SANDEEP AZRENKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, we would like to mention that during the course of dictation of this judgment, we had a query. We therefore kept the matter on board for directions [through a VC hearing] on 22/2/2024. This was because one of us (B. P. Colabawalla, J.) is currently sitting at the principal seat of this Court. On that date, our query was resolved. Since the judgment was originally reserved on 17/2/2023, we, on 22/2/2024, also enquired from the respective parties whether they have anything further to add or should we proceed with our judgment. All parties before us stated that they had nothing further to add as they have given their written submissions, and they had no objection if we proceed to pass our judgment. We have accordingly proceeded to pronounce judgment today.

(2.) By way of the present Petition, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, claiming to be Environmentalist associated with NGOs, inter alia challenge the conversion sanad granted by Respondent No. 3 dtd. 4/4/2000 in favour of Respondent No. 6, in connection with Survey No. 100/0 of Ella village in Tiswadi Taluka (for short "the said land " or "the said property "), as well as all actions subsequent thereto. This challenge is laid on the premise that the said property is forest land and no permission from the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was obtained before the grant of such sanad.

(3.) In a nutshell, the Petitioners' main contention is that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is applicable to the said land, which is, in fact, a hilly terrain in Ella village, Panchayat Se Old Goa, having forest trees. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No.6, being the owner of the said land, in collusion with Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, cut the forest trees without any permission, converted the use of the said land to a non-forestry purpose, and obtained the sanad for the purpose of developing the said land into residential plots. While doing so, Respondent No. 6 submitted false information that only 23 trees existed on the said land [while applying for permission to cut the same from the Tree Officer], and under the guise of such permission, in fact, removed/felled 609 forest trees and 15,000 bamboos. Similarly, the remaining portion, wherein trees were existing, was cleared by burning of trees in order to destroy the entire forest. It is the case of the Petitioners that the area of Survey No. 100/0 (said land) is 7 hectares and the entire area was covered by a thick forest. Though it is private land, permission from the Central Government was a must, before obtaining the sanad for conversion of the said land. It is the main contention of the Petitioners that the said land is a forest and the Range Forest Officer, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, along with other Forest Officers, have categorically observed that the said land fulfills all the criteria for being identified as a private forest.