FACTS

A recent news item titled “Forest Hill Club under Central Government Scanner” stated that the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Union of India had found that Forest Hill Golf and Country Club in Ropar was being developed in blatant violation of the environmental and forest laws. The Forest Department of Government of Punjab had informed the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest that the entire area, on which the golf course had been set up, was closed under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and was a ‘forest area’. However, Punjab Government allowed the use of land because a lot of IAS and IPS officers and other decision makers were given honorary membership of the club.

ISSUE

Whether the land on which the Forest Hill Golf and Country Club of Col. B.S. Sandhu was situated was forest land irrespective of its classification or ownership?

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

It was contended by the petitioners that the entire area of Karoran village was included as forest area in the management plan prepared by the State Forest Department and the management plan was approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. It was also contended that Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 is applicable to any land in the Karoran village and, therefore, the land could not have been diverted for non-forest activities without the prior permission of the Central Government.

It was further contended by the appellant that the entire land of village Karoran, which has been notified Under Section 3 of PLP Act, 1900 and which is being regulated by the prohibitory directions notified Under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900 is ‘forest land’ is not correct in law. It was also argued that the land which is under the administrative control of the Forest Department does not become ‘forest land’ only because the Forest Department exercises control over that land.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

It was contended by the defendant’s that merely because village Karoran is covered under the PLP Act 1900, the lands comprising the area of village Karoran does not become ‘forest land’. It was also contended by the defendants that the land on which the club was constructed was private lands acquired by sale deeds and unless there is a formal notification under section 35 of the Forest Act, 1927 notifying the private land as private land, it cannot be treated as ‘forest land’.

It was further contended that if the State Forest Department has been treating and showing a particular area as forest, that area is to be treated as forest and if such area was to be used for non-forest purposes, it was necessary to comply with the provisions of the Forest Act, 1980.

JUDGEMENT

High court had rejected the contentions made by the defendants on the grounds that the entire land on village Karoran has been notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and is ‘forest land’ and provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 is applicable for use of non-forest land purpoe. High Court referred to the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India which held that, “the term ‘forest land’ occurring in Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 to include not only ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.”

However, Supreme Court took the view that the entire 3700 acres of land in Karoran, was included in the list of ‘forest land’ submitted by the State Government as according to the records of the Forest Department, the said land was shown to be under the Forest Department, Government of Punjab. The court held that after reading Section 3, 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900, land which is notified Under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and regulated by orders of the local Government Under Section 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900 may or may not be ‘forest land’. Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 puts a restriction on further deforestation of ‘forest land’ and would apply to any land which at the time of enactment of the Forest Act, 1980 was ‘forest land’ irrespective of its classification or ownership. By passing the previous order of the High Court, the High Court has affected the legal rights of several villagers, agriculturists, farmers, shop owners, inhabitants of village Karoran, District Ropar, who were carrying on their respective occupations on their land even before the enactment of the said Act.

CONCLUSION

The court have set aside the previous order of the High Court stating that the entire land in village Karoran is ‘forest land’ for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1980 and have asked for a fresh hearing.