KRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition, wherein the prayers sought are as follows:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a mechanic and a public spirited person. Since long time, the State of Uttar Pradesh was thinking of resettling Gujjars from the forest area; the State of Uttarakhand also decided to rehabilitate the remaining Gujjars so that there may not be any encroachment by Gujjars in the forest area. The State of Uttarakhand, Department of Forest has sought permission from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India for diversion of 160 Hectares of Reserve Forest land for resettlement of Gujjars from Sona River Wildlife SanctuaryKalagarh Tiger Reserve (Corbett Tiger Reserve) to Sabalgarh Compartment No. 8A, Chiriyapur Range of Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The first respondent informed the second respondent that the Central Government has agreed, in principle, for diversion of 160 Hectares of Reserve Forest land vide Annexure -1 letter. Annexure -2 letter was sent by the first respondent to the second respondent, as per which, the Central Government has given approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 160 Hectares of land for resettlement; it is subject to certain conditions. It is further case of the petitioner that the Sabalgarh Compartment No. 8A Chiriyapur Range of Haridwar is known as elephant corridor and there is no other place for the elephants and other wild lives to go to the river Ganges to fulfill their needs of drinking water and taking bath. If the elephant corridor is allotted to Gujjars, the natural corridor would be closed and its effect would be that there will be an animal and men conflict. The State machinery is granting forest land in the guise of rehabilitation of Gujjars without framing a policy. It is submitted that a huge land is allotted to every Gujjar, whereas for rehabilitation of Tehri displaced persons, whose lands were taken, they have been allotted small pieces of lands. It is stated that huge forest land of 160 Hectares will be destroyed in the guise of rehabilitation. Accordingly, the petition has been filed.

(3.) COUNTER affidavits have been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3, who are the State of Uttarakhand, and the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/ Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: