ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER No. PSH/III-22/88-III dated 15th November, 2005 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner ( District Collector), Solan whereby, from out of the intended extension area of 17.55 sq. kms. some exclusion was made in so far as the proposed and intended wildlife sanctuary in Majathal area situated in Patwar Circles, Mangal, Kashlog Chakkhar, Tehsil Arki is concerned. We have perused this order and find that in exercise of the powers vesting in him under Section 18 read with Section 18-B and Section 24 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Deputy Commissioner has passed this order.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a careful perusal of the text of this order, we find that it does not suffer from any illegality, especially looking to the fact that a memorandum of understanding has already been signed between respondent No.5 on the one hand and the State of Himachal Pradesh on the other, for the setting up of a cement plant in the area. The State Government is on affidavit before us in stating that by the setting up of this plant ecological balance shall not be disturbed in any manner and there will not be any threat to any Wildlife Sanctuary as well. As far as the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner has himself brought on record certain facts clearly suggesting, based upon the report received by him from various sources including Tehsildar, Arki, that the area which has now been excluded includes 5690.18 bighas private land and if the same were acquired for the Sanctuary, the land owners thereof had to be paid compensation which the State could ill afford. The Deputy Commissioner has also observed in the course of the Order that some Villages surrounded a major portion of the proposed Sanctuary and these villages are geographically very close to the Sanctuary. The inhabitants of these villages very frequently visit the area for obtaining fodder and fuel wood etc. in a routine manner everyday and they also graze their livestock in the same area. The villagers are engaged in agriculture profession and livestock is an inseparable and supplementing factor to the profession of agriculture and if the said area is included in the Sanctuary the right-holders would be debarred from entering into this area.

(3.) THE exclusion of the area (some additional area) of the intended, proposed Wildlife Sanctuary from the process of acquisition was the only ground urged by Mr. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the course of hearing today before us. No other ground was urged nor any other point was canvassed which according to the petitioner could be said to be going against the setting up of cement plant by respondent No.5 in the area in question. Actually a perusal of the replies filed by the respondents clearly reveals to us that all clearances, statutory and otherwise have either already been obtained or these are in the process of being obtained. It is no ones contention before us that the cement plant in question is being set up by respondent No.5 either without obtaining the clearances or the setting up of cement plant is in violation of any Rules or Regulations or that it will either endanger the ecological balance of the area or that it will cause any other hazard to the people of the area or disturb the environment of the area.