Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – s.2 – Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 [As amended by Punjab land preservation (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2019] – s.4 – Forest Act, 1927 – Whether a land covered under a special order issued by the State Government u/s. 4 of the PLPA is a ‘forest land’ within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act – Held: The lands covered by the special orders issued u/s. 4 of PLPA have all the trappings of forest lands within the meaning of s.2 of the 1980 Forest Act and, therefore, the State Government or competent authority cannot permit its use for nonforest activities without the prior approval of the Central Government w.e.f. 25.10.1980 – Prior permission of the Central Government is the quintessence to allow any change of user of forest or so to say deemed forest land – Even during the subsistence of the special orders u/s. 4 of PLPA, with the approval of the Central Government, the State or a competent authority can grant permission for non-forest use – If such non-forest use is permitted in accordance with s.2 of the 1980 Forest Act, to that extent, the restrictions imposed by the special orders u/s. 4 of PLPA will not apply in view of the language used in the opening part of s.2 of the 1980 Forest Act – It is also clarified that only because there is a notification issued u/s.
3 of PLPA, the land which is subject matter of such notification, will not ipso facto become a forest land within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act.
Disposing of the appeals and writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The various restrictions, regulations and prohibitions in different clauses in Section 4 of Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA) can be invoked necessarily in respect of forest lands. Whereas, Section 3 of PLPA contemplates the issuance of a general notification in respect of any area subject to erosion or likely to become liable to erosion when it appears to the State Government that it is desirable to provide for the conservation of sub-soil water or the prevention of erosion. As noted earlier, one of the objectives of PLPA is to prevent erosion of land which may be caused due to deforestation. When the State Government is satisfied that as a result of deforestation or impending deforestation, erosion of a particular area out of the area notified under Section 3 is likely to take place, the State Government may exercise the power under Section 4 by issuing a special order. The reason is that the measures provided in Section 4 are intended to prevent deforestation of a forest area. Section 3 of PLPA contemplates the issuance of a notification in respect of a larger area when it is desirable to provide for the conservation of sub-soil water or prevention of erosion. When the State Government is satisfied that deforestation of a forest area forming part of a larger area notified under Section 3 is likely to lead to erosion of soil, the power under Section 4 can be exercised. Therefore, it follows that the specific land in respect of which a special order under section 4 of PLPA has been issued will have all the trappings of a forest governed by clauses (ii) to
(iv) of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. Therefore, in respect of the lands covered by special orders under Section 4 of PLPA, the State Government or authorities of the State can permit diversion to non-forest use only after prior approval of the Central Government is granted in accordance with Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. [Para 47][1104-A-F]
2. Clause (a) of Section 5 of PLPA provides for restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of any land ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication of the notification under Section
3. However, the power under Section 5 to restrict or prohibit can be exercised in a case where prior to the publication of the notification under Section 3, quarrying of any stone or the burning of any lime was being made. Thus, there is a marked difference between the language used in Section 4 and that in Section 5 of PLPA. However, as noted earlier, it is not necessary to decide the issue whether a land forming a part of a special notification under Section 5 of PLPA ipso facto becomes a forest under the 1980 Forest Act. [Para 48][1104-F-H]
3. In this group of petitions, this Court is concerned with three special orders under Section 4 issued on 18th August 1992 in respect of the said three villages. The effect of the said orders is that the lands referred to therein are forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. Even if such orders are cancelled or amended or rescinded or their duration comes to an end, the status of the lands covered by the same as forest lands governed by Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act cannot be altered without following the due process provided therein. Once a land is found to be a ‘forest’ within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act, its user for non-forest purposes will be always governed by Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. Secondly, clause
(i) of Section 2 provides that even in the case of a reserved forest under the 1927 Forest Act, the State Government cannot pass an order declaring that the same shall cease to be a reserved forest, without the prior approval of the Central Government. Thirdly, Section 2 starts with a non obstante clause which overrides anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State which will include all State and Central legislations applicable to the State. Therefore, prima facie, the 2019 Amendment Act enacted by the State Legislature would be repugnant to and violative of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act, if construed otherwise. Hence, whether the 2019 Amendment Act is given effect or not, it will not change the status of the lands covered by the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA as the said lands possess all the trappings of a forest with effect from 25th October 1980 within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act. Therefore, it is not necessary in these petitions to deal with the issue whether the order dated 01st March 2019 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677 of 1985 should be modified. The said prayer will have to be considered by the Bench dealing with the said writ petition. [Para 63][1114-D-H; 1115-A-B]
4. The lands covered by the special orders issued under Section 4 of PLPA have all the trappings of forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act and, therefore, the State Government or competent authority cannot permit its use for non-forest activities without the prior approval of the Central Government with effect from 25th October 1980. Prior permission of the Central Government is the quintessence to allow any change of user of forest or so to say deemed forest land. This Court may add here that even during the subsistence of the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA, with the approval of the Central Government, the State or a competent authority can grant permission for non-forest use. If such non-forest use is permitted in accordance with Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act, to that extent, the restrictions imposed by the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA will not apply in view of the language used in the opening part of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. This Court may also clarify that only because there is a notification issued under Section 3 of PLPA, the land which is subject matter of such notification, will not ipso facto become a forest land within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act. [Para 64][1115-C-E]
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 267 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 982; T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 401; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 118 : [2004] 3 SCR 126; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.(2008) 17 SCC 294 : [2008] 8 SCR 828; B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India and Ors (2014) 12 SCC 172; M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave Matters, In Re.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 397 : [2018] 11 SCR 384; Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and Others (2021) SCC online SC 7; Citizens for Green Doon and Others v. Union of India and Others (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1243 –
referred to.
Vijay Bansal & Others v. State of Haryana & others 2009 SCC online P & H 8073; Laxman Ichharam v. The Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh AIR 1953 Nagpur page 51 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.