kishorpura, which operate outside the notified forest boundary. The 22 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

respective distances of the said mining leases and crushers from the forest boundary is given in Annexure 7. Khasra numbers 476, 698 (recorded as Gair Mumkeen Sadak) and 477 (recorded as Gair Mumkeen Pahad) mentioned in the case are part of Sohanpura forest block, which are recorded in the revenue records. Defendants 8 to 17 are not carrying out any mining work on these Khasra numbers. The gravel road located in Khasra Nos. 476 and 698 described above is a traditional village road serving the basic needs and daily transportation of villagers, running from Khori village to Bhopa's Dhani. Upon receiving information that the road under Khasra Nos. 476 and 698 was being used by mining leaseholders for illegal mineral transportation, the Forest Department dug a slanted trench on June 19, 2025, and again on June 28, 2025, this intervention was intended to allow the road to be used for public use, but prevented the movement of cargo vehicles for commercial purposes. A diversion proposal regarding the said road was submitted online on September 11, 2025, on the MoEF&CC's web portal, Parivesh, for the diversion of 1.162 hectares of forest land. During the on-site inspection, no tree felling/cutting was observed on the forest land.

Mining leases have not been approved by the Mines and Geology Department in Khasra numbers 476, 477 and 698 mentioned in the case.

TP of minerals in vehicles by the mining leases/crushers registered in the case is issued online from the departmental site of Mines and Geology Department, which is linked from the departmental site of the Transport Department. The TP of over loaded minerals/vehicles, the Transport Department takes action as per rules, details of which are enclosed in Annexure-08. In the mining lease number 413/2010 of M/s Devraj Tehlan, near village Kishopura, Tehsil Patan, District Sikar, mentioned in the case, a Maouka panchnama of illegal mining was made by the Mines Department on 16.05.2016, for which a fine amount of Rs. 1144000 (eleven lakh forty-four thousand) was deposited through e-challan on 20.07.2014. Permission for heaving blasting in the said mining lease area has been obtained from DGMS, Ajmer (copy Annexure-09). The last rawanna of minerals from the said mining lease area was issued on 20.06.2025. Illegal mining has not occurred in the mining leases 166/2005, 410/2005, and 30/2011 mentioned in the case."

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

24. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has argued the easement right to use the pathway and submitted that easement is defined in Section 4 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, to mean and right which the owner or occupier of a land possesses for the beneficial enjoyment of his land on the other land which is not owned by him, to do and continue to do something or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done on the said land. It may be pertinent to mention here that the land which is enjoyed by the beneficiary is called dominant heritage and the land on which the easement is claimed is called sovereign heritage. The easementary right, therefore, is essentially claimed by the owner of the land and upon another owned by someone else so that he may enjoy his property in the most beneficial manner.

25. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents are that Section 15 of the Act, 1882, provides that for acquiring an easementary right by prescription, the said right must have been peacefully enjoyed in respect of the servant heritage without interrupting 20 years and the villagers enjoying the pathway 20 years as the fully built construction road was caused and constructed by the State Government in the yar 2002 and prior to this it was used for pathway by the villagers, thus, easementary right has been accrued.

26. The Forest Conservation, Act 1980, was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance, and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and fore matters connected therewith, must ally to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all the statutorily recognized forest, whether 24 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forestland" occurring in section 2 will not only include "Forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. From the above definition, in the present case, there can be following four broad legal categories of forests:-

1. Land notified as protected or reserve forest under the Indian Forest Act or the State Forest Act.

2. Land recorded as forest in any government record, mainly Jamabandi, but not notified and presently under the control of the forest department for which the State Forest Department has provided the boundary.

3. Land recorded as forest in any government record, mainly Jamabandi, but not notified and presently under the control of the revenue department/private owner and for which no record is available with the State Forest Department of MP.

4. Land appearing as forest as per the dictionary meaning irrespective of the ownership including private lands, as can be deciphered form the Forest Cover Map of the FSI.

In this report the undersigned could work out only the three categories of forest (Notified, non notified but under the control of the forest department and the Dictionary meaning) which has been used for various non-forestry activities areound the three villages. For dictionary meaning the undersigned has relied on the Forest Cover Map of the FSI. The Forest Survey of India in its India State of Forest Report (FSI), 2017 defines forest as follows:

The term "Forest Cover" as used in ISFR refers to all lands more than one hectare in area with a tree canopy of more than 10% irrespective of land use, ownership and legal status.

From this it is clear that FSI maps a piece of land as forest going by tree canopy, as seen on the satellite imagery, and not by ownership or legal status. Therefore, the forest cover map of FSI showing areas 25 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

under various densities of forest cover can be very well be used to know and calculate area of forest as per dictionary meaning. However, which of these FSI mapped forest patches have been considered and formally declared as Deemed Forest can only be clarified by the State Government.

The three density classes used by FSI are as follows:

1. Very dense Forest (VDF): Canopy Density > 70%

2. Medium Dense Forest (MDF): Canopy Density between 40% and 70%

3. Open Forest (OF): Canopy density between 10% and 40% It is further reiterated here that in the FSI's Forest Cover Map even private area having good tree cover would qualify as forest."

27. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, restricts de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purposes as under:-

"2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing-

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.

Explanation For the porpose of this section, "non-forest purpose"

means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for-

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants;

(b) any purpose other than reafforestation;

but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of checkposts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes."

28. The Rule 9 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, also provides for proceedings against persons guilty of offences under the act which are as under:-

"9. Proceedings against persons guilty of offences under the Act. (1) The Central Government may, by notification, authorize any officer not below the rank of Conservator of Forests or the concerned forest officer having territorial jurisdiction over the forest land in respect of which the said offence is said to have been committed, to file complaints against the person (s) prima-facie found guilty of offence under the Act or the violation of the rules made thereunder, in the court having jurisdiction in the matter.

Provided that no complaint shall be filed in the court, without giving the person (s) or officer (s) or authority (s) against whom the allegations of offence exist, an opportunity to explain his or their conduct and to show cause, by issuing a notice in writing of not less than sixty days, as to why a complaint should not be filed in the court against him or them for alleged offences.

(2) The officer authorised by the Central Government in sub-rule (1) may require any State Government or its officer or any person or any other authority to furnish to it within a specified period any reports, documents, statistics and any other information related to contravention of the Act or the rules made thereunder, considered necessary for making a complaint in any court of jurisdiction and every such State Government or officer or person or authority shall be bound to do so."

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

29. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others in W.P (C) No. 202 of 1995 with No. 171 of 1996 which was decided on 12.12.1996 had observed and directed as follows:-

"1. In view of the great significance of the points involved in these matters, relating to the protection and conservation of the forests throughout the country, it was considered necessary that the Central Government as well as the Governments of all the States are heard. Accordingly, notice was issued to all of them. We have heard the learned Attorney General for the Union of India, the learned Counsel appearing for the States and the Parties/Applicants and, in addition, the learned Amixus Curiae, Shri H.N. Salve, assisted by Sarvashri U.U. Lalit, Mahender Das and P.K. Manohar. After hearing all the learned Counsel, who have rendered very able assistance to the Court, we have formed the opinion that the matters require a further in-depth hearing to examine all the aspects relating to the National Forest Policy. For this purpose, several points which emerged during the course of the hearing for some time to enable the learned counsel to further study these points.

2. However, we are of the opinion that certain interim directions are necessary at this stage in respect of some aspects. We have heard the learned Attorney General and the other learned Counsel on these aspects.

3. It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for Short "the Act") and the meaning of the word "forest" used therein. There is also a resulting misconception about the need of prior approval of the Central government, as required by Section 2 of the Act, in respect of certain activities in the forest area which are more often of a commercial nature. It is necessary to clarify that position.

4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must 28 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forest, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2 (i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forest so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works V. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V. state of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29-11.1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee V. Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this court in state of Bihar V. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiternate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any state government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will fourthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.

5. We further direct as under:

I. General

1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-

forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood 29 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith.

2. In addition to the above, in the tropical wet evergreen forests of Tirap and Changlang in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there would be a complete ban on felling of any kind of trees therein because of their particular significance to maintain ecological balance needed to preserve bio-diversity. Al saw mills, veneer mills and plywood mills in Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a distance of 100 kms from its border, in Assam, should also be closed immediately. The State governments of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam must ensure compliance of this direction.

3. The felling of trees in all forest is to remain suspended except in accordance with the working plans of the State Governments, as approved by the Central Government. In the absence of any working plan in any particular State, such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system exists, the felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest Department of the State Government or the State Forest Corporation.

4. There shall be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to any other State of the country either by rail, road or waterways. The Indian Railways and the State Government are directed to take all measures necessary to ensure strict compliance of this direction. This ban will not apply to the movement of certified timber required for defence or other Government purposes. This ban will also not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a fores.

5. Each State Government should consititute within one month an Expert Committee to:

(i) Identify areas which are "Forests", irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and

(iii) Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private person.

6. Each State Government should within two months, file a report regarding:

(i) the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills actually operating within the State, with particulars of their real ownership.

(ii) the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing.

(iii) their proximity to the nearest forest.

(iv) their source of timber.

7. Each State Government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess:

(i) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State qua saw mills and timber-based industry.

(ii) the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State.

(iii) the optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, at which the saw mill should be located.

8. The Expert Committee so constituted should be rquested to give its report within one month of being constituted.

9. Each State Government would constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee the compliance of this order and file status reports."

8. In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh has decided as follows:

"(i) Non-cultivable land which are bigger than 10 ha in area and containing more than 200 trees per ha is to be treated as forests. The list of these types of patches is to be compiled in a prescribed format.

(ii) All patches of land which are recorded as chote-bade jhad ka jungle etc in the revenue records shall be treated as forests. The list of these type of patches is to be compiled in a prescribed format."

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

30. We have also discussed the matter in the category of deemed forest in the case of Original Application No.19/2019(CZ): (Satish Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.), vide order dated 22.07.2020, relevant part of which is quoted below:-

"18. Therefore, in the State of Madhya Pradesh other than those areas which are recorded as forest in Government records, the above two categories of land i.e., non-cultivable land which are bigger than 10 ha area and containing more than 200 trees per ha and all patches of land which are recorded as per "Chote-bade jhad ka jungle" etc., in the revenue records are treated as forest lands for the purpose of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. It is quite clear from the report of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF), Regional Office, MoEF & CC at Bhopal that in his report submitted in compliance of this Tribunal direction in Original Application no. 457/2018 mentioned in above he has considered all above categories of forest lands keeping in view the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P (c) No. 202 of 1995 with No. 171 of 1996 which was decided on 12.12.1996 while considering in his report the non- forestry activities in the area in question. We therefore accept the Report of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests(APCCF), Regional Office, MoEF & CC at Bhopal and direct the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Regional Office of the MoEF & CC at Bhopal to take action in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and Rules made thereunder and also the guidelines issued by the MOEF & CC from time to time in accordance with law in respect of the non-forest activites which have been reported in the report of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF), Regional Office, MoEF & CC at Bhopal and which have been done in contravention of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. We also direct the state of Madhya Pradesh to make appropriate entries in the revenue records recording these lands as "deemed forest lands" in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996.

19. The version of the applicant is that the revenue lands are basically the revenue forest land but the learned counsel appearing 32 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

for the respondent has argued that this Principle can never be adopted because the land records contain the ownership of the land in the relevant column and all the revenue lands cannot set to be forest land unless and until declared to be forest by the State or Central Government or notified by the relevant notification. .............x.............x..........x..........x..............

41. Before considering the issues which arose in this application it is necessary to look into the scheme and the nature of the proceedings which are holding under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. This Act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to forest land, the transit of forest produce and other connected matter. Chapter XI of the Act relates to reserved forest. Section 3 provides the power to reserve forest. This section provides that the State Government may constitute any forest-land or waste-land which is property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights, a reserved forest. Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are quoted as under:-

"3. Power to reserve forests - The State Government may constitute any forest-land or waste-land which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided.

4. Notification by State Government-(1) Whenever it has been decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette-

(a) declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest;

(b) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land; and

(c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called "the Forest Settlement-officer") to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits or in or over any forest-produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter.

Explanation-For the purpose of clause (b), it shall be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries.

33 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(2) The officer appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall ordinarily be a person not holding any forest-office except that of Forest Settlement-officer.

(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the State Government from appointing any number of officers not exceeding three, not more than one of whom shall be a person holding any forest- office except as aforesaid, to perform the duties of a Forest Settlement-officer under this Act.

5. Bar of accrual of forest-rights-After the issue of a notification under section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.

6. Proclamation by Forest Settlement-officer-When a notification has been issued under section 4, the Forest Settlement-officer shall publish in the local vernacular in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the land comprised therein, a proclamation

(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the proposed forest;

(b) explaining the consequences which, as hereinafter provided, will ensue on the reservation of such forest; and

(b) fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation, and requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in section 4 or section, 5 within such period either to present to the Forest Settlement-officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him and state, the nature of such right and the amount and particulars of the compensation (if any) claimed in respect thereof.

7. Inquiry by Forest Settlement-officer-The Forest Settlement-officer shall take down in writing all statements made under section 6, and shall at some convenient place inquire into all claims duly preferred under that section, and the existence of any rights mentioned in section 4 or section 5 and not claimed under section 6 so far as the same may be 34 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

ascertainable from the records of Government and the evidence of any persons likely to be acquainted with the same.

8. Powers of Forest Settlement-officers-For the purpose of such inquiry, the Forest Settlement-officer may exercise the following powers, that is to say:

(a) power to enter, by himself or any officer authorized by him for the purpose, upon any land, and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same; and

(b) the powers of a Civil Court in the trial of suits.

9. Extinction of rights-Rights in respect of which no claim has been preferred under section 6, and of the existence of which no knowledge has been acquired by inquiry under section 7, shall be extinguished, unless before the notification under section 20 is published, the person claiming them satisfies the Forest Settlement-officer that he had sufficient cause for not prefer-ring such claim within the period fixed under section 6.

42. Section 11 provides that the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the claim to right on or any land. Sub- Section (2) of Section 11 provides that if claim is admitted in whole or in part then he will either exclude such land from the limits of the proposed forest and come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights, or proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

43. Section 17 provides for rights of appeal to a claimant against the order of Forest Settlement Officer to such officer of a Revenue Department of rank not lower than that of a Collector, as the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette appoint to hear appeals from such orders. The section also contemplates creation of a court named Forest Court. Section 20 Provides for issue of notification declaring reserve forest. Section 17, 18 and 20 are extract as below:

"17. Appeal from order passed under section 11, section 12, section 15 or section 16-Any person who has made a claim under this Act, or any Forest-officer or other person generally or specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may, within three months from the date of the order passed on such claim by the Forest Settlement-officer under 35 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

section 11, section 12, section 15 or section 16, present an appeal from such order to such officer of the Revenue Department of rank not lower than that of a Collector, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint to hear appeals from such orders:

Provided that the State Government may establish a Court (hereinafter called the Forest Court) composed of three persons to be appointed by the State Government, and when the Forest Court has been so established, all such appeals shall be presented to it.

18. Appeal under section 17-(1) Every appeal under section 17 shall be made by petition in writing, and may be delivered to the Forest Settlement-officer, who shall forward it without delay to the authority competent to hear the same.

(2) If the appeal be to an officer appointed under section 17, it shall be heard in the manner prescribed for the time being for the hearing of appeals in matters relating to land-revenue. (3) If the appeal be to the Forest Court, the Court shall fix a day and a convenient place in the neighbourhood of the proposed forest for hearing the appeal, and shall give notice thereof to the parties, and shall hear such appeal accordingly.

(4) The order passed on the appeal by such officer or Court, or by the majority of the members of such Court, as the case may be, shall, subject only to revision by the State Government, be final.

20. Notification declaring forest reserved-(1) When the following events have occurred, namely:-

(a) the period fixed under section 6 for preferring claims have elapsed and all claims (if any) made under that section or section 9 have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement-officer;

(b) if any such claims have been made, the period limited by section 17 for appealing from the orders passed on such claims has elapsed, and all appeals (if any) presented within such period have been disposed of by the appellate officer or Court; and

(c) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement-officer has, under section 11, elected to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), have become vested in the Government under section 16 of that Act, 36 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

the State Government shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary-marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification.

(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest."

44. Further Section 23, 24 and 26 are extract as below:-

"23. No right acquired over reserved forest, except as here provided-No right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification under section 20 was issued.

24. Rights not to be alienated without sanction-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 23, no right continued under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15 shall be alienated by way of grant, sale, lease mortgage or otherwise, without the sanction of the State Government:

Provided that, when any such right is appendant to any land or house, it may be sold or otherwise alienated with such land or house.

(2) No timber or other forest-produce obtained in exercise of any such right shall be sold or bartered except to such extent as may have been admitted in the order recorded under section 14.

26. Acts prohibited in such forests- (1) Any person who-

(a) makes any fresh clearing prohibited by section 5, or

(b) sets fire to a reserved forest, or, in contravention of any rules made by the State Government in this behalf, kindles any fire, or leaves any fire burning, in such manner as to endanger such a forest; or who, in a reserved forest-

(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass;

(e) causes any damage by negligence in felling any tree or cutting or dragging any timber;

(f) fells, girdles, lops, or bums any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same;

37 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(g) quarries stone, bums lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or removes, any forest-produce;

(h) clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or any other purpose;

(i) in contravention of any rules made in this behalf by the State Government hunts, shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares; or

(j) in any area in which the Elephants' Preservation Act, 1879 (6 of 1879), is not in force, kills or catches elephants in contravention of any rules so made, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may direct to be paid.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit

(a) any act done by permission in writing of the Forest-officer, or under any rule made by the state Government; or

(b) the exercise of any right continued under clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section 15, or created by grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government under section

23. (3) Whenever fire is caused wilfully or by gross negligence in a reserved forest, the State Government may (notwithstanding that any penalty has been inflicted under this section) direct that in such forest or any portion there of the exercise of all rights of pasture or to forest produce shall be suspended for such period as it thinks fit.

45. Further Section 27 (a) provides that act done, order made or certificate issued in exercise of any power conferred by or under this chapter shall, expect as hear in before provided be called for question in any court.

46. The scheme of the Forest Act, is evident from the various provisions as referred above, clearly provides that in the proceeding beginning by notification under Section 4 all claims regarding land included in the notification are adjudicated by an authorized officer all claims to the land can be made and adjudicated. Section 8 gives all powers of the Civil Courts to the 38 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Forest Settlement Officer available in trial of the suits. There is a appeal provided under Section 17 to the higher forum. The notification under Section 4 is to be published in Official Gazette appointing Forest Settlement Officer to enquire and determine any right in or any land. Forest Settlement Officer also issues a proclamation in every town and village in the neighbourhood to make the proceedings known to all concerned. The enquiry regarding claims is for the purpose of finding out as to whether the land in question can be declared as reserved forest or it cannot declared reserved forest due to the rights or claims of claimants and the provision further contemplate that even if right or claim of claimants has been established that is procedure for coming to agreement with the owner for surrender of his right or acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act. The provision of the Act contemplates extension of all rights regarding land included in the reserved forest. Section 27 (a) has been added giving finality to the orders passed in proceeding under the Indian Forest Act and section creates express bar of saying that the order made or certificate issued in exercise to power conferred in Chapter-II shall not be called in question."

31. The Forest Act provides such type of disputes to be finalized by the Settlement Officer, Forest, under Section 6 and if there are any right, title or interest, the appeal may be filed under Section 17 and further Section 20 provides the declaration with regard to forest region and Section 23 of the Forest Act provides other rights which are acquired by the persons in view of the notification or pre-existing easementary right.

32. In view of the above facts, it is desirable that in case of any dispute with regard to forest area, the officer holding the safety and maintenance of the forest can proceed with in accordance with the provisions as laid down in the Forest Act and by way of survey, identification, demarcation, by way of wiring or pillars, to secure the land of the forest and to ensure that all the relevant entries be made in the land revenue 39 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

records with the copy to be kept with the Head of Department or the record room.

33. The matter of determination of deemed forest was raised and taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995: T. N. Godhaverman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors., in I.A. No.41723 of 2022, and State of Rajasthan the State Level Expert Committee which submitted its report named Kapoor Committee Report deciding the classification of forest and recommended that the deemed forest would be a compact of area of minimum 5 hectares where naturally growing minimum 200 trees per hectare exist. Subsequently, in compliance of another order, the State of Rajasthan classified as deemed forest and then matter was referred to the Central Empowered Committee and in its report dated 01.06.2005, the Committee found that the Kapoor Committee criteria was inconsistent with this Court's orders and recommended classifying sacred groves as 'forests,' save for small, fragmented areas that are difficult to manage, which may be excluded under the FC Act. Again, the Rajasthan Government has published the Rajasthan State Forest Policy, 2010. By order dated 03.07.2018, in I.A. No. 1254, the Hon'ble Court directed the State of Rajasthan to implement the recommendations of the CEC expeditiously, in letter and spirit. The relevant part of the order dated 03.07.2018 is extracted below for the sake of ready reference:-

"The State of Rajasthan has accepted Recommendation Nos. (i) and

(iii) given by the CEC which read as follows:

(i) In respect of sacred groves such as Orans, De-vans etc. the Kapoor Committee has included only those areas in the category of 'forest' which also fulfill the criteria laid down for deemed forest i.e. having more than 200 trees per ha. A compact block of 40 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

5 ha. Or more. The remaining areas have been left out though they are recorded as Orans, De-vans etc. in government records. Traditionally Orans; Dev-vans and other sacred groves, irrespective of their size, have been treated as forest land in Rajasthan. This was also confirmed by the State of Rajasthan during the hearing held before the CEC. In view of above the CEC is of the view that exclusion of such areas from the category of 'areas recorded as forest in government records' on the ground that they do not fulfill the criteria of 'deemed forest' will be inconsistent with the orders of this Hon'ble Court and therefore, needs to include as 'forest land'. However, in case some of these small fragmented areas, which are difficult to manage have to be excluded from the purview of the FC Act, 1980 the same may be done after following the procedure as laid down under the Act.

(iii)In Rajasthan large areas are arid areas which support scanty vegetation, grass lands or eco-systems, which have few large trees. Many of these areas represent various forms of climate eco-system such as grass, land, rocky outcrops, stony desert etc. which need to be treated as 'forest land'. If Hon'ble Supreme Court deems it fit the State of Rajasthan would constitute Expert Committee consisting of a representative of the Forest Department, Arid Zone Forestry Research Institute (AFRI), Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI) and representatives of various departments and expert bodies to identify areas which are representative of various types of desert eco-systems. Such areas may also be included in the category of 'deemed forest' irrespective of the vegetation supported by such areas. The Committee may adopt a rational criteria for this purpose and finalize its report within a period of six months.

In respect of Recommendation No. (ii), it is stated that the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 did not apply to any Forest Land diverted prior to date of its enactment i.e. 25.10.1980 and thus it is not necessary to get such areas diverted from the purview of the Forest Conservation Act after following due process. It is therefore prayed that the Kapoor Committee Report may be accepted with the said modification.

41 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

We find no substance in this submission. The lands that have already been diverted prior to the date of its enactment i.e. 25.10.1980 need to be clearly identified, surveyed, demarcated and diverted in accordance with law. We find no error in the recommendations made by the CEC nor do we find anything to set aside the recommendations made by the CEC. Recommendation No.

(ii) of the CEC is also accepted which reads as follows:

(ii) The inclusion of areas recorded as 'Rundh' as 'forest' by the Kapoor Committee is appropriate and, therefore, may be accepted. However, a large chunk of such areas have been put under agriculture and other non forestry purpose prior to enactment of the FC Act i.e. 25.10.1980 and are being used for non-forestry purposes for last many decades. It may, therefore, be desirable that all such areas, diverted/used for non-forestry purposes prior to 25.10.1980 are identified and area deleted from the purview of the FC Act after following due process of law. These areas will have to be surveyed and demarcated in a time bound manner. For deletions of such areas from the purview of FC Act the MoEF may consider waiving the condition of compensatory afforestation. The payment of Net Present Value (NPV) may also not be insisted upon I such cases.

34. The Hon'ble Court with regard to the community rights held as follows:-

"(i) COMMUNITY RIGHTS AND INVOLVEMENT

25. It was submitted that 'community forest resource' is defined under Section 2(a) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 200611 as "customary common forest land within the traditional or customary boundaries of the village or seasonal use of landscape in the case of pastoral communities, including reserved forests, protected forests and protected areas such as Sanctuaries and National Parks to which the community had traditional access." Under the Forest Rights Act, Section 3(1)(i) recognizes the rights of forest-dwelling communities to protect, regenerate or conserve, or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use. Section 5(a) empowers 42 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

these communities to protect wildlife, forests, and biodiversity, ensuring the preservation of their natural habitat. Additionally, Section 5(c) mandates the prevention of activities that harm their cultural and natural heritage. Together, these provisions safeguard the rights of forest communities while promoting sustainable forest management and the conservation of biodiversity.

26. Learned Amicus Curiae drew the Court's attention to the following observations of this Court in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited v. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others:

"55. The definition clauses read with the abovementioned provisions give emphasis to customary rights, rights to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce, community rights like grazing cattle, community tenure of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups, traditional rights customarily enjoyed, etc. Legislative intention is, therefore, clear that the Act intends to protect custom, usage, forms, practices and ceremonies which are appropriate to the traditional practices of forest dwellers."

27. He further submitted that Section 36-C of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, recognizes 'community reserves.' This provision highlights the connection between protecting biodiversity and preserving cultural values and practices. It allows the State Government to declare private or community lands as community reserves, provided the community or individuals voluntarily agree to protect wildlife and its habitat. Once declared, these lands are protected, and no changes can be made in the land use unless approved by the community's management committee and the State Government. This ensures both ecological and cultural conservation. Therefore, wherever possible, these lands may be recognised and managed as 'community reserves' under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

28. It was further submitted that Section 36(5) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 imposes an obligation on the Central Government to "endeavour to respect and protect the knowledge of local people relating to biological diversity" and Section 36B(1) imposes an obligation on the State Government to develop strategies for the conservation of biological diversity:

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

"36-B. State Government to develop strategies and plans for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.-(1) The State Government shall develop strategies, plans, programmes for the conservation and promotion and sustainable use of biological diversity, including measures for identification and monitoring of areas rich in biological resources, promotion of in situ, and ex situ, conservation of biological resources, including cultivars, folk varieties and landraces, incentives for research, training and public education to increase awareness with respect to biodiversity, in conformity with the national strategies, plans and programmes. (2) The State Government shall, as far as practicable, wherever it deems appropriate, integrate the conservation, promotion and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral policies or cross-sectoral plans and programmes.]"

29. Learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance upon Τ.Ν. Godavarman(87) v. Union of India13, and submitted that this Court in Para 72 recognised that the National Forest Policy, 1988, has a statutory flavour. It provides for the identification of protected areas, recognition of customary rights over the forest areas, forest conservation with the involvement of the local community, and the need for regular surveys of forest resources. Similarly, the 'National Action Plan' was also recognised as having statutory flavour in Centre for Environment Law, World Wide Fund v. Union of India, The National Wildlife Action Plan, 201715 recognises the need to enhance the protected area network(broadly including national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, community reserves, etc), demarcate boundaries for protected areas, and involve local communities in the protection and sustainable management of protected areas. The NWAP highlights the need for wildlife conservation beyond protected areas, focusing on larger landscapes shaped by diverse land uses and human activities. It also emphasises in situ conservation of threatened species through immediate protection of critical habitats.

..........x.........x...........x.........x........

36. An expert committee finalized its recommendations on 07.03.2024 after reviewing public objections regarding deemed forests. A draft notification has been prepared and sent to the State Government, with instructions for District Collectors to address 44 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

objections as per the Court's directions. However, public hearings on the objections were delayed due to the model Code of Conduct. The recommendations of the expert committee are under consideration by the competent authority.

..........x.........x...........x.........x........

39. Furthermore, the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, has also emphasized the importance of preserving the cultural and traditional values of forests, explicitly incorporating these principles into its preamble, which states:

AND WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide for provisions relating to conservation management and restoration of forests, maintaining ecological security, sustaining cultural and traditional values of forests and facilitating economic needs and carbon neutrality" (emphasis supplied)

40. The FC Act was enacted to provide for the conservation of forests. In the landmark judgment of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad17, this Court emphasized that the FC Act was enacted to curb deforestation and address the resulting ecological imbalance. It was held that the FC Act provisions for forest conservation and related matters apply universally to all forests, regardless of their ownership or classification.

.............x................x...............x...............x..................... This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213], Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on 29-11-1996]). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area 45 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay." (emphasis supplied) ..........x.........x...........x.........x........

42. Section 2 of the FC Act strengthens the protection of forests by strictly regulating activities that could lead to their degradation or misuse of the forests. It prohibits any State Government or any authority from de-reserving forest areas, using forest land for non- forest purposes, or leasing it to private entities without prior approval from the Central Government. The relevant section as amended by the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023 reads as follows:

"Section 2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing-

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation, subject to such terms and conditions, as the Central Government may, by order, specify;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.

Explanation. -For the purpose of this sub-section, "non-forest purpose"

means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for-

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil- bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants;

(b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating to or ancillary to conservation, development, and management of forests and wildlife, such as-

(i) silvicultural operations including regeneration operations;

(ii) establishment of check-posts infrastructure for the front-line forest staff; and

(iii) establishment and maintenance of fire lines;

(iv) wireless communications;

(v) construction of fencing, boundary marks or pillars, bridges and culverts, check dams, waterholes, trenches, and pipelines;

(vi) establishment of zoos and safaris referred to in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by the Government or any authority, in forest areas other than protected areas;

(vii) eco-tourism facilities included in the Forest Working Plan or Wildlife Management Plan or Tiger Conservation Plan or Working Scheme of that area; and

(viii) any other like purposes, which the Central Government may, by order, specify.

(2) The Central Government may, by order, specify the terms and conditions subject to which any survey, such as reconnaissance, prospecting, investigation, or exploration including seismic survey, shall not be treated as a non-forest purpose."

43. The statutory framework also supports the recognition of sacred forests. The Forest Rights Act explicitly acknowledges community rights over customary forest resources and mandates their conservation. Section 3 of this Act recognises the following rights of forest dwellers:

"3. Forest rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the following rights, which secure individual or community tenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands, namely:-

(a) right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self cultivation for 47 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers;

(b) community rights such as nistar, by whatever name called, including those used in erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes;

(c) right of ownership access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries;

(d) other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water bodies, grazing (both settled or transhumant) and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralist communities;

(e) rights, including community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities; (rights in or over disputed lands under any nomenclature in any State where claims are disputed;

(g) rights for conversion of Pattas or leases or grants issued by any local authority or any State Government on forest lands to titles;

(h) rights of settlement and conversion of all forest villages, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and other villages in forests, whether recorded, notified, or not, into revenue villages;

(i) right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use;

(j) rights which are recognised under any State law or laws of any Autonomous District Council or Autonomous Regional Council or which are accepted as rights of tribals under any traditional or customary law of the concerned tribes of any State;

(k) right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity;

(1) any other traditional right customarily enjoyed by the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers, as the case may be, which are not mentioned in clauses (a) to

(k) but excluding the traditional right of hunting or trapping or extracting a part of the body of any species of wild animal; 48 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(m) right to in situ rehabilitation including alternative land in cases where the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers have been illegally evicted or displaced from forest land of any description without receiving their legal entitlement to rehabilitation prior to the 13th day of December, 2005."

(emphasis supplied) Further, Section 5 provides:

"5. Duties of holders of forest rights. The holders of any forest right, Gram Sabha and village level institutions in areas where there are holders of any forest right under this Act are empowered to-

(a) protect the wild life, forest and biodiversity

(b) ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and other ecological sensitive areas adequately protected;

(c) ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any form of destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural heritage;

(a) ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to regulate access to community forest resources and stop any activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and the biodiversity are complied with." (emphasis supplied)

35. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that Section 3 (i)(j) of the Forest Rights Act recognizes the rights of the tribal communities under State laws, autonomous districts or regional council laws and their traditional or customary laws and practices of pathway that have been protected by the law. As per Section 5 of the Forest Rights Act, they should also be empowered alongwith Gram Sabhas and local institutions, to continue protecting wildlife biodiversity and natural resource. Granting them the authority to regulate access and prevent harmful activities would preserve their legacy of stewardship and promote sustainable conservation for future generation. The National Forest Policy, 1988, carries a statutory flavour as noted in T.N. Godhaverman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India case.

O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Clause 4.3.4.2 of the National Forest Policy, 1988, highlights the importance of encouraging people customary rights in forest to help, protect and improve forest ecosystem as they depend on these forests for their needs and it is for the MoEF&CC to create a policy programme that protect the rights of these communities and also to preserve the ecosystem.

36. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied on the State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s K. K. M. Road Construction (Hot Mix Plant) dated 15.10.2012 (Madras High Court), where in para 14 the Court held as follows:-

"14. On the second aspect that till the appropriate authority under the Act passes an order, the respondents/writ petitions have been permitted to use the pathway for vehicular movement and access to their patta land, it is to be note that the respondents/writ petitioners specifically asserted that the villagers and the respondents/writ petitioners were using the forest land for over 60 years to reach their patta lands. This averment has not been denied by the appellants in their counter affidavit. The fact that the stretch of the forest land has been used for more than 60 years as pathway having not been denied by the appellants/State, prima facie, we are of the view that the State cannot be allowed to say that the said road cannot be used without the permission of the authority as contemplated under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Hence, while considering the application for grant of permission, the authority shall consider this aspect of the matter also."

37. The fact that the stretch land has been used for more than 60 years as pathway having not been denied by the opposite party/State, prima facie, the Court was of the view that the State cannot be allowed to say that the said road cannot be used without the permission of the authority as contemplated under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The case of State of Bihar Vs. Bansi Ram Modi reported in (1985) 3 SCC 643, has also been 50 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

relied upon. In this case the Hon'ble Court held that explanation to Section 2 of the Act defines non-forest purposes as breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purposes other than re- afforestation. Reading them together, these two parts of the section mean that after the commencement of the Act, no fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of the forest on such land can be permitted by any State Government or any authority without the prior approval of the Central Government. But if such permission has been accorded before the coming into force of the Act and the forest and is broken up or cleared, then obviously the section cannot apply. The question is legal and the documents and the contentions as raised by the parties disclose that the habitation of the villages, namely, Dhanibaghwala, Bhopa Ki Dhani, Mario Ki Dhani, Dhani Napawali, Meeno Ki Dhani, Bagh Wala Gaon and Gaushala, were using this pathway before 1980 i.e., before the commencement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

38. It is an undisputed fact that this is only connecting road and access route to the habitants of the abovementioned villages. It was again reconstructed and repaired in 2002 under a public work scheme by the State fund and if the road has been existing there before the operation of the Act,1980, and it was maintained and constructed by the Zila Parishad or the PWD Department by the fund of the State exchequer, the general public or the villagers have every right to utilize it and according to Sections 13 and 15 of the Indian Easement Act, easementary right has been matured. The Tehsildar-Sikar, has addressed the Kchetriya Van Adhikari vide letter dated 20.06.2025 (paper book 398) with the attachment of signature of many villagers that if the pathway or the road 51 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

is closed, the villagers will face a serious problem and also may be a question of law and order.

39. The contention of the Applicant that it may not be utilized for the commercial purposes is a question to be decided by the authorities, District Administration, Forest Department, but at the same time the Court have to examine that if the land is recorded as 'Sadak' in the revenue records the public in general have right to access and all those villagers whose residences and villages are connected with the same road cannot be denied to use that road. Further, no distinction can be made by this Tribunal as to which category of the person can utilize it. Again, no discrimination can be made on any other grounds even if it is taken to forbid or prohibit the mines transportation or commercial vehicles, it may also adversely affect the other commercial activities of the villagers or the transportation of the crops. So far as the tree cutting is concerned, the Forest Department has reported that there are no tree cutting and no tree felling. It is further reported that vide online web portal of Parivesh, vide letter dated 11.09.2025 for diversion of that land, the communication and correspondence is going on with the MoEF&CC and the matter is under process. The matter of transportation of the minerals is a subject matter to be decided by the Collector/District Administration/State Mining Department and if the mining has been permitted and there is only road for transportation of mines, thus, preventing the transportation of the minerals will directly or indirectly defeat the very mine permission which could frustrate the mining policy of the State and it is for the Collector concerned to take a decision according to rules and if there is no alternate route or no route is available for transportation of the minerals, the royalty of the amount which is required to be paid to the State may be 52 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

frustrated and the person concerned cannot be compelled to pay it for the reasons that there are no routes of transportation. Since, it is a matter to be decided by the Collector, thus, we leave it to the Collector to decide it.

40. In view of the above discussion and on the basis of records, our conclusions are as follows:-

(i) The matter with regard to the diversion of land is pending before the MoEF&CC, thus, the decision can be taken by the authorities in accordance with the decision by the MoEF&CC.

(ii) The matter with regard to the easementary rights of pathway which is pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, and as per law laid down above, the easementary right exist in favour of the villagers and use of pathway will be subject to the decision taken by the competent court of Additional District Judge where the civil matter is pending.

(iii) The matter relates to the identification and demarcation of the land which is within the domain of the Revenue Department and Forest Department which may be undertaken by conducting joint measurement/survey of the land by the Superintendent of Land records in the presence of Revenue and Forest officials and resolve it accordingly.

41. Since, there are no tree felling and the land under question is recorded as 'Sadak', thus, there are no violation of environmental laws or environmental rules. Thus, interference of this Tribunal is not required. However, we direct that till the decision is taken by the MoEF&CC or the competent Court of Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, in the 53 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

pending matters, the villagers have to be allowed right to pathway as easementary rights as per existing norms of the Forest Department and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to curtail or enhance the said rights of local villagers.

42. With these observations, the Original Application No.106/2025(CZ) stands disposed of.

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 11th February, 2026, O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) AK 54 O.A. No.106/2025(CZ) Mala Ram Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Green Tribunal

Mala Ram Gurjar vs Principal Secretary (Forest) State Of ... on 11 February, 2026