IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 1 of 81    

REPORTABLE  

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

                                              CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

                            I.A. No.2310/2008, I.A. Nos. 2378-2379/2009,  

I.A. No. 2269, I.A. No. 2270, I.A. No. 2393,   

I.A. Nos. 2381-2384   

IN   

W.P. (C) No. 4677 OF 1985  

     M.C. Mehta                                  ....Petitioner  

versus  

       Union of India & Ors.                       .... Respondents   

In Re : Kant Enclave matters  

WITH  

                  I.A. Nos. 2310-2311 IN W.P. (C) No. 202/1995  

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

1. The principal question that arises in this batch of substantive  

applications is whether, in the State of Haryana, land notified under the  

provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short the PLP  

Act) is forest land or is required to be treated as forest land.  If so, whether  

construction carried out by the applicant R. Kant & Co. on this land is in  

contravention of the notification dated 18th August, 1992 issued under the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 2 of 81    

provisions of the PLP Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and  

decisions of this Court.  

2. Our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative.  We have no  

doubt that land notified by the State of Haryana under the provisions of the  

PLP Act must be treated as ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’ and has in fact been  

so treated for several decades by the State of Haryana.   There is no reason  

to change or alter the factual or legal position.  The construction activity  

carried out by the applicant R. Kant & Co. is clearly in violation of the  

notification dated 18th August, 1992 and in blatant defiance of orders  

passed by this Court from time to time.  Unfortunately, the Town &  

Country Planning Department of the State of Haryana has been supporting  

the illegalities of the applicant despite strong resistance from the Forest  

Department of the State of Haryana.  There is no doubt that at the end of  

the day, the State of Haryana comes out in very poor light and must be held  

accountable for its conflicting and self-destructive stand taken in spite of  

affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana from time to  

time supporting the Forest Department.  

3. The unfortunate and distressing consequence of this is that because  

of a complete lack of any concern for the environmental and ecological  

degradation carried out in the Aravalli hills by influential colonizers like  

the applicant and what appears to be a very strong mining lobby in  

Haryana, the damage caused to the Aravalli hills is irreversible.  It is not

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 3 of 81    

only the future generations that have to pay a heavy price for this  

environmental degradation, but even the present generation is paying a  

heavy price for the environmental and ecological degradation inasmuch as  

there is an acute water shortage in the area as prophesied by the Central  

Ground Water Board.  In addition, what was once a popular tourist  

destination, namely, Badkal Lake has now vanished and the entire water  

body has become bone dry. What are the more severe consequences that  

will be felt in the years to come, only time and nature will tell.  

Brief background  

4. By a communication dated 17th April, 1984 the Commissioner &  

Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department of the State of Haryana  

granted exemption to the applicant R. Kant & Co. for setting up a Film  

Studio and Allied Complex in Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 (owned by the applicant)  

in village Anangpur in Faridabad district.  The exemption was granted  

under Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban  

Areas Act, 1975 on certain terms and conditions.  Section 23 of the  

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 reads as  

follows:  

“23. Power to exempt– If the Government is of the opinion that  

the operation of any of the provisions of this Act causes undue  

hardship or circumstances exist which render it expedient so to  

do, it may, subject to such terms and conditions as it may impose,  

by a general or special order, exempt any class of persons or areas  

from all or any of the provisions of this Act.”  

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 4 of 81    

5. The validity of the exemption is not before us and so we need not  

delve into the reasons for the exemption. Be that as it may, it appears that  

the applicant did not comply with the terms and conditions imposed upon  

it and therefore a show cause notice was issued for withdrawal of the  

exemption.  The applicant contested the show cause notice and a hearing  

was given by the Chief Minister of Haryana being the Minister-in-charge  

of the Town & Country Planning Department.  By an order dated 11th July,  

1990 the show cause notice was dropped but some further terms and  

conditions were imposed on the applicant.  It is important to note that one  

of the issues mentioned by the Chief Minister in his order related to the  

availability of water.  The significance of this will be adverted to a little  

later.  For the present, it may be noted that the order recorded in paragraph  

9 is as follows:  

“Director, Town & Country Planning Department further inquired  

as to whether any technical as well as physical studies have been  

undertaken with regard to the availability of the potable water to  

meet the requirement of this population for the next 20 to 25 years.   

In reply to the query of the Director,  Town & Country Planning  

Department with regard to the proposed density of the Complex  

and the manner in which the requirements of drinking water is  

proposed to be met with, the representative of the Company  

explained that they have already got a hydrological survey done  

for the area from which it has emerged that in 2/3rd of the site,  

there are aquifers available at the deeper level which would be  

fully exploited to meet the demand of the water supply for the  

proposed population of about 30,000.  The Director Town &  

Country Planning Deptt. observed that as the company is required  

to maintain the studio-cum-allied complex for a period of five  

years after its completion, the span of availability of the water from  

the aquifers is of paramount because ultimately the responsibility

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 5 of 81    

for upkeep and maintenance of this particular complex would vest  

with the Faridabad Complex Administration or any other Local  

Authority.  Hence, the company should keep this particular aspect  

in view.” [Emphasis supplied by us].  

6. It took quite some time for the applicant to accept the terms and  

conditions imposed by the Chief Minister in his order dated 11th July, 1990.  

Eventually, the applicant accepted the terms and conditions and entered  

into an agreement on 27th March, 1992 with the State of Haryana. One of  

the terms and conditions of the agreement was that the applicant would  

complete the entire project of a Film Studio and Allied Complex within a  

period of five years; extensions for the area earmarked for group housing  

could be considered on merits. It is nobody’s case that the entire project  

was completed within a period of five years and there is nothing on record  

to suggest that any extension was granted to the applicant for group  

housing.   

Notification under the PLP Act and other developments  

7. The issue of environmental degradation in the Aravalli hill areas as  

well as in the Shivalik hill areas was a matter of concern for the State of  

Haryana, as it should be.   In this regard, meetings were held and decisions  

taken for closing the area between Surajkund and Badkal Lake under the  

provisions of the PLP Act. The overall objective of these discussions and  

the reference to the PLP Act was for preventing environmental and

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 6 of 81    

ecological degradation of the area due to mining and quarrying as well as  

construction activity.  

8. On 12th September, 1990 a meeting was held in the context of  

closing some areas for purposes of afforestation, particularly those areas  

where mining activity was going on.  It was suggested by the Town &  

Country Planning Department that areas earmarked for colonisation should  

not be closed but no final decision was taken and it was decided that the  

list of such areas should be provided or made available for further  

directions.  The list was eventually prepared and it included the land of the  

applicant, but nothing further happened in this regard.  

9. It appears from a reading of the documents before us (particularly a  

letter dated 9th June, 1993 sent by the Deputy Conservator of Forests,  

Faridabad to the Chief Administrator, Faridabad Complex Administration,  

the Administrator of the Haryana Urban Development Authority and the  

District Town Planner, Faridabad) that sometime in 1988 the State of  

Haryana constituted a High-Level Committee for the development of the  

area between and around Badkal Lake and Surajkund Tourist Complexes.  

It further appears that the High-Level Committee held several meetings  

between August 1988 and 1990 and apparently a Report was submitted  

recommending that the Aravalli hill area between these two complexes  

should be brought under the provisions of the PLP Act. This seems to have  

resulted in the issuance of a notification dated 18th August, 1992 under the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 7 of 81    

provisions of Section 4 of the PLP Act. We had requested learned counsel  

for the State of Haryana to provide us with a copy of the Report and the  

recommendations but they have not been provided, for whatever reason.    

10. The notification prohibited, inter alia, clearing or breaking up of  

land not ordinarily under cultivation.  Permission to break the land for  

cultivation could be permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad  

Forest Division.  In any event, construction activity could not be permitted  

even by the Divisional Forest Officer.   

11. We may note that one of the reasons that appears to have weighed  

with the State of Haryana in permitting the breaking up of land for  

cultivation is because Haryana is a predominantly agricultural State with  

83% of the total land area under cultivation. This is to be found in the  

affidavit dated 25th February, 1997 of Shri S.K. Maheshwari, IAS,  

Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Haryana filed in this  

Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India.1  In any event,  

as mentioned above, construction activity could not be permitted even by  

the Divisional Forest Officer.   

12. The notification dated 18th August, 1992 (which included the land of  

the applicant and there is no dispute about this) reads as follows:  

                                                           1 W.P. No. 202 of 1995

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 8 of 81    

“No. S.O.104/P.A.-2/1900/S.3/92 – Whereas the Governor of  

Haryana is satisfied after the due enquiry that the prohibitions  

hereinafter contained are necessary for the purpose of giving effect  

to the provisions of the Punjab Land Prevention Act, 1900;  

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of  

the said Act, the Governor of Haryana hereby prohibits the  

following acts for a period of thirty years(30 years) with effect  

from the date of publication of this order in the official Gazette in  

the areas specified in the schedule annexed hereto, the said area  

forming part of the village Anangpur in Ballabhgarh, Tehsil  

Faridabad District specified in the schedule annexed Haryana  

Government Forest Department Notification No.S.O.59/P.A. -

2/1900/S.3/92, dated 10th April, 1992.   

1. The clearing or breaking up of the land not ordinarily under  cultivation prior to the publication of Haryana Government  

Forest Department Notification No.S.O.59/P.A.-2/1900/S.3/92  

dated 10th April, 1992 provided that the breaking in the land for  

cultivation may be permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer,  

Faridabad Forest Division.  

2. The quarrying of stones or the burnings of lime at place where  such stone or lime had not ordinarily been as quarried or burnt  

prior to the publication of the said notification except with the  

permission of the Collector of Faridabad District who will  

consult the Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad Forest  

Division before according such permission.  

3. The cutting of trees or timber or the collection or removal or  subjection to any manufacturing process of any forest produce  

other than grass, flower, fruit and honey save for the bona fide  

domestic or agricultural purpose of right holders in the land  

provided that owners of the land may sell trees or timber after  

first obtaining a permit to do so from the Divisional Forest  

Officer, Faridabad Forest Division.  Such permit will prescribe  

such conditions for sale as may from time to time appear  

necessary in the interest of forest conservancy.  

4. The setting on fire of trees, timber of forest produce.    

5. The admission, herding or pasturing, retention of sheep, goats  or camels provided that in case where sickness necessitates for  

the keeping of goats, for milk, Divisional Forest Officer,  

Faridabad Division may issue a permit at his discretion for the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 9 of 81    

retention of a limited number of stall-fed goat, to be specified  

for a specified period.”  

13. In a parallel exercise, steps were taken by the State of Haryana for  

publishing a Development Plan for Faridabad.  As a result of this exercise,  

the State of Haryana notified the Final Development Plan on 11th  

December, 1991 under Section 29 of the Faridabad Complex (Regulation  

and Development) Act, 1971.  One of the factors mentioned in the  

notification justifying the necessity for amendment of the Development  

Plan was the rapid increase and scarcity of urbanizable area in Delhi and  

the rising population in the National Capital Region.  

14. Also, in the meanwhile, it appears that on the basis of the exemption  

granted to the applicant in 1984, the Town & Country Planning Department  

encouraged the applicant to go ahead with its activity of colonisation of the  

land owned by it having an area of about 424.84 acres.  The applicant  

prepared a layout plan for a Film Studio and Allied Complex which appears  

to have been approved by the Town & Country Planning Department  

subject to certain terms and conditions on or about 19th December, 1991.  

15. Therefore, the position as it stood towards the end of August 1992  

was that the applicant had the benefit of an exemption under Section 23 of  

the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975; the  

applicant was administratively permitted (if not encouraged) by the Town  

& Country Planning Department to construct upon the land owned by it in

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 10 of 81    

village Anangpur; the layout plan prepared by the applicant was approved  

by the Town & Country Planning Department and was apparently in  

conformity with the Development Plan for Faridabad and finally, the  

applicant had entered into an agreement with the State of Haryana to  

complete its project of a Film Studio and Allied Complex within 5 years.   

On the other hand, environmental and ecological degradation in the entire  

area (which included the land owned by the applicant) was sought to be  

prevented by the State of Haryana through a statutory notification issued  

by the Forest Department under the provisions of the PLP Act.  There was,  

therefore, a dichotomy of views and a conflict of interest between two  

Departments of the Haryana Government – one favouring colonization and  

the other favouring environmental protection and conservation.  

16. In this back-drop, a doubt arose whether the applicant could carry  

on its construction activity for setting up a Film Studio and Allied Complex  

in the closed area of the notification.  

17. This concern was voiced, amongst others, by the Principal Chief  

Conservator of Forests who sent a communication to the Commissioner &  

Secretary of the Forest Department on 31st August, 1992 inquiring whether  

permission for setting up a Film Studio and Allied Complex by the  

applicant could be issued or not. The Principal Chief Conservator of  

Forests mentioned in his communication that prior permission of the  

Central Government was compulsory for change of land use. The reason

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 11 of 81    

why the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests mentioned about prior  

mandatory permission of the Central Government is because he believed  

that with the issuance of the notification under the provisions of the PLP  

Act, the subject land was a forest or in any event was required to be treated  

as a forest and therefore, under the provisions of the Forest  (Conservation)  

Act, 1980 the permission of the Central Government was required for  

carrying on a non-forest activity in a forest. We will advert to this issue a  

little later.  

18. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was given a somewhat  

casual response to the effect that he could take appropriate action according  

to norms.  

19. Apart from the communication dated 31st August, 1992 referred to  

above and the response thereto, there was an exchange of letters between  

Departments of the State of Haryana with the focal point being the Town  

& Country Planning Department requesting that the land belonging to the  

applicant may be de-notified and taken out of the purview of the  

notification issued under the provisions of the PLP Act. However, nothing  

came out of this correspondence and the land of the applicant was  

admittedly not de-notified.  

20. Eventually on 15th May, 1996 the Conservator of Forests wrote to  

the applicant that it was allowed to proceed ahead with its activities in

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 12 of 81    

accordance with the agreement signed with the State of Haryana on 27th  

March, 1992. Perhaps this permission was granted keeping in mind that the  

applicant was required to complete the development works within a period  

of five years and also submit a bank guarantee for executing such  

development works in terms of the agreement dated 27th March, 1992.  This  

‘permission’ was ex facie contrary to the statutorily notified prohibitions  

under the PLP Act.  

21. Apparently realising this, the above letter was followed up  

immediately by another communication sent by the Conservator of Forests  

to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 17th May, 1996 requesting  

that the land owned by the applicant may be de-notified and that the  

Haryana Government is morally bound to allow the applicant to develop  

the project as per the sanctioned plans.  Nothing came out of this and the  

land was not de-notified and no further event of note took place.  

Initial set of orders passed by this Court  

22. Around this time, a public interest litigation M.C. Mehta v. Union  

of India2 was pending in this Court regarding issues of deforestation  

coupled with other environmental issues.   

23. On 10th May, 1996 this Court passed a rather significant order  

relating to the Aravalli hills and the areas adjoining the land of the  

                                                           2 W.P. No. 4677 of 1985

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 13 of 81    

applicant.  This was on the basis of a report prepared by the Haryana  

Pollution Control Board and another by the National Environmental  

Engineering Research Institute in respect of environmental degradation  

and pollution in the eco-sensitive zone in the Aravalli hills.  By the order  

dated 10th May, 1996 this Court prohibited mining within a 2 km radius of  

Badkal Lake and Surajkund and construction activity of any type within a  

radius of 5 km from Badkal Lake and Surajkund.3  In fact, all open areas  

were directed to be converted into green belts.  As a result of this, the  

applicant obviously could not carry out any activities in the land owned by  

it, where it had proposed to establish a Film Studio and Allied Complex.   

The prohibition imposed by this Court was obviously in addition to the  

prohibition imposed by the notification issued under the PLP Act. It is quite  

likely that this Court was not even made aware of the notification under  

the PLP Act.  

24. The order passed by this Court on 10th May, 1996 was sought to be  

modified/clarified by the Executive in Haryana on the ground that in the  

prohibited 5 km radius, buildings were under construction, plots had been  

allotted/sold under various development schemes and the plot holders had  

even started construction. Consequently, the vested rights of several  

                                                           3 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 8 SCC 462

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 14 of 81    

persons were likely to be affected thereby causing them a huge financial  

loss.  

25. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court took the  

view, again on the basis of the above reports, that to protect the two lakes  

from environmental degradation, it would be necessary to limit  

construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes. Consequently, by an  

order dated 11th October, 1996 the earlier order of 10th May, 1996 was  

clarified, inter alia, to the effect that no construction shall be permitted  

within the green belt around the two lakes, that is an area having roughly 1  

km radius. As far as the area outside the green belt is concerned, it was  

directed that no construction would be permitted for a further 1 km.  It was,  

however, clarified that the latter direction would not apply to plots already  

sold or allotted prior to 10th May, 1996 in the developed areas and that  

unallotted plots in the said areas may be sold with the prior approval of the  

concerned authority.  All development schemes and plans for constructions  

in the area from 1 km to 5 km radius of the lakes shall require prior approval  

from the Central Pollution Control Board and the Haryana Pollution  

Control Board.4 The clarification given by this Court on 11th October, 1996  

reads as follows:  

“1. No construction of any type shall be permitted, now onwards,  

within the green belt area as shown in Ex. A and Ex. B. The  

environment and ecology of this area shall be protected and  

                                                           4 M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 15 of 81    

preserved by all concerned. A very small area may be permitted, if  

it is of utmost necessity, for recreational and tourism purposes. The  

said permission shall be granted with the prior approval of “the  

Authority”, the Central Pollution Control Board and the Haryana  

Pollution Control Board.  

2. No construction of any type shall be permitted, now onwards, in  

the areas outside the green belt (as shown in Ex. A and Ex. B) up  

to one km radius of the Badhkal lake and Surajkund (one km to be  

measured from the respective lakes). This direction shall, however,  

not apply to the plots already sold/allotted prior to 10-5-1996 in  

the developed areas. If any unallotted plots in the said areas are  

still available, those may be sold with the prior approval of ‘the  

Authority’. Any person owning land in the area may construct a  

residential house for his personal use and benefit. The construction  

of the said plots, however, can only be permitted up to two and a  

half storeys (ground, first floor and second half floor) subject to  

the Building Bye-laws/Rules operating in the area. The residents  

of the villages, if any, within this area may extend/reconstruct their  

houses for personal use but the said construction shall not be  

permitted beyond two and a half storeys subject to Building Bye-

laws/Rules. Any building/house/commercial premises already  

under construction on the basis of the sanctioned plan, prior to 10-

5-1996 shall not be affected by this direction.  

3. All constructions which are permitted under directions 1 and 2  

above shall have the clearance of “the Authority”, the Central  

Pollution Control Board and the Haryana Pollution Control Board  

before “occupation certificates” are issued in respect of these  

buildings by the authorities concerned.  

4. All development schemes, and the plans for all types of  

constructions relating to all types of buildings in the area from one  

km to 5 km radius of the Badkhal Lake and Surajkund (excluding  

Delhi areas) shall have prior approval of the Central Pollution  

Control Board and the Haryana Pollution Control Board.”  

26. According to the applicant, its land was beyond the 1 km radius but  

within the 5 km radius and the orders passed by this Court vitally affected  

it. The applicant’s view was that its project was mainly a residential colony  

having a commercial complex, schools, hospitals and film studios, but no  

industry of any nature whatsoever. It had expended a huge amount in the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 16 of 81    

project, but could not proceed any further with it in view of the order dated  

11th October, 1996 passed by this Court. Given the nature of the project, it  

was unreasonable to require the applicant to obtain no objection certificates  

from the Pollution Control Boards. Consequently, a Review Petition being  

R.P. (C) No. 914 of 1997 was filed by the applicant on or about 26th  

February, 1997 seeking a review of the order 11th October, 1996. It was  

submitted in the application that the restrictions imposed by this Court do  

not pertain to constructions of the applicant and that the requirement of  

obtaining a no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Boards does  

not apply to the constructions of the applicant, which fall beyond 1 km but  

within the 5 km radius of Badkal Lake and Surajkund.  

27. The application for review came up for consideration on 17th March,  

1997 when this Court noted that it did not have sufficient time to dispose  

of the matter that day. But by way of an interim order it was directed, inter  

alia, that a person owning land in the areas above mentioned (in the order  

dated 11th October, 1996) may construct a residential house up to 2 ½ floors  

subject to the building bye laws and rules operating in the area. Those  

individuals who seek to construct houses in accordance with the decision  

of this Court and in conformity with the relevant rules may file their plans  

with the competent authority who may examine and keep the plans ready  

until further orders. In other words, even in such cases permission for

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 17 of 81    

construction was not granted, but permission to prepare plans was of course  

granted. It was further directed that the authorities should not insist upon  

the production of a no objection certificate from the State or Central  

Pollution Control Board. The order passed by this Court on 17th March,  

1997 reads as follows:  

“The grievance of the petitioner is that when individual’s who seek  

to construct their houses applying the plans of the Faridabad  

Municipal Corporation, the plans are not being approved on the  

ground that the clearance certificates are not obtained from the  

Pollution Control Board.  We do not have the sufficient time to  

dispose of the matter today, we think that,  

1) all the individuals who seek to construct their houses  within 2 ½ floors’ range as indicated in the judgment of  

this Court, they are liberty to file plans before the  

competent Authority.  The competent Authority would  

examine whether the plans are in conformity with the  

Rules and within 2½ storeys’ range laid down by this  

Court.  If the authority finds the plans in conformity with  

the above Rules and the directions given by this Court,  

the same may be examined and kept ready until further  

orders.   

2) For the examination of these matters, the authorities are  directed not to insist upon production of no objection  

certificate from the State or Central Pollution Control  

Board.”       

28. On or about 2nd July, 1997 the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad  

filed a reply to some pending applications and the Review Petition.  After  

detailing the facts, including the impact of the orders passed by this Court,  

the difficulties faced by the Municipal Corporation in implementing them  

and other directions, it was prayed that certain schemes in the Haryana  

Urban Development Authority sectors (schemes mentioned at serial nos. 3,

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 18 of 81    

4 and 5 of the reply) may not be affected by the order passed by this Court  

on 11th October, 1996.  With regard to other projects and development  

schemes sanctioned in accordance with the Development Plan prior to the  

order dated 10th May, 1996 it was prayed that they may also not be affected  

by the order passed by this Court on 11th October, 1996.  Similarly,  

buildings, houses, commercial premises already sanctioned prior to 10th  

May, 1996 in accordance with the Development Plan may not be affected  

by the order of 11th October, 1996 and construction may be permitted as  

per the Development Plan and building by-laws in force.  

29. The Review Petition was again taken up for consideration on 13th  

May, 1998.  On that date, a modified plan and some maps were placed  

before this Court. Upon a perusal of these maps, it transpired that some  

areas got excluded from the 1 km green belt, as originally proposed. It was  

directed that these areas could be urbanised in accordance with the  

applicable laws and rules. With regard to private lands (such as that of the  

applicant) it was directed that in the areas adjoining the Surajkund  

complex, the State of Haryana may review the position so that only single-

storey “hutments” are permitted to be constructed and “not tall buildings  

as originally conceived.” The order passed by this Court was directed to be  

in modification or substitution of all earlier orders in that behalf. The order  

passed on 13th May, 1998 reads as follows:

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 19 of 81    

“A modified plan has been placed on record.  The area meant to be  

left for Surajkund and around has been earmarked on the said plan  

by a zig-zag line.  In the face of these altered boundaries from  

previous maps, certain areas have come out from the one kilometre  

belt as originally proposed.  Whatever areas have fallen out and  

whatever are adjacent thereto, urbanization thereof will take place  

in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations applicable  

to those areas as provided by the Faridabad Municipal  

Corporation.   

Certain private areas (marked as ‘ABCD’) in which construction  

is proposed would have to be viewed again.  We have desired of  

the learned counsel for the State of Haryana to render assistance in  

that regard so that in the areas adjoining the Surajkund  

Complex only single storey hutments get permitted to be  

constructed and not tall buildings as originally conceived.   

Small areas as shown red on the plan would require to be acquired  

for the Complex. This means that the State will have to pay  

compensation on acquisition.  But Mr. Salve, learned Senior  

Counsel who appears for some of the land owners says that those  

land owners who are owning those two small red patches which  

are within the encirclement would surrender the same to the Sate  

without compensation.   

This order shall be in modification or substitution of all earlier  

orders in that behalf.” [Emphasis supplied by us].   

No further orders were passed in this regard, except an order relating to a  

hotel complex, with which we are not concerned. The review petition was  

then disposed of by this Court on 12th October, 1998.  

30. It seems to us that these orders passed by this Court were not blanket  

orders which could permit the applicants to ignore the notification dated  

18th August, 1992. The requirement, in terms of the orders passed by this  

Court, continued to be adherence to the laws, rules and regulations which  

would necessarily include the notification issued under the provisions of  

the PLP Act.

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 20 of 81    

Issues arising out of the orders passed by this Court  

31. In this background and context, it appears that some questions were  

raised by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government,  

Haryana Revenue Department in a letter dated first March, 1999 with  

regard to the status of the land owned by the applicant. The issues raised  

were to the following effect: (i) whether the applicant is in unauthorised  

possession of the land; (ii) whether the applicant has violated any statutory  

provision and is using the land in the manner in which it is authorised; (iii)  

whether it is permissible for the applicant to develop a residential colony  

in the land for which it had obtained an exemption for setting up a Film  

Studio and Allied Complex and whether the Town & Country Planning  

Department had permitted this.  

32. In response to these issues, the Director in the Town & Country  

Planning Department wrote to the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to  

the State of Haryana on 16th March, 1999 to the following effect:  

“Regarding issue No.1.  It is to inform that as per certificates  

given by Dist. Revenue Authority from time to time, M/s R.  

Kant & Company is in authorised possession of land in  

Khasra No. 9-16, vill. Anangpur Distt. Faridabad.  Photos of  

the certificates given by Revenue Authority are enclosed  

herewith.  

Regarding issue No. 2 it is to inform that the Company is  

using the land according to approved layout plan and service  

plan estimates.

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 21 of 81    

Regarding issue No. 3, it is to inform that in the revised  

approved layout plan of Kant Enclave Film Studio and Allied  

Complex, in addition to Film Studios provision of resident  

plots, group housing and the required social and commercial  

infrastructure has been made as per the exemption order of  

1984 revocation order of 1990 and an agreement dated  

27.3.92 executed by the company with the Government.   

Therefore the provision of residential plots in Kant  

Enclave is permissible.” [Emphasis supplied by us].  

33. It will be noticed that the Director, Town & Country Planning  

Department did not make any reference to the notification dated 18th  

August, 1992 issued under the provisions of the PLP Act. This sequence  

of events clearly indicates that the Town & Country Planning Department  

was very much in favour of the applicant colonizing its land and making  

constructions therein on the basis of select administrative orders.  It was  

quite prepared to, and did, ignore orders passed by this Court from time to  

time and also ignore the notification of 18th August, 1992 issued under the  

provisions of the PLP Act.  The understanding of the Town & Country  

Planning Department seems to be that issues of environmental degradation,  

pollution and groundwater were not its concern.  To say the least, the Town  

& Country Planning Department was myopic and brazen in pushing its  

agenda - certainly vis-à-vis the applicant versus the environment and in  

disregard of a statutory notification.  

Another attempt at colonization  

34. In proceedings pertaining to the protection and conservation of

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 22 of 81    

forests throughout the country, this Court passed an order on 12th  

December, 1996 which is of considerable significance. The order was  

passed in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 with Writ Petition No. 171 of  

1996.5 After hearing the learned Attorney General, learned counsel for the  

States, the parties and other applicants as well as the learned Amicus Curiae  

it was held by this Court that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was  

enacted with a view to check further deforestation, which would ultimately  

result in ecological imbalance. It was held that therefore the provisions of  

the law for conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith,  

must apply to all forests, irrespective of the nature of ownership or  

classification thereof. It was held:  

“………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…...”  

35. It was further directed that in view of the meaning given to the word  

‘forest’ it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is  

                                                           5 T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 23 of 81    

required for any non-forest activity within the area of any forest. All  

ongoing activity within any forest in any State throughout the country,  

without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease  

forthwith. Each State Government was also directed to constitute within  

one month an Expert Committee to 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 and  

also to identify areas which were earlier forests, but stand degraded,  

denuded or cleared. In other words, this Court gave a realistic and  

pragmatic definition to the word ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’.  

36. However, even before that, as far as the State of Haryana is  

concerned, an affidavit was filed by Shri Banarsi Das, IFS, Principal Chief  

Conservator of Forests, Haryana in Environment Awareness Forum v.  

State of Jammu & Kashmir.6 The affidavit dated 8th December, 1996  

stated that the total forest area in Haryana is 1,54,706 hectares (1995-96),  

which includes 11,513 hectares of PLP Act areas. It further says that earlier  

(1985-86) the forest area in Haryana was 1,68,543 hectares, which  

included 26,499 hectares of PLP Act areas. The reduction in the forest area  

was due to the expiry of notifications issued under the PLP Act and Section  

38 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It was noted that steps were taken for  

                                                           6 W.P. No. 171 of 1996

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 24 of 81    

protection of forests, which included the enforcement of regulations under  

the PLP Act. What is of significance is that even before the order was  

passed by this Court on 12th December, 1996 the State of Haryana had  

acknowledged its treatment of PLP Act areas as forest land, and as we shall  

see later, this was always so.  

37. In T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India7 an affidavit was filed by  

the State of Haryana on 25th February, 1997. The affidavit was sworn by  

Shri S.K. Maheshwari, IAS, Commissioner & Secretary to the Government  

of Haryana, Forest Department. In his affidavit, reference was made to the  

order passed by this Court on 12th December, 1996. It was stated in the  

affidavit that as far as identification of areas which were forests, but stand  

degraded or denuded or cleared, it would not be possible to do so without  

prescribing some cut-off date since land that is closed under the provisions  

of the PLP Act “creates forests” and the Act is as old as 1900. Therefore, a  

cut-off date of 25th October, 1980 was selected as on that date the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force. It was further stated that land  

that is closed under the provisions of the PLP Act is a forest only during  

the period of closure. After expiry of the closure period, the land is no  

longer shown as forest in the records of the Forest Department. A little later  

in the affidavit, it was reiterated that an area closed under the provisions of  

                                                           7 W.P. No. 202 of 1995

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 25 of 81    

the PLP Act is “counted as forest” only during the currency of the closure.  

Taking all such areas into consideration, it was stated that the recorded  

forest cover in the State of Haryana is now 149,680.49 hectares.  

38. Notwithstanding the affidavit, the Director in the Town & Country  

Planning Department issued a communication dated 16th March, 1999 to  

the effect that the provision of residential plots in Kant Enclave was  

permissible.  In view of the affidavit of Shri S.K. Maheshwari, there is  

enough room to suspect the bona fides of the applicant and the Town &  

Country Planning Department, but we leave it at that.   

Further set of orders passed by this Court  

39. In the writ petition filed by M.C. Mehta an application was filed by  

the Delhi Ridge Management Board on 5th December, 2001 (being IA No.  

1785 of 2001) to the effect that large-scale mining activity near the Delhi-

Haryana border was resulting in a large quantity of ground water being  

pumped out from mining pits. As far as Delhi is concerned, the mining and  

extraction of groundwater had been banned and the Ridge in Delhi was  

being protected in terms of the orders passed by this Court from time to  

time. However, it was stated in the application that the Ridge in Haryana  

also needed to be protected as this was an extension of the same range. It  

was submitted that mining, withdrawal of groundwater and destruction of  

flora etc. should also be restricted outside Delhi or at least up to 5 km from

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 26 of 81    

the Delhi-Haryana border towards Haryana. The significance of this  

application is that it jogs the memory and recalls the order passed by the  

Chief Minister of Haryana on 11th July, 1990 relating to the availability of  

potable drinking water and the span of availability of water from the  

aquifers and their application.  

40. Acting upon the application filed by the Delhi Ridge Management  

Board, this Court passed an order on 6th May, 2002 as follows:  

“IA No. 1785  

Issue notice. Mr Bharat Singh accepts. Reply be filed within four  

weeks. Rejoinder be filed within four weeks thereafter. In the  

meantime, within 48 hours from today the Chief Secretary,  

Government of Haryana is directed to stop all mining activities  

and pumping of groundwater in and from an area up to 5 kms  

from the Delhi-Haryana border in the Haryana side of the  

Ridge and also in the Aravalli Hills. [Emphasis supplied by us].  

41. The application appears to have been taken up for consideration on  

22nd July, 2002. The proceedings of that date have not been reported, but  

have been mentioned in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.8 This Court  

directed the Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) to give a  

report with regard to the environment in the area, preferably after a  

personal visit. It was noted that EPCA had been constituted by the  

Government of India by a notification dated 29th January, 1998 issued in  

exercise of power conferred by Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the Environment  

                                                           8 (2004) 12 SCC 118

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 27 of 81    

(Protection) Act, 1986. Generally speaking, EPCA was constituted to  

protect and improve the quality of the environment and to prevent, control  

and abate environmental pollution.  

42. EPCA did visit the subject area and also took the opinion of the  

Central Groundwater Board and in its report of 9th August, 2002 it  

recommended that the ban on mining activities and pumping of  

groundwater in and from an area up to 5 km from the Delhi-Haryana border  

in the Haryana side of the Ridge and also in the Aravalli hills must be  

maintained.  

43. EPCA gave a further report on 21st October, 2002 reaffirming its  

earlier recommendations. It was further recommended that if mining is  

allowed to continue in this area, it would have serious implications for the  

groundwater reserves. EPCA also noticed uncontrolled construction  

activities that would expand urban habitation considerably in future and  

therefore recommended that unless immediate measures were taken to  

conserve and augment water resources in the area, an acute survival crisis  

could be expected. Interviews with local villagers in the vicinity of the  

mines confirmed that water shortage was already a serious problem in the  

region.  

44. This Court also referred to reports by another expert body, namely  

the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). This expert body was

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 28 of 81    

constituted by a notification dated 17th September, 2002 issued by the  

Ministry of Environment and Forests in exercise of power conferred by  

Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The CEC was  

constituted for monitoring and ensuring compliance of the orders passed  

by this Court in relation to forests and wildlife and other related issues  

arising out of the orders. The CEC was also expected to submit reports  

regarding non-compliance of the orders of this Court, including in respect  

of encroachments and removals, working plans, compensatory  

afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues.  

Reports of the CEC  

45. Among the first few reports given by the CEC, one dated 14th  

December, 2002 deserves mention.  It is not clear what led to this report,  

but in any event, it was considered by this Court on 16th December, 2002  

and an order was passed as a result of the report that no mining activity  

would be permitted in areas where there is a dispute of applicability of the  

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 till such time the dispute is resolved or  

approval for non-forest activity is accorded under the said Act by the  

Central Government.9  This Court also directed that no mining would be  

permitted in areas for which a notification under Sections 4 and 5 of the  

PLP Act has been issued in regulating the breaking up of the land etc. and  

                                                           9 T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, (2008) 16 SCC 401

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 29 of 81    

such lands are or were recorded as ‘forest’ in government records even if  

the notification period had expired, unless there was approval under the  

provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. These directions are  

significant and appear, generally, to have been overlooked.   

46. Separately and in compliance of orders passed by this Court on 25th  

November, 2002 the CEC submitted three reports, all of which primarily  

pertained to mining activities in the subject area. These reports were  

considered by this Court and dealt with in the judgment and order passed  

on 18th March, 2004.10 In the report dated 22nd January, 2003 (erroneously  

recorded as June) it was recommended by the CEC that mining activity  

may be allowed in the areas closed under the provisions of the PLP Act  

“which for the purpose of the [Forest (Conservation)] Act are ‘forest’ even  

as per the State Government records, only after obtaining prior approval  

under the said Act from the MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests).”  

In another report, dated 7th February, 2003 it was recommended that the  

ban on mining activity may continue up to 2 km from Surajkund and  

Badkal Lakes in terms of the order passed by this Court on 10th May, 1996.  

47. While considering the entire issue, this Court also considered the  

question whether areas covered under the PLP Act are ‘forest’ of any kind.  

While dealing with this, it was noted that the Forest Department of the State  

                                                           10 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 30 of 81    

of Haryana has been treating and showing the closed areas as ‘forest’ in its  

records. This Court also adverted to the affidavits filed in this Court from  

time to time, including by Shri S.K. Maheshwari and Shri Banarsi Das.  

This Court also drew attention to its earlier order of 12th December, 1996  

and the fact that the State of Haryana had been seeking permission of the  

Central Government to divert such closed land for non-forestry purposes.  

This Court also referred to letters dated 26th November, 2002 and 17th  

September, 2001 wherein a view was expressed that land closed under the  

PLP Act is forest land. This Court, therefore, declined to permit the State  

of Haryana to take a somersault and contend that land closed under the  

provisions of the PLP Act is not forest. This is what this Court said in  

paragraph 82 of the Report:  

“In the instant case, it is not necessary to decide the legal effect of  

issue of the notification under Sections 4 and/or 5 of the [PLP] Act.  

Not only in their record has the area been shown as forest but  

affidavits have been filed in this Court stating the area to be  

“forest”. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India  

[(1997) 2 SCC 267] this Court held that the term “forest” is to be  

understood in the dictionary sense and also that any area regarded  

as a forest in government records, irrespective of ownership, would  

be a forest. The State of Haryana, besides having filed affidavits in  

the forest matters treating such areas as forest for the purposes of  

the FC Act has been seeking prior approval from the Central  

Government for diversion of such land for non-forestry purpose.  

Reference in this connection may also be made to the affidavit  

dated 8-12-1996 filed by Banarsi Das, Principal Chief Conservator  

of Forests, Chandigarh, Haryana in Environmental Awareness  

Forum v. State of J&K [ Civil Writ No. 171 of 1996]. Our attention  

has also been drawn to letter dated 26-11-2002 addressed by the  

Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad to the Mining Officer,  

Faridabad forwarding to him a list of blocked forest areas of  

Faridabad district and requesting him to ensure that the said forest

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 31 of 81    

areas are not affected by any mining operations as also to a letter  

dated 17-9-2001 sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of  

Forests, Haryana (Panchkula) to the Director of Environment,  

Haryana stating therein that no mining activity can be permitted in  

the area. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot  

permit the State Government to take a complete somersault in  

these proceedings and contend that the earlier stand that the area is  

forest was under some erroneous impressions. In the present case,  

for the purposes of the FC Act, these areas shall be treated as forest  

and for use of it for non-forestry purpose, it would be necessary to  

comply with the provisions of the FC Act.”  

48. Having considered voluminous material on record, this Court  

concluded in the said judgment of 18th March, 2004 that it would be  

appropriate to constitute a Monitoring Committee, which it did, “to  

monitor the overall eco-restoration efforts in the Aravalli hills and to  

provide technical support to the implementing organisations and also to  

monitor implementation of recommendations contained in reports referred  

herein…” This Court also held that the order dated 6th May, 2002 as  

clarified in the judgment cannot be varied or vacated before consideration  

of the report of the Monitoring Committee. It was also concluded that on  

the facts of the case, the mining activity in areas covered under the  

provisions of the PLP Act cannot be undertaken without approval under  

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.  

49. Therefore, apart from stopping mining activity, this Court also  

stopped pumping of groundwater in and from an area upto 5 km from the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 32 of 81    

Delhi-Haryana border in the Haryana side of the Ridge and also in the  

Aravalli hills.  

Further reports of the CEC  

50. Notwithstanding the decisions of this Court rendered from time to  

time and a wealth of material to the effect that the Aravalli hills need to be  

protected, the issue of colonizing the land owned by the applicant, which  

was the subject matter of the prohibitory notification under the provisions  

of the PLP Act, was kept alive. Applications were filed by interested parties  

in this Court and the CEC was required from time to time to submit reports  

to this Court.  

51. In a report dated 12th September, 2007 which pertained mainly to  

mining activities in Gurgaon and Faridabad districts of Haryana, one of the  

recommendations made by the CEC was to the effect that maps of  

appropriate scales should be prepared of areas notified under the provisions  

of the PLP Act, including areas for which the notifications have expired.  

These areas could be cross verified with the help of relevant afforestation  

maps, satellite imagery of the relevant times, progress reports filed in the  

Aravalli Afforestation Programme and other details. It was also  

recommended that these areas may be demarcated and treated as a  

prohibited zone for mining activity.  

52. In a supplementary report dated 5th December, 2007 it was recorded

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 33 of 81    

by the CEC that it had come to its notice that areas notified under the  

provisions of the PLP Act are being used or proposed to be used for  

colonisation, farm-houses and other construction activities. It was noted  

that in many cases such user has been permitted by the concerned  

departments of the State Government on the strength of improper no  

objection certificates granted in the past by the Forest Department. The  

CEC stated that the recommendations made in respect of mining in these  

areas are equally applicable to activities such as colonisation, construction  

of farm-houses, etc. It was recommended that areas notified under the  

provisions of the PLP Act, including areas for which notifications have  

expired, may also be treated as a prohibited zone for colonisation,  

construction of farm-houses and other construction activities. Such  

activities in the prohibited zone should be permitted only if in public  

interest and after obtaining permission from this Court.  

53. Yet another report was required to be submitted by the CEC, which  

it did on 28th August, 2008. In the report, it was mentioned that a meeting  

was held with officers of the State of Haryana and a two-step approach was  

suggested. The first step was to identify areas where mining, colonisation,  

etc. is taking place in the Aravalli hills, but such activities are prohibited  

or regulated in those areas by various enactments and orders of this Court.  

These would include, amongst others, areas notified under the provisions  

of the PLP Act. The second step would be to lay down broad principles and

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 34 of 81    

guidelines in respect of mining, colonisation and other non-forestry  

activities in the Aravalli hills which would, inter alia, provide for an  

independent monitoring mechanism. Broadly, only such non-forestry  

activities would be permitted, that are absolutely necessary and  

unavoidable and in public interest.  

54. A meeting was held, as mentioned above, for detailing the procedure  

and methodology for identification of the prohibited areas, preparation of  

macro plans, including closed areas under the PLP Act and in other areas  

where orders of this Court have been violated as well as the provisions of  

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for mining and for colonisation, etc. It  

was decided that all this would be placed before this Court for  

consideration and approval. It is also proposed that after the necessary  

maps are prepared of the prohibited areas, macro plans and identification  

being completed, a detailed proposal would be placed before this Court for  

appropriate directions. It was expected that the State Government would  

ensure immediate cessation of non-forestry activity going on in any  

prohibited area and in violation of the orders of this Court and the  

provisions of law.  

55. Another report was submitted by the CEC on 13th November, 2008  

pursuant to directions issued by this Court to file the land-use maps and  

macro plans in respect of the Aravalli hills in Haryana. While the report is

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 35 of 81    

considerably detailed, what is of concern to us is that the revenue map of  

village Anangpur super-imposed on the satellite imagery revealed that a  

large number of colonies, farm-houses and mines were located in areas  

closed under the provisions of the PLP Act. One of the prominent violators  

was the applicant (Kant Enclave) which had violated the orders of this  

Court of 14th May, 2008 (the decision of this Court will be discussed a little  

later). The report also mentioned that there was large-scale illegal use of  

areas closed under the provisions of the PLP Act for illegal private gains  

in blatant violation of the environmental laws and the orders of this Court.  

It was suggested that this could not have taken place without the active  

connivance and support of the concerned officials. It was also noted that  

the groundwater level in the area was rapidly depleting and had already  

been marked as ‘Dark Zone for Ground Water’. In view of the somewhat  

alarming situation, it was recommended by the CEC that colonies, farm-

houses, banquet halls and other buildings illegally constructed in areas  

closed under the provisions of the PLP Act, such as Kant Enclave should  

be demolished.  

56. Yet another report (the last one that we are concerned with) was  

submitted by the CEC on 15th January, 2009. In this report, it was stated  

that the work of super-imposing on all geo-rectified village maps with the  

corresponding satellite imageries had been completed. In addition, village

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 36 of 81    

wise land-use maps had been prepared. These comprised of three  

components, namely, satellite imagery, scanned village maps and super-

imposed village maps on satellite imagery with marking of areas notified  

under the provisions of the PLP Act.  

57. It was noted on the above basis that a large number of colonies,  

buildings, banquet halls, farm-houses, engineering colleges, schools,  

ashrams, etc. were located in areas notified under the provisions of the PLP  

Act or areas with forest cover. The CEC expressed the view that demolition  

of the above illegal structures and rehabilitation of such areas (including  

Kant Enclave) should be taken up by the State of Haryana in a time-bound  

manner and no sale or purchase of such lands should be permitted. The  

permission earlier granted, if any, for non-forestry uses in such areas  

should be immediately revoked. The State of Haryana had suggested that  

large-scale demolition might create a serious law and order problem, but  

the CEC did not agree with this. However, the CEC recommended the  

regularisation of areas notified under the provisions of the PLP Act and  

other forest areas falling in identified Haryana Urban Development  

Authority sectors, subject to effective steps being taken for the demolition  

of buildings and structures in the areas notified under the provisions of the  

PLP Act and other forest areas and rehabilitation of such areas.  

58. In response to the report of the CEC dated 15th January, 2009 the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 37 of 81    

State of Haryana filed an affidavit through Shri Dharam Vir, the Chief  

Secretary of the State on 15th March, 2009 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of  

India.11 It was stated in the affidavit that as far as the Municipal  

Corporation of Faridabad is concerned, in view of the order dated 13th May,  

1998 passed by this Court, the erection of buildings, with due permission  

under the applicable law cannot be said to be illegal. Ex facie, this is  

incorrect, since this Court permitted, if at all, only the construction of  

hutments and not buildings. As far as the Town & Country Planning  

Department is concerned, it was stated that Kant Enclave was granted  

exemption under Section 23 of the Haryana Development and Regulation  

of Urban Areas Act, 1975 on 17th April, 1984 and therefore it would be in  

the interest of justice if the constructions that had come up pursuant to the  

above exemption may be allowed to exist. The notification dated 18th  

August, 1992 and the other orders of this Court were conveniently  

overlooked.  

59. An affidavit dated 25th October, 2010 was filed by the Chief Town  

Planner in the Department of Town & Country Planning. It was stated in  

the affidavit that the Development Plan for Faridabad had been prepared in  

accordance with the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas  

Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 and the final  

                                                           11 W.P. No. 4677 of 1985

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 38 of 81    

Development Plan was published in 1991 in consonance with the NCR  

Planning Board Act, 1985. The Development Plans provided, inter alia,  

areas to be used for residential, commercial, industrial, public and semi-

public uses, agriculture, open space, etc. In addition, it was stated that Kant  

Enclave had been granted exemption under Section 23 of the Haryana  

Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. In view of this,  

the State of Haryana through the Forest Department ought not to have  

published the notification under Section 4 of the PLP Act, including therein  

the area already earmarked for urbanisation in the final Development Plan.  

It was stated that the Town & Country Planning Department had taken  

steps to exclude the land of the applicant from the notification issued under  

the PLP Act and follow-up action was also taken in this regard. The  

affidavit is, however, silent about the fact that the land owned by the  

applicant was not de-notified in spite of vigorous efforts of the Town &  

Country Planning Department. It was stated in the affidavit that pursuant  

to the order passed by this Court on 13th May, 1998 the Town & Country  

Planning Department had approved building plans and had also issued part  

completion certificates on 23rd December, 2004. In view of all these facts  

as well as in view of the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary of the State  

of Haryana, it would be in the interest of justice that constructions that had  

come up in pursuance of the exemption granted under the provisions of the  

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 may be

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 39 of 81    

allowed to exist. It was submitted that a final decision may be taken by this  

Court and the State Government would abide by the directions given by  

this Court on this issue.  

Yet another attempt at colonization is rejected  

60. Not content with several letters, reports and decisions of this Court,  

the applicant opened up yet another front to push ahead with its  

colonisation and construction activity in the land owned by it being Khasra  

Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur. The applicant filed I.A. No. 1901 of 2005  

in W.P. No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India). In this  

application, it was submitted by the applicant that it was in exclusive  

possession of Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur having purchased  

the same from the rightful owners. It was stated that the applicant had been  

granted exemption under Section 23 of the Haryana Development and  

Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 for setting up its project named Kant  

Enclave. The exemption had been granted on 17th April, 1984. It was stated  

that the applicant had spent over ₹ 50 crores in carrying out and  

undertaking developmental work on the land. In addition, the applicant had  

sold or booked or allotted 1500 plots to prospective buyers out of which in  

about 450-500 cases, conveyance deeds had already been executed and  

registered with the concerned authorities. It was submitted that the  

decisions of this Court were mining-centric and were misconstrued by

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 40 of 81    

officers of the Forest Department. Consequently, a communication dated  

31st January, 2005 was issued by the Forest Department to the District  

Town Planner, Faridabad to the effect that the land of the applicant was a  

closed area under the provisions of the PLP Act, and therefore non-forest  

use of the land was prohibited. As a result of this communication, the  

District Town Planner refused to sanction building plans of the plot holders  

of Kant Enclave or to issue completion certificates in respect of buildings  

already completed in terms of sanctions or approvals earlier granted.   

61. On this basis, it was submitted in the application that this Court may  

issue appropriate directions to the effect that only mining activities were  

prohibited in the subject area and that the orders of this Court did not affect  

the construction activities carried on by the applicant in its project as  

permitted by the order of this Court dated 13th May, 1998. It was prayed  

that directions may be issued to the State Government to permit registration  

of plots and sanction building plans as well as issue completion certificates.  

62. By an order dated 24th July, 2006 this Court directed the Chief  

Secretary of Haryana to file an affidavit in response to the application I.A.  

No. 1901 of 2005. A detailed affidavit dated 10th September, 2006 was  

filed by the Chief Secretary Shri Prem Prashant, IAS in which it was stated,  

inter alia, that the notification dated 18th August, 1992 issued under the  

provisions of the PLP Act covered Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 41 of 81    

Anangpur, that is, the land owned by the applicant. It was categorically  

stated that since then this land was treated as forest and it was also included  

in the list of forests in the Government record. Reference was also made to  

the affidavit filed by the Forest Department in W.P. No. 202 of 1995 to the  

effect that the subject area was shown as a forest and that the provisions of  

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would be applicable. The affidavit also  

referred to the order passed by this Court on 12th December, 1996 to the  

effect that the term ‘forest’ is to be understood in the dictionary sense and  

also that any area regarded as forest in Government records irrespective of  

ownership, would be a forest. Reference was also made to the decision of  

this Court rendered on 18th March, 2004 in this regard.  

63. The affidavit further stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of  

Forests, had informed the Director, Town & Country Planning Department  

by a letter dated 27th January, 2006 that the land of the applicant being  

Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur is notified under Section 4 of the  

PLP Act. Therefore, the above area was treated as a forest in view of the  

orders passed by this Court on 18th March, 2004. Since the applicant had  

never submitted any proposal with the Forest Department for diversion of  

forest land for non-forestry use, the Director, Town & Country Planning  

had asked the applicant by letter dated 27th June, 2006 to seek the diversion  

of forest land in Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur for non-forestry

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 42 of 81    

use in accordance with the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act,  

1980.  

64. The application was taken up for consideration by this Court and by  

a judgment and order dated 14th May, 2008 the application was dismissed.12   

A three-judge Bench of this Court noted that the challenge was really to  

the communication dated 31st January, 2005. While dealing with the  

decisions rendered by this Court from time to time, the three-judge Bench  

noted that developing a plot and making construction thereon would  

amount to clearing up or breaking up of an area and that would be in  

violation of the prohibition contained in the notification of 18th August,  

1992. It was held in paragraph 12 of the Report:  

“In view of the notification under Section 4 when the clearing or  

breaking up of the land is not permitted that itself is a bar from (sic  

for) fresh construction because a construction can take place only  

if clearing and breaking of an area/land takes place. This  

prohibition is clearly contained in the notification of 1992. The  

reliance placed by the applicants on clause (g) is clearly  

misconceived, inasmuch as the permissible activity allowed within  

clause (g) is in favour of inhabitants of town and villages within  

the limits or vicinity of any such area. The admitted case is that the  

applicants herein have developed plots in the area in question and  

have sold it to persons who are not inhabitants of towns and  

villages within such specified living area, but could be anybody  

from all over the country or outside, and therefore clause (g) of  

Section 4 has no application. The factum of developing a plot and  

then construction thereon would amount to clearing or breaking up  

of an area or land.”  

                                                           12 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2008) 17 SCC 294

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 43 of 81    

65. This Court also noted the view of the Central Ground Water Board  

to the effect that the area in question in village Anangpur has been notified  

as a very precarious groundwater situation and that any construction  

activity therein without adequate water reserves will also have a negative  

effect. It was also noted that the groundwater table is already at a critical  

stage in Faridabad.  

66. The decision of this Court rendered on 14th May, 2008 has attained  

finality and all the submissions advanced by the applicant were duly  

considered and rejected by a Bench of three learned judges of this Court.  

The issue whether the applicant could make any construction whatsoever  

on the notified land that is Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur in  

violation of the notification issued under the provisions of the PLP Act was  

not open to discussion earlier and in any event is no longer res integra or  

open to any further discussion or examination.  

An alleged discordant note  

67. The issue of the status of areas closed under the provisions of the  

PLP Act came up for consideration in B.S. Sandhu v. Government of  

India and others.13  In this case, about 3,700 acres of land in village  

Karoran in District Ropar in Punjab was notified under the provisions of  

the PLP Act. Despite this, the Forest Hill Golf and Country Club was  

                                                           13 (2014) 12 SCC 172

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 44 of 81    

established on closed land and was being developed allegedly in blatant  

violation of the environment and forest laws as well as orders passed by  

this Court on 12th December, 1996.  

68. Learned counsel for the applicant relied heavily on this decision to  

contend that merely because a notification had been issued under the  

provisions of the PLP Act, the closed land does not become ‘forest land’.  

This very contention had been raised by the Proprietor/Managing Director  

of the Country Club (Sandhu) in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It was  

submitted that his land was private land and it could not be treated as forest  

land without a formal notification under Section 35 of the Indian Forest  

Act, 1927.  

69. According to the State of Punjab, an Expert Committee was  

constituted in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 12th December,  

1996 and this Expert Committee included the entire area of village Karoran  

as forest area in its report. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected  

the contention urged by Sandhu and that gave rise to appeals which were  

decided by this Court.   

70. This Court noted that the notification issued under the provisions of  

the PLP Act resulted in the land in village Karoran being recorded as land  

under the control of the Forest Department and therefore forest land. In  

other words, the basis of the conclusion that the entire land in village

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 45 of 81    

Karoran is forest land was that the land was closed under the provisions of  

the PLP Act and was therefore a forest. Consequently, the first question  

required to be decided by this Court was whether land notified under the  

provisions of the PLP Act is forest land or not.  

71. This Court took the view that activities prohibited in closed areas  

under the PLP Act are such that are not normally carried on in a forest.  

Reference was made to activities such as cultivation, pasturing of sheep  

and goats, erection of buildings by inhabitants of towns and villages,  

herding, pasturing or retaining cattle etc. Therefore, the closed land could  

not be forest land. This Court observed that land notified under the  

provisions of PLP Act may or may not necessarily be forest land and the  

decision of the High Court holding that closed land was forest land was not  

at all correct in the law. It was held that the High Court failed to correctly  

appreciate the meaning of ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’ as well as the decision  

of this Court in Godavarman (decided on 12th December, 1996).  

72. It was also held that since the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came  

into force on 25th October, 1980 the High Court had to decide whether  

Sandhu’s land was forest land as on that date irrespective of its  

classification or ownership. The High Court ought to have examined the  

Government record as on 25th October, 1980 before concluding that  

Sandhu’s land was forest land and not only the provisions of the PLP Act

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 46 of 81    

and the records of the Forest Department which showed the land to be  

forest only because of the fact that the land was closed under the provisions  

of the PLP Act.  

73. This Court also examined the two decisions rendered in M.C.  

Mehta14 15. These decisions were distinguished on the ground that they  

related to the Aravalli hills in the State of Haryana and further it was held  

therein that the State Forest Department has been treating and showing the  

closed area as forest in fact and in law. Consequently, non-forest activities  

could not be allowed in such areas without the prior permission of the  

Central Government as mandated by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.  

It was noted that this Court has not enquired into the basis of inclusion of  

the areas as forest by the State Forest Department. This Court also did not  

consider whether land became forest land by mere inclusion in terms of the  

notification issued under the PLP Act. On the other hand, in the case under  

discussion the Government of Punjab had stated that the basis of inclusion  

of the entire land of village Karoran as forest area in the records of the  

Forest Department was that the land was closed under the PLP Act and this  

basis was not correct in law.  

74. This Court having distinguished the decisions rendered by this Court  

in M.C. Mehta and by necessary implication the orders passed in  

                                                           14 (2004) 12 SCC 118  15 (2008) 17 SCC 294

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 47 of 81    

Godavarman, we do not see how the decision in Sandhu can be of any  

assistance to the applicant. The decision in Sandhu must be confined to its  

own facts.  

75. We may mention, without comment, that the purpose of issuing a  

notification under the PLP Act is to ensure that in the closed area there is  

no activity such as cultivation, pasturing of sheep and goats, erection of  

buildings, herding, pasturing or retaining cattle etc. Therefore, the  

notification is a clear indication that such closed areas must be forest land  

or treated as forest land so that such objectionable non-forest activities are  

not carried out therein and that activities that are not normally carried out  

in forests are prohibited in forest land, so as to preserve and protect such  

forest land. A notification under the PLP Act does not convert land into  

forest land but recognizes it as such or at least requires it to be treated as  

such.   

76. We may also mention, en passant, the provisions of Section 35(1) of  

the Indian Forest Act, 1927. This refers to breaking up or clearing of land  

for cultivation, pasturing of cattle etc. and reads as follows:  

“35. Protection of forests for special purposes. – (1) The State  

Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulate or  

prohibit in any forest or waste-land -  

 (a) the breaking up or clearing of land for cultivation;  

 (b) the pasturing of cattle; or  

(c) the firing or clearing of the vegetation;

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 48 of 81    

when such regulation or prohibition appears necessary for any of the  

following purposes: -  

(i) for protection against storms, winds, rolling stones, floods  

and avalanches;  

(ii) for the preservation of the soil on the ridges and slopes and  

in the valleys of hilly tracts, the prevention of landslips or of the  

formation of ravines, and torrents, or the protection of land against  

erosion, or the deposit thereon of sand, stones or gravel;  

(iii) for the maintenance of a water-supply in springs, rivers and  

tanks;  

(iv) for the protection of roads, bridges, railways and other lines  

of communication;  

(v) for the preservation of the public health.  

(2) ………  

(3) ………”  

77. We leave it at that because of the distinguishing features in the M.C.  

Mehta set of orders as contrasted and recognized with the facts in Sandhu.  

Review in disguise  

78. Notwithstanding unambiguous conclusions arrived at by this Court  

from time to time on matters pertaining to the environmental degradation  

of the Aravalli hills and the implications of a notification issued under the  

provisions of the PLP Act, the applicant persisted in pressing these  

applications and sought to contend that it was fully entitled, as of right, to  

make constructions on the land owned by it and known as Kant Enclave.  

Submissions were made by learned counsel for the applicant on issues that  

have conclusively been settled by this Court and in fact, the submissions

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 49 of 81    

were only a rehash of submissions made from time to time and which have  

been rejected. It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, relying  

on Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban16 that the applications  

filed by it and by the Residents Welfare Association were perfectly  

maintainable. Reference was made to Point No. 1 discussed in the decision.  

This Point reads as follows:  

“Whether a party who had lost his case in civil appeal could be  

permitted to bypass the procedure of circulation in review matters  

and adopt the method of filing applications for “clarification”,  

“modification” or “recall” of the said order in civil appeals so that  

the matters were not listed in circulation but could be listed in  

Court straight away? Whether such applications could be filed  

even after dismissal of review applications? What is the procedure  

that can be followed in such cases?”  

79. This Court considered the question in considerable detail and  

deprecated the practice of filing review applications in undeserving cases  

without any proper examination of the substance of the applications. It was  

noted that indiscriminate filing of such review petitions wastes the time of  

the Court and that there must be some seriousness and restraint in filing  

review applications. This Court answered the question in the following  

manner:  

“At the outset, we have to refer to the practice of filing review  

applications in large numbers in undeserving cases without  

properly examining whether the cases strictly come within the  

narrow confines of Rule XL of the Supreme Court Rules. In  

several cases, it has become almost everyday experience that  

                                                           16 (2000) 7 SCC 296

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 50 of 81    

review applications are filed mechanically as a matter of routine  

and the grounds for review are a mere reproduction of the grounds  

of special leave and there is no indication as to which ground  

strictly falls within the narrow limits of Rule XL of the Rules. We  

seriously deprecate this practice. If parties file review petitions  

indiscriminately, the time of the Court is unnecessarily wasted,  

even it be in chambers where the review petitions are listed.  

Greater care, seriousness and restraint is needed in filing review  

applications.”  

80. It was made clear that what is of important is the substance of the  

application and not the title given to it and genuine cases requiring a  

clarification or modification or a recall would of course be entertained. It  

was observed by this Court as follows:  

“We should not however be understood as saying that in no case  

an application for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” is  

maintainable after the first disposal of the matter. All that we are  

saying is that once such an application is listed in Court, the Court  

will examine whether it is, in substance, in the nature of review  

and is to be rejected with or without costs or requires to be  

withdrawn with leave to file a review petition to be listed in  

chambers by circulation. Point 1 is decided accordingly.”  

81. On this basis, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant  

that there was no bar in the applicant moving or pressing appropriate  

applications and that is precisely what has been done.   

82. In our opinion, there is nothing in these applications before us to  

remotely suggest that the various orders passed by this Court need any  

clarification or modification or recall. All issues raised by the applicants  

have been considered threadbare by several Benches of this Court and all

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 51 of 81    

of them have arrived at a similar conclusion namely that the environmental  

and ecological degradation of the Aravalli hills must stop and that  

everybody is bound by the terms of the notification issued under the  

provisions of the PLP Act and that closed land under the notification dated  

18th August, 1992 is a forest and should be treated as a forest.  

83. That apart, the view expressed by this Court in Gurdip Singh Uban  

cannot be limited only to applications for modification, clarification or  

recall. There is a growing tendency to provide different nomenclatures to  

applications to side-step the rigours and limitations imposed on an  

applicant and the Court in dealing with a review petition. Applications can  

be and are titled as applications for directions, rehearing, reconsideration,  

revisiting etc. etc. One has only to open a thesaurus and find an equivalent  

word and give an application an appropriate nomenclature so that it could  

be taken up for consideration in open Court and on its merits and not as a  

review petition by circulation. In our opinion, the nomenclature given to  

an application is of absolutely no consequence - what is of importance is  

the substance of the application and if it is found, in substance, to be an  

application for review, it should be dealt with by the Court as such, and by  

circulation.   

84. Considering the substantive applications filed by the applicant, we  

are of the clear opinion that these applications are nothing but disguised

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 52 of 81    

review petitions and they should not have been listed for hearing in open  

Court without an appropriate order passed by this Court. They should have  

first been circulated and dealt with as review petitions and if the concerned  

Bench was of the view that they were required to be heard in open Court,  

only then should they have been listed for hearing in open Court. However,  

we are not detaining ourselves any further in this regard since we propose  

to deal with these applications on merits, treating them as applications for  

clarification, modification, recall, reconsideration etc. of the orders passed  

by this Court from time to time.  

85. Learned counsel for the applicants (Kant & Co. as well as the  

Residents Welfare Association of Kant Enclave) and the learned Amicus  

made detailed submissions over a couple of days on a variety of issues that  

they believed arose in these cases.  Even though we are of opinion that in  

view of several decisions rendered by this Court from time to time, such  

submissions are not open to be made by learned counsel, nevertheless, the  

submissions having been made, we will deal with each of them.  

Is the notified land a forest or treated as a forest?    

86. The principal contention urged by learned counsel for the applicants  

is that the land in question Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur notified  

under the provisions of the PLP Act on 18th August, 1992 was not forest  

land. This submission is clearly liable to be rejected.   

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 53 of 81    

(i) Affidavits of the State of Haryana  

87. In this connection, we may refer to the affidavit of Shri Banarsi Das,  

IFS, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana.  The affidavit dated  

8th December, 1996 was filed in Environmental Awareness Forum v.  

State of Jammu & Kashmir.17  In this affidavit it is stated that the total  

forest area in Haryana in 1985-86 was 1,68,543 hectares.  This included  

26,499 hectares of areas closed under the PLP Act.  In other words, as far  

back as in 1985-86, if not earlier, the Principal Chief Conservator of  

Forests of the Government of Haryana considered and treated areas closed  

under the provisions of the PLP Act as forest land.  This was well before  

the present controversy had arisen.  The affidavit goes on to state that in  

1995-96 the total forest area in Haryana was 1,54,706 hectares and this  

included 11,513 hectares of area closed under the PLP Act.  It is quite clear  

to us that as far as the State of Haryana is concerned, closed areas under  

the PLP Act were always treated as forest land and this was well before  

any controversy arose in the matter.  

88. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court an affidavit was filed on  

25th February, 1997 by Shri S.K. Maheshwari, IAS, Commissioner &  

Secretary in the Forest Department. The affidavit was filed in the case of  

Godavarman.  It was stated that since the PLP Act came into force in 1900  

                                                           17 W.P. No.171 of 1996

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 54 of 81    

some cut-off date was required for identification of forests and forest land.   

This cut-off date was taken as 25th October, 1980 that is the date on which  

the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force.  This date was taken  

only for convenience and for no other reason.  This is clear from the  

affidavit which also states that closure under the PLP Act “creates forests”  

during the period of closure, after which the land is no longer shown as  

forest in government records.  The affidavit reiterates that closed areas are  

“counted as forest” during the currency of the closure under the PLP Act.   

Therefore, identification of forest land from 1900 would have been a  

humungous task and to avoid an unnecessary exercise, the cut-off date of  

25th October, 1980 was taken. The affidavit cannot be read or understood  

to mean that land not recorded as ‘forest’ on 25th October, 1980 in the  

Government records can never become or be recognised or treated as  

‘forest’. This would be too far-fetched and would go against the letter and  

spirit of the PLP Act.  

89. The affidavit of Shri Prem Prashant, IAS, Chief Secretary of  

Haryana takes us back beyond 1985-86 and 25th October, 1980.  In the  

affidavit dated 10th September, 2006 filed in response to I.A. No. 1901 of  

2005 filed by the applicants (in M.C. Mehta) Shri Prem Prashant takes us  

back to notifications dated 10, 1970 and 10th November, 1980 issued by  

the State of Haryana through the Forests and Animal Husbandry

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 55 of 81    

Department and subsequent notifications dated 16th November, 1995 and  

28th November, 1997.  This was to bring on record that the provisions of  

the PLP Act have been made use of through notifications issued thereunder  

for several decades for the protection and preservation of forests and forest  

land, even if such lands are not recorded as ‘forest’ in Government records.  

This would be in consonance with the provisions and the spirit of the PLP  

Act.  

90. In an affidavit dated 15th March, 2009 filed by Shri Dharam Vir, the  

Chief Secretary of Haryana with reference to the report of the CEC dated  

15th January, 2009 in M.C. Mehta it was submitted that all constructions  

made post 17th April, 1984 (the date on which exemption was granted to  

the applicants under Section 23 of the Haryana Development and  

Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975) may be allowed to exist.  This  

affidavit must be read in conjunction with the notification of 18th August,  

1992 and if so read, it suggests that the Chief Secretary desired that  

constructions made between 17th April, 1984 and 18th August, 1992 may  

be allowed to exist. However, even Shri Dharam Vir did not doubt or deny  

that closed areas under the PLP Act are forest or forest land. He only  

suggested a possible reprieve to the applicants.  

91. The view of the Government of Haryana is therefore quite clear and  

consistent that land notified under the PLP Act is forest land and no

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 56 of 81    

construction can be made thereon but if some dilution is to be made, then  

it should be only for the period between 17th April, 1984 and 18th August,  

1992.  

92. Quite apart from the affidavits filed by the State of Haryana through  

the Chief Secretary or the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests or the  

Commissioner & Secretary of the Forest Department, we are aware that  

through the conduct and correspondence of the Town & Country Planning  

Department that it was very keen on permitting construction in closed  

areas. We are not sure why the Town & Country Planning Department was  

persistently going out of its way to be of assistance to the applicants but  

whatever the reason, it was categorical in recommending the  

environmental degradation of the Aravalli hills.  

(ii) Orders of this Court  

93. In addition to the affidavits of the State of Haryana, the various  

orders passed by this Court from time to time in Godavarman and in M.C.  

Mehta make it very clear that closed areas under the PLP Act are forest  

and forest land and need to be treated as forest land.    

94. The decisions of this Court, go back to 10th May, 199618 when this  

Court proposed to deal with preserving the environment and controlling  

                                                           18 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 8 SCC 462

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 57 of 81    

pollution through the stoppage of mining operations within the radius of 5  

km from the tourist resorts of Badkal Lake and Surajkund. This Court  

considered reports prepared by the Haryana Pollution Control Board and  

the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute. It was noted  

that the State of Haryana had already prohibited mining operations within  

the radius of 5 km from these tourist resorts and on a consideration of the  

reports mentioned above, it was concluded that there shall be no mining  

activity within a 2 km radius of the tourist resorts of Badkal Lake and  

Surajkund. All the mines, which fall within the said radius shall not be  

reopened. It was further directed that no construction activity of any type  

shall be permitted now onwards within the 5 km radius of Badkal Lake and  

Surajkund and all open areas shall be converted into green belts.  

Interestingly, this Court also noted as follows:  

“The Badkal lake and Surajkund are monsoon-fed water bodies.  

The natural drainage pattern of the surrounding hill areas feed  

these water bodies during rainy season. The mining activities in  

the vicinity of these tourist resorts may disturb the rainwater drains  

which in turn may badly affect the water level as well as the water  

quality of these water bodies. The mining may also cause fractures  

and cracks in the subsurface, rock layer causing disturbances to the  

aquifers which are the source of groundwater. This may disturb the  

hydrology of the area.”    

95. The order dated 10th May, 1996 was subsequently modified on 11th  

October, 199619 to the effect that now onwards construction activity would  

                                                           19 M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 58 of 81    

not be permitted in certain areas, and there was no blanket ban. Permission  

to construct was subject to utmost necessity for recreational and tourism  

purposes and no other.   However, exemption was granted to plots already  

sold or allotted prior to 10th May, 1996 in developed areas (this was varied  

subsequently).    It was further directed as follows:  

“All development schemes, and the plans for all types of  

constructions relating to all types of buildings in the area from one  

km to 5 km radius of the Badkhal Lake and Surajkund (excluding  

Delhi areas) shall have prior approval of the Central Pollution  

Control Board and the Haryana Pollution Control Board.”  

96. Further, with regard to the issue of water management, this Court  

referred to the report of the National Environmental Engineering Research  

Institute and noted as follows:  

“…..According to the report Surajkund lake impounds water from  

rain and natural springs. Badkhal Lake is an impoundment formed  

due to the construction of an earthen dam. The catchment areas of  

these lakes are shown in a figure attached with the report. The land  

use and soil types as explained in the report show that the Badkhal  

Lake and Surajkund are monsoon-fed water bodies. The natural  

drainage pattern of the surrounding hill areas feed these water  

bodies during rainy season. Large-scale construction in the vicinity  

of these tourist resorts may disturb the rain water drains which in  

turn may badly affect the water level as well as the water quality  

of these water bodies. It may also cause disturbance to the aquifers  

which are the source of ground water. The hydrology of the area  

may also be disturbed.”    

97. The reason why we are referring to availability of water, or the lack  

of it, is because even the Chief Minister of Haryana in his order of 11th  

July, 1990 had noted that the availability of water from the aquifers is of

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 59 of 81    

paramount importance and that aquifers available at the deeper level would  

be fully exploited to meet the demand of water supply for the population  

of Kant Enclave.  

98. In spite of all these concerns shown to the environment and  

availability of water, the fact of the matter is that today Badkal Lake is  

bone dry and there is no water in the ‘Lake’.  We had specifically asked  

learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Amicus about the status  

of Badkal Lake and we were told quite categorically that today there is  

absolutely no water in Badkal Lake. The damage to the environment has  

been done and appears to be irreversible.  

99. One of the more significant orders was passed by this Court on 12th  

December, 1996.20 Through this order, this Court laid down what could be  

described as ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’. The view taken was that the two  

expressions must be given their dictionary or natural meaning and if so  

considered, there can be no doubt that degraded forests and closed lands  

under the PLP Act are nothing but forest land.  Similarly, the orders passed  

by this Court from time to time in M.C. Mehta make it loud and clear that  

the Aravalli hills need protection from environmental degradation and the  

laws must be strictly enforced to ensure that there is no damage caused to  

the ecology of the Aravalli hills.  In view of the clear expression of views  

                                                           20 T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 60 of 81    

and conclusions arrived at by this Court from time to time and repeated on  

several occasions we have no doubt that closed areas under the PLP Act  

are nothing but forest land and deserve to be treated as such.  

100. In the decision rendered on 12th December, 1996 this Court directed  

the identification of 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. As a result of this, each State  

Government was directed, inter alia, 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;  

(ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded,  

denuded or cleared.    

101. Notwithstanding the concern shown by this Court for the  

environment and ecology of the Aravalli hills, the tacit support given to the  

applicants by the Town & Country Planning Department of the State of  

Haryana completely vitiated the efforts of the Forest Department as well  

as the orders of this Court.  It came to such a pass that the Delhi Ridge  

Management Board was compelled to file an application on 29th  

November, 2001 being I.A. No. 1785 of 2001 in which it was stated that  

the withdrawal and pumping of ground water in the Ridge was a matter of  

serious concern.  It was, therefore, prayed that the Government of Haryana  

may be directed to stop all mining activity and pumping of ground water

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 61 of 81    

in and from the area of 5 km from the Delhi-Haryana border in the Haryana  

side of the Ridge.  This application resulted in this Court passing an order  

on 6th May, 2002 directing the stoppage of all mining activity and pumping  

of ground water as prayed for.  This order was followed by another order  

passed by this Court on 22nd July, 2002 (not reported) requiring EPCA to  

furnish a report, which it did on 9th August, 2002 to the effect that the order  

passed on 6th May, 2002 deserved to be confirmed.   

102. Subsequently, EPCA gave another report on 21st October, 2002 on  

the basis of information obtained from the Central Ground Water Board to  

the effect that mining activity was going on and the mines were operating  

below the ground water level which was resulting in exploitation and  

destruction of ground water sources.     

103. The blatant and open flouting of orders passed by this Court resulted  

in the constitution of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on 17th  

September, 2002 for monitoring and ensuring compliance of the orders  

passed by this Court. The CEC submitted reports to this Court from time  

to time. These have already been adverted to and need not be repeated.   

104. In its decision dated 18th March, 2004 this Court considered all this  

material and addressed all the issues raised before it including issues of  

environmental and ecological degradation.  

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 62 of 81    

105. This Court specifically addressed itself to the question whether  

closed areas under the PLP Act are ‘forest’ of any kind.  This Court noted  

that the Forest Department of the State of Haryana showed such areas as  

‘forest’ in its records and treated such areas as ‘forest’; affidavits had also  

been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana in cases pending in this Court  

to the same effect; the word ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’ had been clearly  

explained by this Court in its order dated 12th December, 1996 and finally  

the Government of Haryana itself sought permission from the Central  

Government to divert land closed by notifications under the PLP Act for  

non-forest purposes.  Therefore, it was held that the State of Haryana  

cannot now take a somersault and contend that areas closed under the PLP  

Act are not forest.  This Court disposed of I.A. No. 1785 of 2001 and  

confirmed the order passed on 6th May, 2002 and held that areas closed  

under the PLP Act cannot be utilized for non-forest purposes without the  

prior permission of the Central Government under the provisions of the  

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.  

(iii) Review Petition of Kant Enclave  

106. In view of the restrictions imposed by this Court, which obviously  

did not suit the applicants, a review petition being R.P. No. 914 of 1997  

was filed by R. Kant & Co. on or about 26th February, 1997.  In the review  

petition, it was not disclosed that a notification had been issued under the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 63 of 81    

PLP Act. While concealing this extremely important fact, a review was  

sought of the order passed by this Court on 11th October, 1996 to the effect  

that no permission is required from the Central Pollution Control Board or  

the Haryana Pollution Control Board in respect of the constructions made  

by the applicant beyond the 1 km but within the 5 km radius of Badkal  

Lake and Surajkund.  

107. The review petition was taken up for consideration on 17th March,  

1997 when it was made clear that plans for construction of houses could be  

filed before the Competent Authority who could examine them in  

accordance with the applicable rules and if the plans were in order, they  

could be “kept ready until further orders.” Since the full facts were not  

placed before this Court, an order was passed to the effect that for the  

purposes of examination, there should be no insistence by the concerned  

authorities on the production of No Objection Certificate from the Central  

or State Pollution Control Board. It was also observed that 2 ½ storey  

buildings could be constructed.    

108. On 13th May, 1998 the Court modified the order passed on 17th  

March, 1997 to the effect that in certain private areas where construction  

is proposed, only single storey hutments could be permitted to be  

constructed and not tall buildings as originally conceived. Therefore, it is  

quite clear from the orders passed by this Court that construction was not

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 64 of 81    

permitted until further orders but that plans could be prepared and  

examined.  

109. A reference to the above orders clearly indicates that the State of  

Haryana and the applicants had full knowledge of the proceedings in this  

Court, but showed no concern for the environment and the ecology of the  

area.  

110. In our opinion, it was extremely important for R. Kant & Co. to have  

come out with full facts in the review petition filed by it, more particularly  

the fact of the issuance of the notification dated 18th August, 1992. The  

failure to disclose this material fact vitiates the proceedings initiated by the  

applicant in this Court.  

(iv) Interlocutory Application filed by the applicant  

111. Notwithstanding complete clarity on the issue of what is a forest and  

forest land, the status of closed areas notified under the PLP Act and issues  

of environmental and ecological degradation of the Aravalli hills, the  

applicants made bold to file I.A. No. 1901 of 2005 (in M.C. Mehta)  

sometime in October 2005 in which it was prayed that the decision  

rendered by this Court on 18th March, 2004 is restricted only to mining  

activities and does not affect the construction activities carried out by the  

applicant, which it is entitled to in view of the orders passed by this Court  

on 13th May, 1998.

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 65 of 81    

112. In response to the application, an affidavit dated 10th September,  

2006 was filed by Shri Prem Prashant, IAS, Chief Secretary of Haryana in  

which it was categorically stated that the provisions of the PLP Act have  

been taken recourse to from time to time for the protection of forests and  

forest land. In this regard, he annexed notifications issued by the State of  

Haryana on 12th March, 1970 through the Forests and Animal Husbandry  

Department, 10th November, 1980 through the Forest Department, 16th  

November, 1995 through the Forest Department and 28th November, 1997  

through the Forest Department.   

113. The notification dated 18th August, 1992 was one of such  

notifications for the protection of forests and forest lands. It was  

categorically stated on affidavit that from the date of the notification, that  

is, 18th August, 1992 the subject land was being treated as forest and it was  

also included in the list of forests in the Government records. This was also  

shown as a forest in the affidavit filed by the State of Haryana in  

Godavarman. That the subject land was forest land was also stated by the  

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in a letter dated 27th January, 2006  

addressed to the Director, Town & Country Planning Department. In fact,  

the said Director had required the applicant to seek the diversion of the  

forest land for non-forestry purposes by letters dated 27th January, 2006  

and 27th June, 2006 but the applicant did not do so. It was specifically

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 66 of 81    

pointed out to the applicant in both the letters that constructions made by  

the applicant were illegal, but obviously, to no effect.  

114. The application was taken up for consideration by a Bench of three  

learned judges who dismissed the application by a judgment and order  

dated 14th May, 2008.21 The issue whether land closed by a notification  

issued under the provisions of the PLP Act was forest land was once again  

considered by this Court and the decision rendered on 18th March, 2004  

was specifically and categorically reiterated.  

115. We would have imagined that the applicant R. Kant & Co. would  

have learnt a lesson from the dismissal of its review petition, the  

interlocutory application as well as the orders passed by this Court from  

time to time and reports given by expert bodies, but it does not appear to  

have been so. We say this because, after the decision of this Court rendered  

on 14th May, 2008 R. Kant & Co. filed an application being I.A. No. 2310  

of 2008 on 11th July, 2008 challenging a communication dated 23rd May,  

2008 issued pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. Subsequently, the  

applicant also filed I.A. Nos. 2377-79 of 2009 objecting to the reports filed  

by the CEC. These I.A.s were not argued before us and no submissions  

were made in respect of these I.As.  

                                                           21 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2008) 17 SCC 294

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 67 of 81    

(v) Issue again raised in this Court  

116. The pendency of the present applications in this Court gave occasion  

to the applicants to once again try and raise the issue of closed areas under  

the PLP Act being not forest or forest land. Reference was made to the  

decision of this Court in Sandhu. It was submitted that this Court had  

struck a discordant note in Sandhu. We cannot agree since the decision in  

Sandhu itself distinguished the M.C. Mehta set of orders both on facts and  

in law. The decision rendered in Sandhu cannot, by any stretch of  

imagination, come to the aid of the applicants.  

117. We may only note that in so far as the present case is concerned,  

there is a wealth of material to indicate clearly that closed land under the  

PLP Act is forest land or in any event, is required to be treated as forest  

land. Several notifications issued under the PLP Act have been brought to  

our notice which prohibit certain activities which ought not to be carried  

out on forest land. The affidavits filed by responsible officers of the State  

of Haryana, including affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary unequivocally  

state that lands closed under the PLP Act are forest land. Similarly, there  

are judgments and orders passed by this Court to the same effect and the  

conduct of the State of Haryana, including the Forest Department and its  

relationship with the Town & Country Planning Department is a clear  

indication that lands closed under the provisions of the PLP Act are nothing

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 68 of 81    

but forest or forest land.   

118. There is absolutely no doubt that Sandhu is distinguishable both on  

facts and in law and it has been recognised as such by this Court in the  

judgment delivered in Sandhu.   It was suggested by learned counsel for  

the applicants that because this Court did not enquire into the basis of  

inclusion of closed areas as forest, therefore the notification dated              

18th August, 1992 is vitiated.  Reliance placed on an observation in Sandhu  

with respect, may not strictly be valid, in the sense that there was enough  

material to indicate why, at least since 1970 closed areas have been  

included as forest and treated as forest by the State of Haryana.  We may  

add that there was a report of a Committee that eventually led to the  

issuance of the notification dated 18th August, 1992 but that was  

unfortunately not placed before us in spite of our request to learned counsel  

for the State of Haryana.   

119. What is of crucial importance and great significance is that no one  

has challenged the validity or correctness of the notification dated 18th  

August, 1992. We do not see how the correctness or validity of the  

notification can be challenged without any direct attack. A collateral attack  

cannot be permitted more certainly so by relying upon another decision of  

this Court, which has nothing to do with the facts of the present case.  

120. On the other hand, the applicants have ‘challenged’ every significant

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 69 of 81    

order passed by this Court, either through a Review Petition or through  

Interlocutory Applications. The applicants have been unsuccessful in every  

such adventure.  

121. Taking an overall view of all the facts in the case and the law on the  

subject, we have no doubt that Kant Enclave is a forest or is a forest land  

or is required to be treated as a forest or forest land and absolutely no  

construction activity could have been permitted on it with effect from 18th  

August, 1992. Any and all construction activity in Kant Enclave since that  

date is illegal and impermissible in law.  

Mining centric orders  

122. The next submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants  

was to the effect that all the orders passed by this Court were mining centric  

and did not relate to construction activity in Kant Enclave. This argument  

is stated only to be rejected. The judgments delivered by this Court have  

only to be read and understood and it would be more than obvious that the  

concern of this Court was to preserve and protect the environment in and  

around the Aravalli hills and generally avoid environmental and ecological  

degradation of the area both through the stoppage of mining activity and  

constructions. Unfortunately, this Court was unable to enforce its orders in  

letter and spirit, thanks entirely to the apathy of the State of Haryana and  

the persistence of the applicants with the result that Badkal Lake is today,

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 70 of 81    

admittedly, absolutely dry.  

123. The culpability of some of the State authorities in ensuring this tragic  

situation is quite evident from I.A. No. 2269 of 2007 filed by the  

Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, in which the first  

prayer is to the effect that this Court should issue an appropriate direction  

that the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2004 was restricted only to  

mining activities and did not affect the development or urbanisation or  

construction activities carried out as per the laws, rules and regulations of  

the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad or the Haryana Urban  

Development Authority. Despite the clear judgment and order passed by  

this Court, the attitude of some sections of the State Government obviously  

did not change and unrestricted development through mining activity and  

construction activity was given precedence over the environment resulting  

in, amongst other things a parched Badkal Lake.  

Notification issued erroneously  

124. It was then contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the  

inclusion of Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur in the notification  

dated 18th August, 1992 was a mistake and that it was always the intention  

of the State of Haryana to keep this land out of the rigours of the PLP Act.  

This submission too is stated only to be rejected. If it was in fact the  

intention of the State of Haryana to keep Kant Enclave out of the purview

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 71 of 81    

of the notification dated 18th August, 1992 nothing prevented the State  

from either issuing a corrigendum or issuing a fresh notification or taking  

some positive step to delete Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 in village Anangpur from  

the rigours of the notification.  

Alleged inapplicability of the notification   

125. Reliance was then placed on the provisions of sub-section (1) and  

sub-section (7) of Section 29 of the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and  

Development) Act, 1971 to submit that the notification dated 18th August,  

1992 was not applicable to controlled areas. These provisions read as  

follows:  

“Section 29 - Declaration of controlled area  

(1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force the Chief  Administrator may, with the previous approval of the State  

Government by notification, declare the whole or any part of  

the area within the Faridabad Complex including an area  

within a distance of 8 kilometers on the outer sides of the  

boundaries of Faridabad Complex as a controlled area.  

(2) to (6) ----------    

(7) After considering the objections, suggestions and  representations, if any, and the recommendations of the Chief  

Administrator thereon, the State Government shall decide as to  

the final plans showing the controlled area and signifying  

therein the nature of restrictions and conditions applicable to  

the controlled area and publish the same in the Official gazette  

and in such other manner as may be prescribed.”  

126. In terms of Section 2(f) of the said Act, a controlled area means an  

area declared under Section 29 of the said Act to be a controlled area.  

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 72 of 81    

127. We are unable to appreciate the relevance of this submission for the  

reason that, as per the Statement of Objects and Reasons, there was a  

multiplicity of local authorities in the Faridabad-Ballabhgarh area with the  

result that integrated development of this area was not possible.  

Consequently, it was essential to devise a set up for administration of this  

area which would meet the objectives of rapid and integrated development  

and eliminate haphazard development. The said Act was intended to  

achieve this objective. Quite clearly, this has nothing to do with the  

notification dated 18th August, 1992. Moreover, Section 29(1) of the said  

Act related to any law for the time being in force - the notification dated  

18th August, 1992 came much later and was not in force when the said Act  

was enacted.  

Other submissions  

128. It was then contended that the exemption granted on 17th April, 1984  

under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban  

Areas Act, 1975 exempted the applicant or in any case Kant Enclave from  

all the provisions of the said Act. While this may be so, we do not see how  

the said Act exempts the applicant or Kant Enclave from the prohibitions  

imposed by the subsequent notification dated 18th August, 1992. The said  

Act has no relevance or reference to the provisions of the PLP Act.  

129. Learned counsel for the applicants also contended that in view of the

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 73 of 81    

decision rendered by this Court in Sandhu, the subject land ought to have  

been an existing forest as on 25th October, 1980 when the Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force. In our opinion, this is not at all  

a correct interpretation of the decision rendered by this Court in Sandhu.  

It is nobody’s case, and indeed it cannot be anybody’s case that no area can  

be declared as a forest after 25th October, 1980. If this were the  

interpretation given, then the entire purpose of the order dated 12th  

December, 1996 passed by this Court would be rendered meaningless since  

it was in terms of this order that forest land was directed to be identified,  

even if that land was not so recognised as forest land. Acceptance of the  

interpretation sought to be given by learned counsel would also emasculate  

the PLP Act.  

130. The final submission of learned counsel for the applicants was that  

constructions were made in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 17th  

March, 1997 and 13th May, 1998 and in fact, building plans and sanction  

plans were approved by the concerned authorities. Therefore, it must be  

held by this Court that the members of the Kant Enclave Residents Welfare  

Association had acted bona fide and therefore their houses or constructions  

should not be demolished as suggested by the CEC.  

131. In this regard, it must be appreciated that the order dated 17th March,  

1997 as modified on 13th May, 1998 permitted construction only in

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 74 of 81    

accordance with law and not de hors the notification dated 18th August,  

1992. It is not the case of any of the applicants before us, and indeed it  

cannot be their case, that the orders of this Court gave a complete go by to  

the notification and virtually quashed it even though it was never under  

challenge at that point of time or even today. It appears that very large  

residential complexes have been constructed despite the orders of this  

Court, which did not give any blanket permission to the applicants to make  

constructions, according to their whims and fancies. For reasons that are  

not at all clear, such constructions were permitted by the concerned  

authorities despite the orders of this Court and even though the notification  

dated 18th August, 1992 prohibited breaking up of the land. It is difficult,  

under the circumstances, to take the view that the applicants and the  

concerned authorities had acted bona fide.   

132. We had asked learned counsel for the applicants to place before us  

the details of the construction made in Kant Enclave. The following chart  

was then placed before us on 24th July, 2018. This chart indicates that out  

of a total of about 1600 plots said to have been carved out by R. Kant &  

Co. in Kant Enclave, conveyance deeds have been executed only in respect  

of 284 residential plots and three commercial plots. On the residential  

plots, only 33 houses have been constructed and it appears that not one of  

them is a single-storey hutment.  

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 75 of 81    

S.No. Particulars Work Done  

1. Conveyance Deeds Executed 284 residential plots  

2. Conveyance Deeds Executed 3 commercial plots  

3. Houses constructed and people living 33 houses  

4. Film Studio (FS-2) constructed 1 no.  

5. Overhead water tank of 545 KL capacity  

constructed and functional  

3 nos.  

6. Underground water tank of 1200 KL capacity  

constructed and functional  

3 nos.  

7. Pumping Station (Functional) 1 no.  

8. Pumping Machine (Submersible pumps)  

installed and functional  

9 nos.  

9. Sewage Treatment Plant having cost of more  

than Rs. 70,00,000/- installed  

1 no.  

10. Parks (fully developed) 14 nos.  

11. Roads completed 136460 Sq. Mtr.  

(Approx. 20 KM)  

12. Street lights poles erected and energised 627 nos.  

13. Internal sewage pipe lines completed and  

functional  

21150 Mtrs.  

14. Storm water drain completed and functional 18000 Mtrs.  

15. Water supply pipe lines completed and  

functional  

22700 Mtrs.  

16. Trees planted 10000 nos. (Along  

road side and in green  

belt)  

17. Fire hydrants/Fire tanks having 265 CUM  

capacity  

3 nos.  

18. Electric sub-station for 650 KV transformer 2 nos.  

133. The extent of violation of the notification dated 18th August, 1992 is  

quite frightening and one can only imagine the phenomenal environmental  

and ecological damage caused to the area by the applicants. This could not  

have happened without the knowledge of the State of Haryana and its  

officers who permitted blatant disregard of the rule of law despite affidavits

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 76 of 81    

of the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana.  The rule of law seems to  

have broken down in Haryana and become the rule of men only to favour  

the applicants. At this point, we cannot help but referring to a passage from  

a judgment of this Court with regard to the Aravalli hills and the need for  

their protection. We had intended to avoid this reference only because it  

would be repetitive, but it is painful to see such a mockery of the law and  

total lack of concern for the environment and ecology of the Aravalli hills.  

134. In the order dated 18th March, 200422 it was stated in paragraph 58  

of the Report as follows:  

“The Aravallis, the most distinctive and ancient mountain chain of  

peninsular India, mark the site of one of the oldest geological  

formations in the world. Heavily eroded and with exposed  

outcrops of slate rock and granite, it has summits reaching 4950  

feet above sea level. Due to its geological location, the Aravalli  

range harbours a mix of Saharan, Ethiopian, peninsular, oriental  

and even Malayan elements of flora and fauna. In the early part of  

this century, the Aravallis were well wooded. There were dense  

forests with waterfalls and one could encounter a large number of  

wild animals. Today, the changes in the environment at Aravalli  

are severe. Though one finds a number of tree species in the hills,  

timber-quality trees have almost disappeared. Despite the  

increase of population resulting in increase of demand from  

the forest, it cannot be questioned nor has it been questioned  

that to save the ecology of the Aravalli mountains, the laws  

have to be strictly implemented.” [Emphasis supplied by us].  

Relief  

135. The question that now remains for consideration is whether any  

relief is required to be granted to the applicants and if so what relief should  

                                                           22 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 77 of 81    

be granted.  

136. There is no doubt that irreversible damage has been caused to the  

environment and ecology of the Aravalli hills. The damage was caused or  

allowed to be caused, despite a statutory notification issued under the  

provisions of the PLP Act. The brazenness of the applicants in flouting the  

law is quite apparent. But what is more unfortunate is the support given to  

the applicants by the Town & Country Department of the State of Haryana,  

despite the reservations of the Forest Department. The Town & Country  

Department in apparent collusion with R. Kant & Co. effectively led a very  

large number of people up the garden path. Fortunately, only 33 of them  

have made some personal constructions – but it is not clear whether their  

constructions are pre or post 18th August, 1992.   

137. Therefore, we have two categories of persons who have been taken  

for a ride by R. Kant & Co. The first category consists of those who have  

been conveyed land by R. Kant & Co. and the second category consists of  

those who have been conveyed land and have made constructions.   

138. As far as the first category of persons is concerned, the relief that  

can be awarded to them is a full refund of their investment along with  

interest at 18% per annum payable entirely by R. Kant & Co. from the date  

of the investment. We order accordingly.  

139. As far as the second category of persons is concerned, as submitted

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 78 of 81    

by Shri Dharam Vir, Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana in his affidavit  

of 15th March, 2009 there is an available, reasonable and appropriate course  

of action to adopt. This course of action is to save or allow to exist  

constructions made in Kant Enclave pursuant to the exemption granted to  

the applicant (R. Kant & Co.) on 17th April, 1984 under Section 23 of the  

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 but  

before 18th August, 1992 when the notification under the provisions of the  

PLP Act came into force. Any construction made after 18th August, 1992  

is clearly illegal and contrary to law and must be demolished as  

recommended by the Central Empowered Committee. We accept the  

submission made by Shri Dharam Vir and the CEC and do not disturb the  

constructions made between 17th April, 1984 and 18th August, 1992. We  

direct accordingly.   

140. However, in respect of constructions made after 18th August, 1992  

there is no option but to direct the State of Haryana to demolish the illegal  

and unauthorised constructions. The demolition should be completed on or  

before 31st December, 2018. We direct accordingly.  

141. In Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of  

Maharashtra23 this Court considered the issue of unauthorised  

construction from the point of view of a well-meaning citizen who is led  

                                                           23 (2014) 3 SCC 430

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 79 of 81    

up the garden path by the State, which gives statutory permission for  

unauthorised constructions. In the present case of Kant Enclave, well-

meaning citizens have been virtually duped into investing huge amounts  

despite R. Kant & Co. and the Town & Country Department of the State  

of Haryana being fully aware of the statutory notification dated 18th  

August, 1992 and the restrictions placed by the notification. R. Kant & Co.  

and the Town & Country Department of the State of Haryana were also  

fully aware that Kant Enclave is a forest or forest land or treated as a forest  

or forest land, and therefore any construction made on the land or  

utilisation of the land for non-forest purposes, without the prior approval  

of the Central Government, would be illegal and violative of the provisions  

of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Notwithstanding this,  

constructions were made (or allowed to be made) in Kant Enclave with the  

support, tacit or otherwise, of R. Kant & Co. and the Town & Country  

Department of the State of Haryana. They must pay for this. This is not to  

suggest that those who have made constructions after 18th August, 1992 are  

completely innocent. Nevertheless, it is necessary to compensate them in  

view of the role played by the Town & Country Planning Department of  

the State of Haryana. To compensate them for the land, we direct that R.  

Kant & Co. to give them a full refund of their investment in the land along  

with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the investment. We order  

accordingly.

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 80 of 81    

142. As far as the cost of construction is concerned, we tentatively  

quantify it at ₹ 50 lakhs. This will be paid to those who constructed after  

18th August, 1992 and whose construction is directed to be demolished.  

The quantified amount will be paid, in equal proportion, by R. Kant & Co.  

and the Town & Country Planning Department of the State of Haryana.  

The quantified amount is directed to be paid on or before 31st December,  

2018. If anyone who’s construction is demolished in view of our orders, is  

not satisfied with the quantification, that person is at liberty to proceed  

against R. Kant & Co. and the Town & Country Planning Department of  

the State of Haryana by way of a civil suit in accordance with law and with  

the cause of action arising as on today.  

143. The Polluter Pays Principle is a wholesome principle that has been  

universally accepted and also adopted and applied in our country through  

several decisions of this Court. In this context, we may draw attention to  

among two of the earliest decisions rendered by this Court, namely, Indian  

Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India24 and Vellore Citizens'  

Welfare Forum v. Union of India.25 The law having been settled for more  

than two decades, we are of the view that it must be applied in a case such  

as the present. The damage caused to the Aravalli hills, as already noted,  

is irreversible. However, perhaps some of the damage could be remedied -  

                                                           24 (1996) 3 SCC 212  25 (1996) 5 SCC 647

               IAs. 2310/2008 etc. in W.P. (C) NO. 4677 of 1985 etc.                                                  Page 81 of 81    

at least we hope so. According to R. Kant & Co. it has expended ₹ 50 crore  

in developing Kant Enclave. We do not know the exact or accurate figure  

but proceed on the basis as stated. In our opinion, it would be reasonable  

to require R. Kant & Co. to deposit 10% of this amount (that is, ₹ 5 crore)  

for rehabilitation of the damaged areas. This amount should be deposited  

by R. Kant & Co. in the Aravalli Rehabilitation Fund within one month  

and in any case on or before 31st October, 2018.  The matter be listed only  

for compliance of this direction in the first half of November 2018.  

144. We direct the incumbent Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana to  

ensure compliance with our remaining orders, both in letter and spirit on  

or before 31st December, 2018.  

145. The substantive applications stand disposed of in the terms  

mentioned above.  

                                                         ………………………J.  

             (Madan B. Lokur)   

         New Delhi;                                                            .……………………..J.     

September 11, 2018                 (Deepak Gupta)