B.S. SANDHUversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. & ETC.

                    [2014] 6 S.C.R. 329


                       S.S. SANDHU                               A
                              v.
         GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. & ETC.
      (Civil Appeal Nos. 4682-4683 of 2005 & ETC).
                       MAY 21, 2014.
                                                                 8
        [A. K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
               IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

      Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 - ss. 3, 4 and 5 -
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Status of land - Forest land C
or non-forest land - Allegation that appellant developed Golf
Club in village 'K' in violation of environmental and forest
laws, by changing the land use - Writ petition - High Court
holding that land notified uls. 3 of the PLP Act and regulated
by prohibitory directions notified u/s 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, D
is 'forest land' - Direction issued to close down the club and
demolish the illegal erected building - Correctness of - Held:
Finding of the High Court not correct and set aside - Issue
whether the land on which the Golf Club was situated was
forest land as on 25. 10. 1980 irrespective of its classification E
or ownership, is factual question - High Court should have
decided on the basis of Government records as on
25. 10. 1980 and other materials filed before it - However, High
Court instead decided the issue by reference to the provisions
of the PLP Act, 1900 and the records of the Forest Department F
in which the land was shown to be under the Forest
Department because the land was closed under the PLP Act,
 1900 decades before the enactment of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 which was not correct- Forest.
    An issue arose with regard to the development of the G
Forest Hill Golf and Country Club in village 'K', near
Chandigarh by the appellant- proprietor/managing
director of the Golf Club in violation of the environmental

                              329                                H
    330     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 6 S.C.R.

A   and forest laws as well as the orders passed by this
    Court. The Hig}1 Court held that the entire land of village
    'K' notified u/s. 3 of the Punjab Land Preservation 1900
    Act and regulated by the prohibitory directions notified
    u/ss. 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, is 'forest land' and attracts
B   the provisions of s. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
    1980 if sought to be used for 'non-forest purpose'; that
    in the records of the Forest Department of the
    Government of Punjab, the entire land of village was
    shown to be 'forest land' and the entries in the revenue
c   record regarding the nature of the land were changed by
    the officers of the Revenue Department of the
    Government of Punjab at the behest of appellant; and
    that in T.N.Godavarman's case, this Court has defined the
    term 'forest land' occurring in Section 2 of the Forest
    (Conservation) Act, 1980 to include not only 'forest' as
0
    understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area
    recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective
    of the ownership. The High Court directed the appellant.
    to immediately close down the 'Forest Hill Golf and
    Country Club and demolish' all the illegally erected
E
    buildings within a period of three months and to
    handover the 'management' and 'control' of the land in
    question to the State Forest Department. Hence, the
    instant appeals by the appellant, the agriculturists, house
    owners and shop owners of village and the union of
F   farmers.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1.1. It will be clear from the language of
    Section 3 of the Punjab Land Preservation 1900 Act that
    for the better preservation and protection of any local
G   area, situated within or adjacent to Shivalik Mountait1
    Range which is liable to be affected deboisment of
    forests in that range or by the action of "cho", such
    Government may by notification make a direction
    accordingly. The expression "local area" has not been
H   defined in the PLP Act, 1900 and may include not only
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                       331


'forest land' but also other land. In Section 4 of the PLP             A
Act, 1900 , the local Government was empowered by
general or special order, temporarily or permanently to
regulate, restrict or prohibit various activities mentioned
in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) , (e) , (f) and (g) thereof. A reading
of these clauses would show that activities such as                    B
cultivation, pasturing of sheep and goats and erection of
buildings by the inhabitants of towns and villages
situated within the limits of the area notified under Section
3 can be regulated, restricted or prohibited by a general
or special order of the local Government. All these                    c
activities are not normcllly carried on in forests·. Similarly,
under Section 5 of the PLP Act, 1900, the local
Government was empowered by special order,
tempdrarily or permanently to regulate, restrict or prohibit
the cultivating of any land or to admit, herd, pasture or              0
retain cattle generally other than sheep and goats. These
activities are also not n9rmally carried on iil forests.
Therefore, land which is notified under Section 3 of the
PLP Act, 1900 and regulated by orders of the local
Government under Section 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900
                                                                       E
may or may not be 'forest land'. Therefore, the conclusion
of the High Court that the entire land of village 'K', which
has been notified under Section 3 of .the PLP Act, 1900
and is regulated by the prohibitory ~irections notified
under Sections 4 and 5 thereof is 'forest land' is not at
all correct in law. The basis for inclusion of the entire area         F
in village 'K', in the list of forest areas in the State of
Punjab pursuant to the order dated 12.12.1996 of this
Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v.
Union of India & Ors. is legally not correct. Similarly, the
conclusion ofthe High Court that ttie entire land in village
'K', having been notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act,              G
1900 and being under the regulatory regime of Sections
4 and 5 of the said Act is 'forest land' is also legally not
correct. The High Court failed to appreciate the meaning
of 'forest' and 'forest land' in Section 2 of the Forest
                                                                       H
    332      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   (Conservation) Act, 1980 as given by this Court in the
    order dated 12.12.1996 in the case of T.N.Godavarman
    Thirumu/kpad v. Union of India & Ors. The order would
    show that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was
    enacted with view to check further deforestation and was
B   to apply to all forest irrespective of the nature of
    ownership of classification thereof. Thus, Section 2 of the
    Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 puts a restriction on
    further deforestation of 'forest land' and would apply to
    any land which at the time of enactment of the Forest
c   (Conservation) Act, 1980 was 'forest land' irrespective of
    its classification or ownership. [Para 15 and 16] [345-E-
    H; 346-A-.H; 347-A-B, F]
         1.2. The High Court was called upon to decide
    whether the land on which the Forest Hill Golf and
o   Country Club of the appellant was situated was forest
    land as on 25.10.1980 irrespective of its classification or
    ownership, is a factual question and the High Court
    should have decided this factual question on the basis
    of Government records as on 25.10.1980 and other
E   materials filed before the High Court, but the High Court
    instead decided this question by reference to the
    provisions of the PLP Act, 1900 and the records of the
    Forest Department in which the land was shown to be
    under the Forest Department because of the fact that the
F   land was closed under the PLP Act, 1900 several decades
    before the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
    1980. Moreover, by recording a blanket finding that all land
    in village 'K', was 'forest land' for the purpose of Section
    2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the High Court
G   affected the legal rights of several villagers, agriculturists,
    farmers, shop owners, inhabitants of village 'K', who were
    carrying on their respective occupations on their land
    even before the enactment of the said Act on 25.10.1980.
    The High Court should have been very careful before
    recording findings which affect the property rights of
H
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                    333


persons protected by Article 300A of the Constitution.              A
[Para 16] [348-F-H; 349-A-B]
     1,3. l'n the instant case, the State Government in its
affidavit stated before this Court that the basis of inclusion
of the entire land of village 'K', in forest areas in the
records of the Forest Department of Government of                   B
Punjab was that the land was closed under the PLP Act,
1900 and thus, was a forest ar~a, this basis is not correct
in law. [Para 17] [349-F-G]       '

     1.4. The finding of the High Court that the entire land in     c
village 'K', is 'forest land' for the purpose of Section 2 of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the High Court for fresh hearing and fresh order
in accordance with law. All directions in the impugned order
which flow out of the finding of the High Court that the land       D
was 'forest land' for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 are set aside. The directions for
investigation by the CBI in the impugned order is not set
aside. [Para 18] [349-H; 350-A-B]
     T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors            E
(1997) 2 SC 267:1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 982; M. C. Mehta vs.
Union of India (2004)12 SCC 118:2004 (3) SCR 128; M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors. JT 2008 (6) SC 542:2008
(8) SCR 828 - Referred to.
                   Case Law Reference:                              F
  (1997) 2 SC 267        Referred to Para 3,4,5,
                                     9,10,11,15,16
  (2004)12 SCC 118       Referred to Para 10
  JT 2008 (6) SC 542     Referred to Para 10
                                                                    r::
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
4682-4683 of 2005.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2004 in Writ
Petition Nos. 1134 and 1850 of 2004 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.                                     H
    334       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A                                 WITH

    C.A. Nos. 4799-4800 and 4798 of 2005.

        Mohan Jain, ASG., Ashwini Chopra, V.K. Bali, Puneet
  Bali, A. Mariarputham, Ajay Bansal, AAG., Rudreshwar Singh,
B K.S. Rupal, Gurmeet Sullar, Devaki Anand, Raman \7Valia
  Aditya Soni, Chistina Kumar, Elizabeth Barr, Gopal Jha,
  Kaushik Poddar, ·Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ajit Kumar
  Pande, Samir Ali Khan, A. Tewari, Ashmi Mohan, Shree pal
  Singh, Gurman Singh, Anuj Prakash, Kanan Walia, Kaushik
C Poddar, Prashant Kumar, Rohit K. Singh, Alok Kumar, Ashok
  Dhamija, Alakh Alok Srivastava, D.K. Thakur, B.V. Balaram
  Das, Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, N.K. Karhail, M.J. Asha, P.
  Parmeswaran, Ashiesh Kumar, Bimal Roy Jad, B.K. Khurana, .
  A.D.N. Rao, Rakesh Kumar, Kuldip Singh, Jagjit Singh
D Chhabra, Pardaman Singh, Dheeraj Yadav, Gaurav yadav,
  Vivek Goyal Rajeev Kumar, N.G. Dev for the Appearing
  Parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E        A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. These Civil Appeals have been
    filed by way of special leave under Article 136 of the
    Constitution against the common order dated 12.10.2004 of
    the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
    CWP No. 1134 of 2004 and CWP No. 1850 of 2004.
F
    Facts of the Case:

       2. CWP No. 1134 of 2004 is a Public Interest Litigation
  entertained by the High Court suo motu pursuant to a news
  item published on 22.01.2004 in the Hindustan Times {'HT
G Chandigarh Live'). This news item was titled 'Forest Hill Club
  under Central Government Scanner', and it stated that the
  Ministry of Environment and Forest, Union of India, has found
  that a Forest Hill Golf and Country Club in Village Karoran,
  District Ropar, near Chandigarh was being developed in
H blatant violation of the environmental and forest laws as well
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                  335
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

 as the orders passed by this Court in December 1996. The A
'news item further stated that the Forest Department of
 Government of Punjab had informed the Union Ministry of
 Environment and Forest that the entire area, on which the golf
 course had been set up, was closed under the Punjab Land
 Preservation Act, 1900 (for short 'PLP Act, 1900') and was a B
 'forest area', which attracted the provisions of the Forest
 (.Conservation) Act, 1980, but the Punjab Government permitted
 change of land use as a quid pro quo because a large number
 of top IAS and IPS officers and other decision-makers have
 been given honorary membership of the club or have been C
 allowed to use the premises and facilities of the Club for private
 functions.

      3. CWP No. 1850 of 2004 was filed by one Ranjeet Singh
as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the D
writ petition, it was inter-alia stated that village Karoran is
located in Kharar Tehsil of District Ropar and is about eight
kilometers to the North.-west of Chandigarh and the entire area
of the village measuring about 3700 acres is covered under
PLP Act, 1900, and this area measuring about 3700 acres of
village Karoran is also shown as 'forest area' in the Annual E
Administration Report and the Register of Forest Area of the
forest department. It is further stated in the writ petition that
pursuant to the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by this Court
in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors.
(1997) 2 SC 267, an Expert Committee was set up by the F
Government of Punjab to identify the forest areas of the State
of Punjab, and this Expert Committee included the entire area
of Karoran village as forest area in its report, and accordingly
an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government in
March, 1997 in this Court, showing the entire area of Karoran G
village as part of the forest areas of the State of Punjab. It is
also stated in the writ petition that the entire area of Karoran
village was included as forest area in the management plan
prepared by the State Forest Department and the management
plan was approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forest H
    336      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 6 S.C.R.


A vide its letter dated 14.12.1998. The case made out in the writ
    petition was that Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
    1980 was applicable to any land in the Karoran village and,
    therefore, the land could not have been diverted for non-forest
    activities without the prior permission of the Central
8   Government.

          4. Col. B.S. Sandhu, who was the proprietor/Managing
    Director of the Forest Hill Golf and Country Club, contended ·
    before the High Court that merely because village Karoran is
    covered under the PLP Act 1900, the lands comprising the
c   area of village Karoran do not become 'forest land'. He further
    contended that the lands in village Karoran on which the Forest
    Hill Golf and Country Club has been constructed were private
    lands acquired by sale deeds by the Dashmesh Educational
    Society formed by him for a period of eight years from different
D   owners and some of the lands are agricultural lands and some
    of the lands are uncultivable waste lands (Gair Mumkin Pahar)
    and unless a formal notification was issued under Section 35
    of the Forest Act, 1927 notifying a private land as 'forest land',
    a private land cannot be treated to be 'forest land'. Col. 8.S.
E   Sandhu also contended before the High Court that the fact that
    the State Forest Department had shown the entire land in
    village Karoran as under the administrative control of the Forest
    Department does not also make the entire land in Karoran
    village to be the 'forest land'. He further contended before the
F   High Court that the entries in the revenue records of the State
    Government would show that the land in village Karoran on
    which the club has been established is not 'forest land'. He,
    however, conceded before the High Court that pursuant to the
    orders passed by this Court in TN.Godavarman Thirumulkpad
G   v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) on 12.12.1996, the Expert
    Committee constituted by the State of Punjab initially identified
    all the 'forest areas' including those owned by private land
    owners in village Karoran measuring 3700 acres as 'forest
    land' and an affidavit was also filed on 21.02.1997 on behalf
H   of the Forest Department, Government of Punjab, in this Court
       B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                    337
                 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
 accordingly, but he submitted before the High Court that           A
 pursuant to affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government,
·orders were passed by this Court in I.A. No.727 in T.N.
 Godavarman Thirumulkpad's case (W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995)
 deleting large portions of land under habitation in village
 Karoran from the 'list of forest areas' in the State of Punjab.    B

      5. The High Court, however, rejected the contentions made
on behalf of Col. B.S. Sandhu in Civil Appeal Nos.4682-4683
of 2005 and held that the entire land of village Karoran which
has been notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and is
regulated by the prohibitory directions notified under Sections
                                                                    c
4 and 5 of the aforesaid PLP Act, 1900 is 'forest land' and
attracts the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 if sought to be used for 'non-forest purpose'. The
High Court also held that in the records of the Forest
Department of the Government of Punjab, the entire land of          D
village Karoran was shown to be 'forest land' and the entries
in the revenue record regarding the nature of the land were
changed by the officers of the Revenue Department of the
Government of Punjab at the behest of Col. B.S. Sandhu for
the obvious reason that he was eyeing this big chunk of land        E
for his personal gains. The High Court, therefore, discarded the
latest entries of the revenue record and instead accepted the
records of the Forest Department to hold that the land in
question was 'forest land'. The High Court further held that in
T.N.Godavarman's case, this Court has in its order dated            F
12.12.1996 defined the term 'forest land' occurring in Section
2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to include not only
'forest' as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area
recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the
ownership. The High Court held that as the land in village          G
Karoran was recorded in the records of the Forest Department
of the Government of Punjab to be 'forest land', the same was
'forest land' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. The High Court also held that the
entire 3700 acres of land in the village Karoran was identified     H
    338       SUPREME; COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A as 'forest land' by the Expert Committee constituted by the
  State of Punjab in its report dated 19.02.1997 and the State
  Government filed its affidavit dated 21.02.1997 before this
  Court along with the report of the Expert Committee. The High
  Court took note of the fact that pursuant to hardships
B experienced by the owners of some of these lands in village
  Karoran and pursuant to numerous representations; the State
  Government did examine. the issue afresh and excluded a
  portion of the land from the 'list of forest areas', but Col. S.S.
  Sandhu and his associates cannot derive any benefit or
c advantage from this stand of the State Government.
          6. With the aforesaid findings, the High Court allowed the
    writ petitions directing Col. S.S. Sandhu and the companies
    and/or the societies floated by him to immediately close down
    its entire enterprise known as 'Forest Hill Country Club Resort
D   and Golf Course' and to demolish all the illegally erected
    buildings within a period of three months and to handover the
    'management' and 'control' of the land in question to the State
    Forest Department. The High Court also directed the Revenue
    Department, Government of Punjab, to carry out all necessary
E   corrections in the 'records of rights' regarding the 'forest land'
    falling within the revenue estate of village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar,
    District Ropar and directed the Punjab State Electricity Board,        1



    through its Chairman, to discontinue the power supply forthwith
    to the Forest Hill Resort and directed the Commissioner of
F   Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Punjab, to
    cancel L-2 licence issued in favour of the Forest Hill Resort.
    The High Court also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation
    through its Director to constitute a Special Investigation Team
    to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy
G   Inspector General, which shall hold a through probe into the
    question of accountability of top executive and administrative
    functionaries of the departments concerned of the Government
    of Punjab, some officers of the Central Government in relation
    to establishment and development of the Forest Hill Golf and
H   Country Club at village Karoran and to report as to whether any
      S.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                       339
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
one of them indulged in taking direct or indirect gratification and/   A
or acted in violation of the Conduct Rules and to constitute a
Special Investigation Team of the Central Bureau of
Investigation to inquire into and submit its report as to how much
lands are actually owned by Col. S.S. Sandhu, his family
members and/or the societies/companies floated by them.                B

     7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Col. 8.S. Sandhu
has filed Civil Appeal Nos.4682-4683 of 2005. Aggrieved by
the impugned order, some agriculturists, house owners and
shop owners of village Karoran have filed Civil Appeal Nos. C
4799-4800 OF 2005 and the Bhartiya Kisan Union, which is a
union of farmers has filed Civil Appeal No.4798 of 2005,
challenging, in particular, the finding of the High Court that the
entire land in village Karoran is 'forest land' covere.d under
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and cannot
be used for non-forest purposes without the prior permission D
of the Central Government.

Contentions on behalf of the Parties:

     8. At the hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the       E
appellants submitted that the conclusion of the High Court in
the impugned order that the entire land of village Karoran,
District Ropar, which has been notified under Section 3 of PLP
Act, 1900 and which is being regulated by the prohibitory
directions notified under Sections 4 and 5 'of the PLP Act, 1900
is 'forest land' is not correct in law. They referred to the           F
provisions of the PLP Act, 1900 to show that the aforesaid Act
was meant to preserve and protect the land situated within or
adjacent to Shivalik Mountain Range. They argued that the
notification issued under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900,
therefore, covered both 'forest' and 'non-forest land' and             G
therefore a notification under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900
closing a particular land under the said Act would not per se
make the land a 'forest land'.

     9. Learned counsel for the· appellants further submitted that     H
    340       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   the High Court has gone by only the records of the Forest
    Department in which the entire land of 3700 acres in village
    Karoran, District Ropar, was shown as within the administrative
    control of the Forest Department. They argued that the land
    which is under the administrative control of the Forest·
B   Department does not become 'forest land' only because the
    Forest Department exercises control over that land. They
    submitted that an affidavit was filed on behalf of the
    Government of Punjab in this Court pursuant to the ord9r dated
    12.12.1996 of this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad
c   v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), on the basis of the report of
    the Expert Committee constituted by the State Government for
    identification of forest areas in the State of Punjab in February,
    1997 stating that the entire 3700 acres of land in village
    Karoran, District Ropar, was 'forest land' but subsequently the
D   State Government realised the mistake and filed an affidavit in
    October, 1999 before this Court for excluding portions -0f the
    land in village Karoran, District Ropar, from the list of 'forest
    areas' earlier furnished by the State of Punjab to this Court
    saying that such land was under cultivation and human habitation
    and the farmers who were cultivating the land and those who
E   were living in the land will suffer immense hardship if the land
    continues to be 'forest land' for the purpose of Section 2 of the
    Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

         10. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, on
F   the other hand, submitted that whether a particular land is 'forest
    land' for the pur-pose of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)
    Act, 1980 has to be decided in accordance with the order dated I
    12.12.1996 of this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad
    v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) as there is no definition of
G   forest either in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or in the
    Indian Forest Act, 1927. He submitted that this Court in M.C.
    Mehta vs. Union of India [(2004)12 SCC 118 - (hereinafter
    referred to as 'the first M.C. Mehta case') has taken the view
    that if the State Forest Department has been treating and
H   showing a particular area as forest, that area is to be treated
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                  341
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
as forest and if such area was to be used for non-forest A
purposes, it was necessary to comply with the provisions of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. He submitted that this view
was again endorsed by this Court in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of
India and Ors. [JT 2008 (6) SC 542 - (hereinafter referred to
as 'the second M.C. Mehta case'). He referred to the Annual B
Report of the East Punjab (Forest Department) to show that the
entire land in village Karoran, District Ropar, under the PLP Act,
1900 was under the Forest Department and submitted that in
view of the decisions of this Court in the first and the second
M.C. Mehta cases, the entire land in village Karoran, District c
Ropar, including the land of Col. B.S. Sandhu was 'forest land'
and could not be diverted for non-forest purposes without the
permission of the Central Government as provided in Section
2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

      11. The Member Secretary of the Cent~al Empowered D
Committee (for short 'the CEC') referred to the\records of I.A.
727 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India &
Ors. (supra) (Writ Petition No.202 of 1995) to show that the
proposal of the State Government to exclude an area of 69,367
ha. out of 1,68,224 ha. closed under the PLP Act, 1900 from E
the list of forest areas was examined by the CEC and the CEC
was of the view that the deletion of the areas which were under
cultivation of the habitation prior to 25. 10.1980 i.e. when the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted, would not be
against the spirit of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. He F
submitted that the CEC, however, was also of the view that for
deleting such areas from the list of forest areas, the procedure
as laid down in the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 and the
guidelines issued by the Central Government for
implementation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, must G
be followed.

Conclusions of this Court:

    12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find
                                                                 H
    342       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 6 S.C.R.


A that the reason why the entire 3700 acres of land in Karoran,
  District Ropar, was included in the list of 'forest land' submitted
  by the State Government to this Court in February, 1997 is that
  in the records of the Forest Department, Government of Punjab,
  the said land was shown to be under the Forest Department,
B Government of Punjab. We have, therefore, examined the
  Annual Report of the East Punjab (Forest Department) included
  in the compilation filed on behalf of the State Government on
  22.02.2014 and we find that the land in the village Karoran,
  District Ropar, is recorded as land under the control of the
c Forest Department because the land was closed under the PLP
  Act, 1900. This is also clear from paragraph 5 of the affidavit
  of Shri J.S. Kesar, IAS, Financial Commissioner and Secretary
  to Government of Punjab, Department of Forests and Wildlife
  Preservation, filed in this Court in October, 1999 extracted
D hereinbelow:

          "5. The basis for inclusion of all the areas closed under the
          PLPA, 1900 as "Forest areas" in the earlier affidavits was
          that the same were being reported in the Annual
          Administrative Reports of the Forest Department since
E         several decades under the category "closed under PLPA
          1900". Though the areas closed under PLPA 1900 were
          not specifically recorded as forest areas because of the
          fact that they were included in Annual Administrative
          Reports of the State Forest Department. As such, besides
F         the areas With tree cover even cultivated fields and
          habitations in the areas notified under the PLPA, 1900
          were depicted as 'Forest areas' by the Expert Committee
          and included in Annexure-G of the affidavit dated
          21.2.1997 filed by the State Government in the Hon'ble
G         Apex Court. It is thus reiterated that the Expert Committee
          included the cultivated/habitation areas closed under the
          PLPA, 1900 in the list of forest areas only because these
          stood included in the Annual Administrative Reports of the
          Department as "Areas closed under the PLPA 1900."
H
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                     343
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
     Thus, the basis of .including the entire land in village       A
Karoran as forest area in the affidavit of the State Government
in this Court is that the land was closed under the PLP Act,
1900 and therefore was forest area.

    13. The High Court has also taken a view in the impugned        B
order that as the entire land of village Karoran, District Ropar,
was closed in the PLP Act, 1900, it was 'forest land' for the
purpose of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Paragraph 53 of the impugned order of the High Court is
quoted hereinbelow:
                                                                    c
    53. For the reasons afore-mentioned and relying upon the
    expression "forest" and "forest lands" as defined by their
    Lordships in T.N) Godavarman's case (supra) and the
    principles laid down in M.C. Mehta's case (supra), we hold
    that the entire land of village Karoran which has been          D
    notified under section 3 of the PLPA, 1900 and is
    regulated by the prohibitory directions notified under
    section 4 and 5 thereof, is a "forest land" and attract the
    provisions of section 2 of the Conservation Act, 1980, if
    sought to be used for 'non forest purposes".                    E

      14. Hence, the first question that we have to decide is
whether the conclusion of the High Court that the land which is
notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and is regulated
by the prohibitory directions notified under Sections 4 and 5 of    F
the aforesaid Act is 'forest land' is correct in law. Sections 3,
4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900 as it was originally enacted are
extracted hereinbelow:

     "3. yvhenever it appears to the Local Government that it
     is desirable to provide for the better preservation and        G
     protection of any local area, situated within or adjacent to
     the Sivalik mountain range or affected or liable to be
     affected by the deboisement of forest in that range or by
     the.action of chos, such Government may, by notification,
     make a direction accordingly.                                  H
    344          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A         4. In respect of areas notified under section 3 generally,
          or the whole or any part of any such area, the Local
          Government may, by general or special order, temporarily
          or permanently, regulate, restrict or prohibit-

           (a)    the clearing or breaking up or cultivating of land not
B
                  ordinarily under cultivation prior to the publication
                  of the notification under section 3;

           (b)    the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime, at
                  places where such stone or line had not ordinarily
c                 been so-quarried or burnt prior to the publication of
                  the notification under section 3;

           (c)    the cutting or trees or timber, or the collection or
                  removal .or subjection to any manufacturing
D                 process, otherwise than as described in clause (b)
                  of this sub-section of any forest-produce other than
                  grass, save for bona fide domestic or agricultural
                  purposes;

           (d)    the setting on fire of trees, timber or forest produce;
E
           (e)    the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of
                  sheep or goats;

           (f)    the examination of forest-produce passing out of any
                  such area; and
F
           (g)    the granting of permits to the inhabitants of towns
                  and villages situated within the limits or in the
                  vicinity of any such area, to take any tree, timber
                  or forest produce for their own use therefrom, or to
G                 pasture sheep or goats or to cultivate or erect
                  buildings therein and the production and return of
                  such permits by such persons,

          5. In respect of any specified village or villages, or part or
H         parts thereof, comprised within the limits of any area
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                      345
                [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
    notified under section 3, the Local Government may, by            A
    special order, temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit-

    (a) the cultivating of any land ordinarily under cultivation
    prior to the publication of the notification under section 3:

    (b) the quarrying of any stone or the burning of any lime at      B
    places where such stone or lime had ordinarily been so
    quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification
    under section 3;

    (c) the cutting of trees or timber or the collection or removal   c
    or subjection to any° manufacturing process, otherwise than
    as described in clause (b) of this sub-section of any forest-
    produce for bona fide domestic or agricultural purposes;
    and

     (d) the admission, herding, pasturing or retention of cattle     D
    generally, other than sheep and goats, or of any class or
    description of such cattle."

      15. It will be clear from the language of Secti.on 3 of the
PLP Act, 1900 extracted above that for the better preservation        E
and protection of any local area, situated within or adjacent to
Sbivalik Mountain Range which is liable to be affected
deboisment of forests in that range or by the action of "cha",
such Government may by notification make a direction
accordingly. The expression "local area" has not been defined         F
in the PLP Act, 1900 and may include not only 'forest land' but
also other land. In Section 4 of the PLP Act, 1900 extracted
above, the local Government was empowered by general or
special order, temporarily or permanently to regulate, restrict
or prohibit various activities mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c),    G
(d) , (e) , (f) and (g) thereof. A reading of these clauses would
show that activities such as cultivation, pasturing of sheep and
goats and erection of buildings by the inhabitants of towns and
villages situated within the limits of the area notified under
Section 3 can be regulated, restricted or prohibited by a             H
    346       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   general or special order of the local Government. All these
    activities are not normally carried on in forests. Similarly, under
    Section 5 of the PLP Act, 1900, the local Government was
    empowered by special order, temporarily or permanently to
    regulate, restrict or prohibit the cultivating of any land or to admit,
B   herd, pasture or retain cattle generally other than sheep and
    goats. These activities are also not normally carried on in
    forests. In our view, therefore, land which is notified under
    Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and regulated by orders of the
    local Government under Section 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, 1900
c   may or may not be 'forest land'. Therefore, the conclusion of
    the High Court in the impugned order that the entire land of
    village Karoran, District Ropar, which has been notified under
    Section 3 of the PLP Act, 1900 and is regulated by the
    prohibitory directions notified under Sections 4 and 5 thereof
    is 'forest land' is not at all correct in law. The basis for inclusion
0
    of the entire area in village Karoran, District Ropar, in the list
    of forest areas in the State of Punjab pursuant to the order
    dated 12.12.1996 of this Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman
    Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) is legally not
    correct. Similarly, the conclusion of the High Court in the
E   impugned order that the entire land in village Karoran, District
    Ropar, having been notified under Section 3 of the PLP Act,
    1900 and being under the regulatory regime of Sections 4 and
    5 of the said Act is 'forest land' is also legally not correct.
F        16. In fact, the High Court failed to appreciate the meaning
    of 'forest' and 'forest land' in Section 2 of the Forest
    (Conservation) Act, 1980 as given by this court in the order
    dated 12.12.1996 in the case of T.N.Godavarman
    Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). The relevant
G   portions of the order dated 1212.1996 of this Court in the case
    of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors.
    (supra) on the meaning of the words 'forest' and 'forest land'
    is extracted hereinbelow:

          "4. The Forest Conservation Act. 1980 was enacted with
H
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                     347
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    a view to check further deforestation which ultimately A
    results in ecological imbalance; and therefore. the
    provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and
    for matters connected therewith. must apply to all forests
    irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification
    thereof. The word "forest: must be understood according B
    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 c
    "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
                                                                 0
    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."

     The underlined portion of the order dated 12 .12 .1996 in
the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India            E
& Ors. (supra) would show that the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 was enacted with a view to check "further deforestation"
and was to apply to all forest irrespective of the nature of
ownership or classification thereof. Hence, Section 2 of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 puts a restriction on further        F
deforestation of 'forest land' and would apply to any land which
at the time of enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
was 'forest land' irrespective of its classification or ownership.
This, is exactly the view taken also by the CEC in its
recommendations dated 10.09.2003 in I.A. 727 in                      G
T.N.Godavarman's case (W.P. [CJ No.202of1995). Paragraph
8 of the recommendations dated 10.09.2003 of the CEC in I.A.
No. 727 is extracted hereinbelow:

     "8. After examining the submissions made by the applicant,
                                                                     H
    348        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 6 S.C.R.


A         affidavit filed by the State Government of Punjab and the
          'No Objection' give by MoEF, the CEC is of the view that
          deletion of areas, which were under cultivation/habitation
          prior to 25.10.1980, i.e. enactment of the FC Act, would
          not be against the spirit of the FC Act, and this Hon'ble
B         Court's order dated 12.12.1996, if such areas were
          included in the 'list of forest area" on technical reasons
          alone. However, the areas closed under Section 4 of the
          PLPA are recorded as 'forest' in the Forest Department's
          records for the last 40-50 years. This Hon'ble Court by
c         order dated 12.12.1996 has held that areas recorded as
          'forest' in Government records are forest for the purpose
          of the Section 2 of the FC Act. It would therefore be
          necessary to obtain prior approval of the Central
          Government under Section 2 of the FC Act, for deleting
          such areas from the "list of the forest area" after following
0
          the procedure as laid down in the Forest (Conservation)
          Rules, 1981, and the guidelines issued by the Central
          Government for implementation of the said Act.
          Irrespective of the merits of the case, it would not be
          appropriate to allow deletion of such area from the 'list of
E         forest area" without following the prescribed procedure and
          provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act."

          Thus, what the High Court was called upon to decide is
    whether the land on which the Forest Hill Golf and Country Club
F   of Col. B.S. Sandhu was situated was forest land as on
    25.10.1980 irrespective of its classification or ownership. This
    is a factual question and the High Court should have decided
    this factual question on the basis of Government records as on
    25.10.1980 and other materials filed before the High Court, but
G   the High Court has instead decided this question by reference
    to the provisions of the PLP Act, 1900 and the records of the
    Forest Department in which the land was shown to be under
    the Forest Department because of the fact that the land was
    r,losed ur•dec the PLP Act. 1900 several decades before the
H   ena<'.11ent of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Moreover,
      B.S. SANDHU v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                       349
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
by recording a blanket finding that all land in village Karoran, A
District Ropar, was 'forest land' for the purpose of Section 2
of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the High Court has
affected the legal rights of several villagers, agriculturists,
farmers, shop owners, inhabitants of village Karoran, District
Ropar, who were carrying on their respective occupations on B
their land even before the enactment of the said Act on
25.10.1980. In our view, the High Court should have been very
careful before recording findings which affect the property rights
of persons protected by Article 300A of the Constitution.

       17. We have also examined the two decisions of this Cou,rt      C
 in the first and second cases of M.C. Mehta cited on behalf of
the State of Punjab and we find that the aforesaid decisions
 have been rendered in the case of Aravali Hills in the State of
  Haryana and it was held therein that as the State Forest
  Department had been treating and showing the areas as                D
  'forest', in fact and in law, the area was forest and non-forest
  activities could not be allowed in such areas without the prior
  permission of the Central Government under Section 2 of the
. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In these two decisions, this
  Court has not enquired into the basis of inclusion of the areas      E
  in forest by the State Forest Department nor has this Court
  considered as to whether a land becomes 'forest land' by mere
  inclusion of the same under the notification under Section 3 of
  the PLP Act, 1900. In the present case, on the 6ther hand, the
  State Government has in its affidavit stated befbre this Court       F
  that the basis of inclusion of the entire land of village Karoran,
  District Ropar, in forest areas in the records of the Forest
  Department of Government of Punjab was that the land was
  closed under the PLP Act, 1900 and we have found this basis
  as not correct in law.                                               G

      18. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court
that the entire land in village Karoran, District Ropar, is 'forest
land' for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh            H
    350          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 6 S.C.R.


A   hearing and fresh order in accordance with law. Consequently,
    ~11 directions in the impugned order which flow out of the
    aforesaid finding of the High Court that the land was 'forest land'
    for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
    1980 are set aside. We, however, make it clear that we have
B   not set aside the directions for investigation by the CBI in the
    impugned order.

    Nidhi Jain                                          Appeal allowed.