CA Nos. 4682-4683 of 2005

1

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.2            SECTION IV [FOR JUDGMENT]

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

              CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4682-4683 OF 2005

B.S. SANDHU                                       Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.                        Respondent(s)

WITH  Civil Appeal NO. 4684-4685 of 2005 [DASHMESH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY V. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY & ORS.]

Civil Appeal NO. 4799-4800 of 2005 [SURESH SHARMA &ORS. V. B.S. SANDHU & ORS.]

Civil Appeal NO. 4798 of 2005 [BHARTIYA KISAN UNION TH. VICE PRESIDENT V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND  ORS.]

SLP(C) NO. 19226 of 2013 [B.S. SANDHU (RETD.) V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.]

SLP(C) NO. 20235 of 2013 [HARMESH KUMAR & ORS. V. U.O.I. & ORS.]

Date: 21/05/2014  These Appeals/Petitions  were called on for       pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) in CA 4682-83 & 4684-85

      Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv.  Mr. Raman Walia, Adv.     Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv.

                   In CA 4799-800  Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Raman Walia, Adv.    Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.

In CA 4798  Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Raman Walia, Adv.   Mr. Ajit Kumar Pande, Adv.

In SLP 19226       Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv.  Mr. Raman Walia, Adv.

CA Nos. 4682-4683 of 2005

2

 Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv.

In SLP 20235   Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Adv.  

For Applicant (s)   Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr. Adv.   Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv.   Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) in CA 4682-83

 Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.      Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv.

 Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv.   Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.

 Mr. Ashiesh Kumar, Adv.

 Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Adv.

In CA 4682-83 & 4799-800   Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv.

In CA 4682-83, 4684-85 & 4799-800   Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG.

 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.   Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv.   Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv.   Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Adv.   Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv.   Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv.   Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv.   Mr. Pardaman Singh, Adv.

                              *****

C.A. Nos. 4682-4683 of 2005, C.A. Nos. 4799-4800 of 2005 and  C.A. No. 4798 of 2005

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik pronounced the  

judgment of the Court for a Bench comprising of His  

Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed  

Ibrahim Kalifulla.

For the reasons stated in the signed reportable  

judgment, we set aside the finding of the High Court  

that the entire land in village Karoran, District

CA Nos. 4682-4683 of 2005

3

Ropar is 'forest land' for the purpose of Section 2  

of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and remand  

the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing and  

fresh order in accordance with law.  Consequently,  

all directions in the impugned order which flow out  

of the aforesaid finding of the High Court that the  

land was 'forest land' for the purpose of Section 2  

of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are set  

aside.  We, however, make it clear that we have not  

set aside the directions for investigation by the  

CBI in the impugned order.

The appeals stand disposed of.

C.A. Nos. 4684-4685 of 2005, SLP(C) Nos. 19226/2013 and  20235/2013

These matters being separate from the matters  

in which the judgment has been delivered today are  

de-linked and will be listed separately for  

hearing.  

[KALYANI GUPTA] COURT MASTER

  [RENU DIWAN] COURT MASTER

   [SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4682-4683 OF 2005     

B.S. Sandhu                                                      … Appellant Versus

Government of India & Ors.                          … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4799-4800 OF 2005  AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4798 OF 2005      

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These Civil Appeals have been filed by way of special  

leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the  

common order dated 12.10.2004 of the Division Bench of  

the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 1134 of  

2004 and CWP No. 1850 of 2004.

Facts of the Case:

2. CWP No. 1134 of 2004 is a Public Interest Litigation  

entertained by the High Court suo motu pursuant to a

2

news item published on 22.01.2004 in the Hindustan  

Times (‘HT Chandigarh Live’).  This news item was titled  

‘Forest Hill Club under Central Government Scanner’,  

and it stated that the Ministry of Environment  and  

Forest, Union of India, has found that a Forest Hill Golf  

and Country Club in Village Karoran, District Ropar,  

near Chandigarh was being developed in blatant  

violation of the environmental and forest laws as well as  

the orders passed by this Court in December 1996. The  

news item further stated that 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 (for  

short ‘PLP Act, 1900’) and was a ‘forest area’, which  

attracted the provisions of the Forest (Conservation)  

Act,  1980,  but  the Punjab Government  permitted  

change of land use as a quid pro quo because a large  

number of top IAS and IPS officers and other decision-

makers have been given honorary membership of the  

club or have been allowed to use the premises and

3

facilities of the Club for private functions.

3. CWP No. 1850 of 2004 was filed by one Ranjeet Singh  

as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.  

In the writ petition, it was inter-alia stated that village  

Karoran is located in Kharar Tehsil of District Ropar  

and is about  eight kilometers to the North-west of  

Chandigarh and the entire area of the village measuring  

about 3700 acres is covered under PLP Act, 1900, and  

this area measuring about  3700 acres of village  

Karoran is also shown as ‘forest area’ in the Annual  

Administration Report and the Register of Forest Area  

of the forest department.  It is further stated in the writ  

petition that pursuant to the order dated 12.12.1996  

passed by this Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad  

v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 2 SC 267, an Expert  

Committee was set up by the Government of Punjab to  

identify the forest areas of the State of Punjab, and this  

Expert Committee included the entire area of Karoran  

village as forest area in its report, and accordingly an  

affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government in  

March, 1997 in this Court, showing the entire area of

4

Karoran village as part of the forest areas of the State of  

Punjab.  It is also stated in the writ petition 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  

vide its letter dated 14.12.1998.  The case made out in  

the writ  petition was that  Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 was 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.

4. Col. B.S. Sandhu, who was the proprietor/Managing  

Director of the Forest Hill  Golf and Country Club,  

contended before the High Court that merely because  

village Karoran is covered under the PLP Act 1900, the  

lands comprising the area of village Karoran do not  

become ‘forest land’.  He further contended that the  

lands in village Karoran on which the Forest Hill Golf  

and Country Club has been constructed were private  

lands acquired by sale deeds by the Dashmesh

5

Educational Society formed by him for a period of eight  

years from different owners and some of the lands are  

agricultural  lands and some of  the lands are  

uncultivable waste lands (Gair Mumkin Pahar) and  

unless a formal notification was issued under Section  

35 of the Forest Act, 1927 notifying a private land as  

‘forest land’, a private land cannot be treated to be  

‘forest land’.  Col. B.S. Sandhu also contended before  

the High Court  that  the fact that the State Forest  

Department  had shown the entire land in village  

Karoran as under the administrative control  of the  

Forest Department does not also make the entire land  

in Karoran village to be the ‘forest land’.  He further  

contended before the High Court that the entries in the  

revenue records of the State Government would show  

that the land in village Karoran on which the club has  

been established is not ‘forest land’.  He, however,  

conceded before the High Court that pursuant to the  

orders passed by this Court  in  T.N.Godavarman  

Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors.  (supra) on  

12.12.1996, the Expert Committee constituted by the

6

State of Punjab initially identified all the ‘forest areas’  

including those owned by private land owners in village  

Karoran measuring 3700 acres as ‘forest land’ and an  

affidavit was also filed on 21.02.1997 on behalf of the  

Forest Department,  Government  of Punjab,  in this  

Court accordingly, but he submitted before the High  

Court that pursuant to affidavits filed on behalf of the  

State Government, orders were passed by this Court in  

I.A. No.727 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad’s case  

(W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995) deleting large portions of land  

under habitation in village Karoran from the ‘list of  

forest areas’ in the State of Punjab.

5. The High Court,  however, rejected the contentions  

made on behalf of Col. B.S. Sandhu in Civil Appeal  

Nos.4682-4683 of 2005 and held that the entire land of  

village Karoran which has been notified under Section 3  

of the PLP Act, 1900 and is regulated by the prohibitory  

directions notified under Sections 4 and 5 of the  

aforesaid PLP Act, 1900 is ‘forest land’ and attracts the  

provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,  

1980 if sought to be used for ‘non-forest purpose’.  The

7

High Court also held that in the records of the Forest  

Department of the Government of Punjab, the entire  

land of village Karoran was shown to be ‘forest land’  

and the entries in the revenue record regarding the  

nature of the land were changed by the officers of the  

Revenue Department of the Government of Punjab at  

the behest of Col. B.S. Sandhu for the obvious reason  

that  he was eyeing this big chunk of land for his  

personal gains.  The High Court, therefore, discarded  

the latest entries of the revenue record and instead  

accepted the records of the Forest Department to hold  

that the land in question was ‘forest land’.  The High  

Court further held that in T.N.Godavarman’s case, this  

Court has in its order dated 12.12.1996 defined the  

term ‘forest land’ occurring in Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) 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.  The High Court held that  

as the land in village Karoran was recorded in the  

records of the Forest Department of the Government of

8

Punjab to be ‘forest land’, the same was ‘forest land’  

within the meaning of  Section 2 of  the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.  The High Court also held  

that the entire 3700 acres of land in the village Karoran  

was identified as ‘forest land’ by the Expert Committee  

constituted by the State of Punjab in its report dated  

19.02.1997 and the State Government filed its affidavit  

dated 21.02.1997 before this Court  along with the  

report of the Expert Committee. The High Court took  

note of the fact that pursuant to hardships experienced  

by the owners of some of these lands in village Karoran  

and pursuant to numerous representations, the State  

Government did examine the issue afresh and excluded  

a portion of the land from the ‘list of forest areas’, but  

Col. B.S. Sandhu and his associates cannot derive any  

benefit  or advantage from this stand of the State  

Government.   

6. With the aforesaid findings, the High Court allowed the  

writ  petitions directing Col. B.S. Sandhu and the  

companies and/or  the societies floated by him to  

immediately close down its entire enterprise known as

9

‘Forest Hill Country Club Resort and Golf Course’ and  

to demolish all the illegally erected buildings within a  

period of  three months and to handover  the  

‘management’ and ‘control’ of the land in question to  

the State Forest Department.  The High Court also  

directed the Revenue Department,  Government  of  

Punjab, to carry out all necessary corrections in the  

‘records of rights’  regarding the ‘forest land’  falling  

within the revenue estate of village Karoran, Tehsil  

Kharar, District Ropar and directed the Punjab State  

Electricity Board, through its Chairman, to discontinue  

the power supply forthwith to the Forest Hill Resort and  

directed the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation  

Department,  Government  of Punjab,  to cancel  L-2  

licence issued in favour of the Forest Hill Resort.  The  

High Court  also directed the Central  Bureau of  

Investigation through its Director  to constitute a  

Special Investigation Team to be headed by an officer  

not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General, which  

shall  hold a through probe into the question of  

accountability of top executive and administrative

10

functionaries of the departments concerned of the  

Government  of Punjab, some officers of the Central  

Government  in relation to establishment  and  

development of the Forest Hill Golf and Country Club at  

village Karoran and to report as to whether any one of  

them indulged in taking direct or indirect gratification  

and/or acted in violation of the Conduct Rules and to  

constitute a Special Investigation Team of the Central  

Bureau of Investigation to inquire into and submit its  

report as to how much lands are actually owned by Col.  

B.S. Sandhu, his family members and/or the societies/

companies floated by them.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Col. B.S. Sandhu has  

filed Civil Appeal Nos.4682-4683 of 2005.  Aggrieved by  

the impugned order, some agriculturists, house owners  

and shop owners of village Karoran have filed Civil  

Appeal  Nos. 4799-4800 OF 2005 and the Bhartiya  

Kisan Union, which is a union of farmers has filed Civil  

Appeal No.4798 of 2005, challenging, in particular, the  

finding of the High Court that the entire land in village  

Karoran is ‘forest land’ covered under Section 2 of the

11

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and cannot be used for  

non-forest purposes without the prior permission of the  

Central Government.

Contentions on behalf of the Parties:

8. At the hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the  

appellants submitted that the conclusion of the High  

Court in the impugned order that the entire land of  

village Karoran, District Ropar, 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.  They referred to the provisions of  

the PLP Act, 1900 to show that the aforesaid Act was  

meant to preserve and protect the land situated within  

or adjacent to Shivalik Mountain Range.  They argued  

that the notification issued under Section 3 of the PLP  

Act, 1900, therefore, covered both ‘forest’ and ‘non-

forest land’ and therefore a notification under Section 3  

of the PLP Act, 1900 closing a particular land under the  

said Act would not per se make the land a ‘forest land’.

12

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted  

that the High Court has gone by only the records of the  

Forest Department in which the entire land of 3700  

acres in village Karoran, District Ropar, was shown as  

within the administrative control  of  the Forest  

Department. They 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.  They  

submitted that an affidavit was filed on behalf of the  

Government of Punjab in this Court pursuant to the  

order  dated 12.12.1996 of  this Court  in  T.N.  

Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors.  

(supra), on the basis of the report  of the Expert  

Committee constituted by the State Government  for  

identification of forest areas in the State of Punjab in  

February, 1997 stating that the entire 3700 acres of  

land in village Karoran, District Ropar, was ‘forest land’  

but subsequently the State Government realised the  

mistake and filed an affidavit in October, 1999 before  

this Court for excluding portions of the land in village

13

Karoran, District Ropar, from the list of ‘forest areas’  

earlier furnished by the State of Punjab to this Court  

saying that  such land was under cultivation and  

human habitation and the farmers who were cultivating  

the land and those who were living in the land will  

suffer immense hardship if the land continues to be  

‘forest land’ for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, on  

the other hand, submitted that whether a particular land is  

‘forest land’  for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 has to be decided in accordance  

with the order dated 12.12.1996 of this Court  in T.N.  

Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. (supra)  

as there is no definition of forest either in the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 or in the Indian Forest Act, 1927.  

He submitted that this Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of  

India [(2004)12 SCC 118 – (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  

first M.C. Mehta case’) has taken the view that if the State  

Forest  Department  has been treating and showing a  

particular area as forest, that area is to be treated as forest

14

and if such area was to be used for non-forest purposes, it  

was necessary to comply with the provisions of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.  He submitted that this view was  

again endorsed by this Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of  

India and Ors. [JT 2008 (6) SC 542 – (hereinafter referred to  

as ‘the second M.C. Mehta case’).  He referred to the Annual  

Report of the East Punjab (Forest Department) to show that  

the entire land in village Karoran, District Ropar, under the  

PLP Act, 1900 was under the Forest Department  and  

submitted that in view of the decisions of this Court in the  

first and the second M.C. Mehta cases, the entire land in  

village Karoran, District Ropar, including the land of Col.  

B.S. Sandhu was ‘forest land’ and could not be diverted for  

non-forest purposes without the permission of the Central  

Government  as provided in Section 2 of  the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.

11. The Member Secretary of the Central  Empowered  

Committee (for short ‘the CEC’) referred to the records of I.A.  

727 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India &  

Ors. (supra) (Writ Petition No.202 of 1995) to show that the  

proposal of the State Government to exclude an area of

15

69,367 ha. out of 1,68,224 ha. closed under the PLP Act,  

1900 from the list of forest areas was examined by the CEC  

and the CEC was of the view that the deletion of the areas  

which were under cultivation of the habitation prior to  

25.10.1980 i.e. when the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980  

was enacted, would not be against the spirit of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.  He submitted that  the CEC,  

however, was also of the view that for deleting such areas  

from the list of forest areas, the procedure as laid down in  

the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 and the guidelines  

issued by the Central Government for implementation of the  

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, must be followed.

Conclusions of this Court:

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find  

that  the reason why the entire 3700 acres of land in  

Karoran, District Ropar, was included in the list of ‘forest  

land’ submitted by the State Government to this Court in  

February,  1997 is that  in the records of the Forest  

Department,  Government  of Punjab, the said land was  

shown to be under the Forest Department, Government of  

Punjab.  We have, therefore, examined the Annual Report of

16

the East  Punjab (Forest  Department) included in the  

compilation filed on behalf of the State Government  on  

22.02.2014 and we find that the land in the village Karoran,  

District Ropar, is recorded as land under the control of the  

Forest Department because the land was closed under the  

PLP Act, 1900.  This is also clear from paragraph 5 of the  

affidavit of Shri J.S. Kesar, IAS, Financial Commissioner and  

Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Forests  

and Wildlife Preservation, filed in this Court in October,  

1999  extracted hereinbelow:

“5. The basis for inclusion of all the areas  closed under the PLPA, 1900 as “Forest  areas” in the earlier affidavits was that  the same were being reported in the  Annual  Administrative Reports of the  Forest Department since several decades  under the category “closed under PLPA  1900”.  Though the areas closed under  PLPA 1900 were not specifically recorded  as forest areas because of the fact that  they  were  included  in  Annual  Administrative Reports of the State Forest  Department.  As such, besides the areas  with tree cover even cultivated fields and  habitations in the areas notified under  the PLPA, 1900 were depicted as ‘Forest  areas’  by the Expert  Committee and  included in Annexure-G of the affidavit  dated 21.2.1997 filed by the State  Government in the Hon’ble Apex Court.  It  is thus reiterated that  the Expert  Committee  included  the

17

cultivated/habitation areas closed under  the PLPA, 1900 in the list of forest areas  only because these stood included in the  Annual  Administrative Reports of the  Department as “Areas closed under the  PLPA 1900.”

Thus, the basis of including the entire land in village  

Karoran as forest  area in the affidavit  of the State  

Government in this Court is that the land was closed under  

the PLP Act, 1900 and therefore was forest area.   

13. The High Court  has also taken a view in the  

impugned order that as the entire land of village Karoran,  

District  Ropar, was closed in the PLP Act, 1900, it was  

‘forest land’  for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.  Paragraph 53 of the impugned  

order of the High Court is quoted hereinbelow:

53. For the reasons afore-mentioned and  relying upon the expression “forest” and  “forest  lands”  as defined by their  Lordships in T.N.  Godavarman’s case  (supra) and the principles laid down in  M.C. Mehta’s case (supra), we hold that  the entire land of village Karoran which  has been notified under section 3 of the  PLPA, 1900 and is regulated by the  prohibitory  directions notified under  section 4 and 5 thereof, is a “forest land”  and attract the provisions of section 2 of  the Conservation Act, 1980, if sought to

18

be used for ‘non forest purposes”.

14. Hence, the first question that we have to decide is  

whether the conclusion of the High Court that the land  

which is notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and is  

regulated by the prohibitory directions notified under  

Sections 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Act is ‘forest land’ is  

correct in law.  Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900 as it  

was originally enacted are extracted hereinbelow:

“3.  Whenever  it  appears to the Local  Government that it is desirable to provide for  the better preservation and protection of any  local area, situated within or adjacent to the  Sivalik mountain range or affected or liable to  be affected by the deboisement of forest in that  range or  by the action of  chos,  such  Government  may,  by notification,  make a  direction accordingly.  

4. In respect of areas notified under section 3  generally, or the whole or any part of any such  area, the Local Government may, by general or  special  order,  temporarily or permanently,  regulate, restrict or prohibit-    

(a) the clearing or  breaking up or  cultivating of land not ordinarily under  cultivation prior to the publication of the  notification under section 3;    (b) the quarrying of stone, or the burning  of lime, at places where such stone or line  had not ordinarily been so-quarried or  burnt  prior to the publication of the

19

notification under section 3;   (c) the cutting or trees or timber, or the  collection or removal or subjection to any  manufacturing process, otherwise than as  described in clause (b) of this sub-section  of any forest-produce other than grass,  save for bona fide domestic or agricultural  purposes;    (d) the setting on fire of trees, timber or  forest produce;    (e) the admission, herding, pasturing or  retention of sheep or goats;     (f) the examination of forest-produce  passing out of any such area; and    (g) the granting of  permits to the  inhabitants of towns and villages situated  within the limits or in the vicinity of any  such area, to take any tree, timber or  forest  produce for  their  own use  therefrom, or to pasture sheep or goats or  to cultivate or erect buildings therein and  the production and return of  such  permits by such persons,  

 5. In respect of any specified village or villages,  or part or parts thereof, comprised within the  limits of any area notified under section 3, the  Local  Government  may,  by special  order,  temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit-  

(a) the cultivating of any land ordinarily  under cultivation prior to the publication  of the notification under section 3:   (b) the quarrying of any stone or the  burning of any lime at places where such  stone or lime had ordinarily been so

20

quarried or burnt prior to the publication  of the notification under section 3;  

(c) the cutting of trees or timber or the  collection or removal or subjection to any  manufacturing process, otherwise than as  described in clause (b) of this sub-section  of  any forest-produce for  bona fide  domestic or agricultural purposes; and  

(d) the admission, herding, pasturing or  retention of cattle generally, other than  sheep and goats, or of any class or  description of such cattle.”

15. It will be clear from the language of Section 3 of the  

PLP Act,  1900 extracted above that  for  the better  

preservation and protection of any local  area, situated  

within or adjacent to Shivalik Mountain Range which is  

liable to be affected deboisment of forests in that range or by  

the action of “cho”, such Government may by notification  

make a direction accordingly.  The expression “local area”  

has not been defined in the PLP Act, 1900 and may include  

not only ‘forest land’ but also other land.  In Section 4 of the  

PLP Act, 1900 extracted above, the local Government was  

empowered by general  or special  order,  temporarily or  

permanently to regulate,  restrict  or  prohibit  various  

activities mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) , (e) , (f) and (g)

21

thereof.  A reading of these clauses would show that  

activities such as cultivation, pasturing of sheep and goats  

and erection of buildings by the inhabitants of towns and  

villages situated within the limits of the area notified under  

Section 3 can be regulated, restricted or prohibited by a  

general or special order of the local Government.  All these  

activities are not normally carried on in forests.  Similarly,  

under Section 5 of the PLP Act, 1900, the local Government  

was empowered by special  order,  temporarily  or  

permanently to regulate, restrict or prohibit the cultivating  

of any land or to admit,  herd, pasture or retain cattle  

generally other than sheep and goats.  These activities are  

also not normally carried on in forests.  In our view,  

therefore, 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’.  Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court  

in the impugned order that  the entire land of village  

Karoran,  District  Ropar, which has been notified under  

Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and is regulated by the  

prohibitory directions notified under Sections 4 and 5

22

thereof is ‘forest land’ is not at all correct in law.  The basis  

for inclusion of the entire area in village Karoran, District  

Ropar, in the list of forest areas in the State of Punjab  

pursuant to the order dated 12.12.1996 of this Court in the  

case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India &  

Ors. (supra) is legally not correct.  Similarly, the conclusion  

of the High Court in the impugned order that the entire land  

in village Karoran,  District  Ropar, having been notified  

under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and being under the  

regulatory regime of Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act is  

‘forest land’ is also legally not correct.  

16. In fact, the High Court  failed to appreciate the  

meaning of ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’ in Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 as given by this court in the order  

dated 12.12.1996 in the case of  T.N.Godavarman  

Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. (supra).  The relevant  

portions of the order dated 1212.1996 of this Court in the  

case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India &  

Ors. (supra) on the meaning of the words ‘forest’ and ‘forest  

land’ is extracted hereinbelow:

“4.  The Forest Conservation Act, 1980

23

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 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 forests, 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 forests so understood irrespective of  the ownership or classification thereof.”

The underlined portion of the order dated 12.12.1996 in the  

case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India &  

Ors. (supra) would show that the Forest (Conservation) Act,  

1980 was enacted with a view to check “further  

deforestation” and was to apply to all forest irrespective of  

the nature of ownership or classification thereof.  Hence,

24

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) 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 (Conservation) Act, 1980 was ‘forest land’ irrespective  

of its classification or ownership.  This is exactly the view  

taken also by the CEC in its recommendations dated  

10.09.2003 in I.A. 727 in T.N.Godavarman’s case (W.P. [C]  

No.202 of 1995).  Paragraph 8 of the recommendations  

dated 10.09.2003 of the CEC in I.A. No.727 is extracted  

hereinbelow:  

“8. After examining the submissions made  by the applicant, affidavit filed by the State  Government  of  Punjab and the ‘No  Objection’ give by MoEF, the CEC is of the  view that deletion of areas, which were  under  cultivation/habitation  prior  to  25.10.1980, i.e. enactment of the FC Act,  would not be against the spirit of the FC  Act, and this Hon’ble Court’s order dated  12.12.1996, if such areas were included in  the ‘list  of  forest  area” on technical  reasons alone.  However, the areas closed  under Section 4 of the PLPA are recorded  as ‘forest’  in the Forest  Department’s  records for the last 40-50 years.  This  Hon’ble Court by order dated 12.12.1996  has held that areas recorded as ‘forest’ in  Government  records are forest  for the  purpose of the Section 2 of the FC Act.  It  would therefore be necessary to obtain  prior approval of the Central Government  under Section 2 of the FC Act, for deleting

25

such areas from the “list of the forest area”  after following the procedure as laid down  in the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981,  and the guidelines issued by the Central  Government for implementation of the said  Act.  Irrespective of the merits of the case,  it  would not  be appropriate to allow  deletion of such area from the ‘list of forest  area” without  following the prescribed  procedure and provisions of the Forest  (Conservation) Act.”

Thus, what the High Court was called upon to decide is  

whether the land on which the Forest Hill Golf and Country  

Club of Col. B.S. Sandhu was situated was forest land as on  

25.10.1980 irrespective of its classification or ownership.  

This is a factual question and the High Court should have  

decided this factual question on the basis of Government  

records as on 25.10.1980 and other materials filed before  

the High Court, but the High Court has instead decided this  

question by reference to the provisions of the PLP Act, 1900  

and the records of the Forest Department in which the land  

was shown to be under the Forest Department because of  

the fact that the land was closed under the PLP Act, 1900  

several  decades before the enactment  of  the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.  Moreover, by recording a blanket

26

finding that all land in village Karoran, District Ropar, was  

‘forest land’  for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980, 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 on 25.10.1980.  In  

our view, the High Court should have been very careful  

before recording findings which affect the property rights of  

persons protected by Article 300A of the Constitution.    

16. We have also examined the two decisions of this  

Court in the first and second cases of M.C. Mehta cited on  

behalf of the State of Punjab and we find that the aforesaid  

decisions have been rendered in the case of Aravali Hills in  

the State of Haryana and it was held therein that as the  

State Forest Department had been treating and showing the  

areas as ‘forest’, in fact and in law, the area was forest and  

non-forest activities could not be allowed in such areas  

without  the prior permission of the Central  Government  

under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.  In  

these two decisions, this Court has not enquired into the

27

basis of inclusion of the areas in forest by the State Forest  

Department nor has this Court considered as to whether a  

land becomes ‘forest land’ by mere inclusion of the same  

under the notification under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900.  

In the present  case,  on the other  hand,  the State  

Government has in its affidavit stated before this Court that  

the basis of inclusion of the entire land of village Karoran,  

District Ropar, in forest areas in the records of the Forest  

Department of Government of Punjab was that the land was  

closed under the PLP Act, 1900 and we have found this  

basis as not correct in law.

15. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court  

that the entire land in village Karoran, District Ropar, is  

‘forest land’  for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 and remand the matter to the High  

Court for fresh hearing and fresh order in accordance with  

law.  Consequently, all directions in the impugned order  

which flow out of the aforesaid finding of the High Court  

that the land was ‘forest land’ for the purpose of Section 2 of  

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are set aside.  We,  

however, make it clear that  we have not set aside the

28

directions for investigation by the CBI in the impugned  

order.  

                               .....……………..……………………….J.                                  (A. K. Patnaik)

                                                              …....…………..………………………..J.

                   (Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla) New Delhi, May 21, 2014.