National Green Tribunal
Santosh Bharti vs The Chief Secretary State Of Madhya ... on 7 March, 2019
Item No. 06 (Through VC)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 98/2016 (CZ)
Santosh Bharti Applicant(s)
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 07.03.2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. J.P. Sharma, Applicant
in person
For Respondent (s): Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma,
Advocate for State of MP
ORDER
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. The original applicant Mr. Santosh Bharti has chosen not to appear. Subsequently, Mr. J. P. Sharma was added as an intervener. We were informed by Mr. J.P. Sharma, in the beginning, that the matter may be heard in his presence and there is no need to wait for the original applicant. Moreover, we were also informed by Mr. Dharamveer Sharma, Advocate, earlier Counsel for the original applicant-Mr. Santosh Bharti that it appears the applicant is no more interested in pursuing this case before NGT. 1
Broadly speaking, the case of the applicant is that the order passed by Collector Raisen on 6th September, 2008 as well as the consequential order of 19th September, 2014 are illegal. Further the case of the applicant is that no industrial operations can be undertaken in an area measuring 277.79 acres of Khasra No. 726, which has since been earmarked and recorded as Madhya Pradesh Sarkar Charokhar Nistar in Village Tamot, Tehsil Goharganj and falls within the Reserved Forest Area. The case of the applicant is also that this land was a forest land since erstwhile, State of Nawab, Bhopal in the year 1916.
It is on these basis that it has been contended that the land in question still continues to be a reserved forest and the same cannot be used for any other purpose and without following the provision for Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The Learned Counsel for Respondent-State has raised the preliminary objection that this application is grossly time barred. The basic order sought to be challenged was passed in the year 2008 whereas the application has been admittedly filed in the year 2016. He has also submitted that the impugned order passed by the Collector is self explanatory and is accordance to law.
Apart from the fact, that the objection with regard to limitation has been raised in this case which is no doubt sustainable for the reason that the present application is filed against an order of 2008 in 2016, is time barred under 2 Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, we have also considered the submission made by applicant/intervener at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record.
It would be relevant to mention here that the applicant/intervener has referred to the order of 12th January, 1916, wherein mention has been made in respect of Bhopal State Forest Act, 1916, stating that Government Forest will be considered Reserved Forest. At the same time, the applicant has himself placed on record a document- Working plan for Government Forest of Raisen District for the year 1983-84 to 1997-98. In para 76 of the said plan it has been mentioned:
"The protected forests covered by this plan were carved out from the ex-Jagirdari and Unclassed Forests. The ex- Jagirdars enjoyed full proprietary rights over the forests under the provisions of Section 180 of Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932. With the promulgation of Bhopal abolition of Jagirs Act and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (X of 1953). All the Jagirs Forests were vested in the State."
Besides, on perusal of the order passed by the Collector on 6th September, 2008 goes to show that a detailed enquiry was conducted in the matter which included joint site inspection by Revenue and Forest Department. The relevant provisions empowering the Collector to exercise powers in such issue and also the details about the land in question, have been extensively referred to by the Collector. The site inspection was conducted from 11.08.2008 to 13.08.2008. 3
It was also argued before us that in the letter dated 19th September, 2014 issued from the Officer of Divisional Forest officer, District Raisen makes a mention about the demarcation of the forest which was wrongly made. This is also surprising because even if that was the case for issuance of the letter by the Office of Divisional Forest officer then the report of joint inspection and demarcation done between 11th August, 2008 to 13th August, 2008 ought to have been considered. Unless and until it was pointed out in the letter of 2014 issued by the Office of Divisional Forest officer that in the inspection conducted at that time, there had been error or perversity. There ought to have been some basis for disagreeing with the said report. It is significant to note that the said inspection report had been duly signed by the team consisting of officials of revenue department as well as the forest department.
Apart from it, the Applicant had not placed any notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh to show that the land in question has been notified which was necessary after vesting of the same with the State, by virtue of Bhopal Abolition of Jagir Act and Land Reforms Act, 1953 as a reserved forest. It goes without saying that under the relevant Revenue Law of the State, the Collector has powers to earmark any revenue land for a particular purpose, in the instant case for industrial purpose, and 4 references to that effect have been made to Government Orders in the order, which so empowers him.
In view of the above that instant application is grossly time barred, we have, in the interest of justice, gone into the merits of the case also but are of the considered opinion that the applicant has no case on merits also. In absence of any revenue record showing forest land, prepared after coming into existence of State of Madhya Pradesh, having been placed on record or a notification under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 or any error/perversity pointed out in the order of Collector passed on 6th September, 2008, we do not find any reason to accept the relief sought by the applicant. As mentioned earlier, the order of Collector dated 9th September, 2008 is not only well within the statutory power vested in him but also based on thorough inquiry including site inspection by officials of both the departments namely Revenue as well as Forest, which was carried out for couple of days.
Consequently, Original Application No. 98 of 2016 stands dismissed, with no order as to cost.
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, JM Dr. Satyawan Singh Garbyal, EM March 07, 2019 sn 5