MANINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the present writ petition as well as three other connected writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 18295 of 2013; 21265 of 2013 & 22109 of 2013. However, for facility of reference the facts are being taken up from the present writ petition, wherein challenge is to an order dated 20.11.2012 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Committee constituted in terms of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.03.2012 in a bunch of writ petitions (CWP No. 663 of 2010 titled 'Rakam Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others') to consider the claim of the petitioners for exclusion of their land from the purview of forest land. The land of the petitioners has been treated vide the aforesaid order as a forest land and as a consequence thereof 'non-forest activities' are prohibited. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition and other connected writ petitions are that the State Government issued a notification on 12.06.1970 under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short 'the Act') in view of the fact that the land in question was notified under Section 3 of the said Act vide notification dated 05.02.1951. The aforesaid notification prohibited the cutting of trees or timber or brushwood and the lopping of trees for any purpose and the collection or removal of grass for any purpose. The said notification reads as under:

(2.) Though the aforesaid notification was operative for a period of 25 years, but the restriction contained in the notification continues to be applicable in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court reported as M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, 2004 12 SCC 118. The effect of notification under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in various orders passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India & others and in M.C. Mehta's case . It is the said orders, which have been made basis by the Committee to reject the representation of the petitioners herein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that a Division Bench of this Court examined the notification issued under Sections 3 & 5 of the Act in respect of an area comprising in Kalka, Panchkula Tehsils (District Panchkula), Naraingarh, Brara Tehsils of District Ambala and Jagadhari, Chachhrauli Tehsils of District Yamuna Nagar for the 'conservation of ground water and to prevent land erosion in these areas' in an order dated 15.05.2009 rendered in CWP No. 20134 of 2004 titled "Vijay Bansal & others Vs. State of Haryana & others". The Bench has considered the purpose of the Act and observed that the directions against cutting of trees or timber etc. are for the purpose of 'conservation of subsoil water' or 'prevention of erosion'. Therefore, an area covered by the notifications under the Act cannot be used for 'non forest purposes' save as permitted by the Central Government. The relevant observations read as under: