Jharkhand High Court
Adityapur Industrial Area ... vs Ashok Kumar Singh on 14 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 408 of 2022
1. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority through its
Managing Director, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Now Regional Director
Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur
Region
2. Development Officer, Adityapur Industrial Development Authority,
P.O. Adityapur, Jamshedpur
3. Deputy Development Officer, Adityapur Industrial Development
Authority, P.O. Adityapur, Jamshedpur
... ... ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Ashok Kumar Singh
...... ... Petitioner/Respondent
2. Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The State of Jharkhand
... ... ... Respondents/Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
---------
For the Appellants: M/s. Ajit Kumar (Sr. Advocate), R.C.P. Sah, C.A.
Bardhan, Advocates
For Pvt. Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C-II)
---------
04/Dated: 14.03.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per. S. K. Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
1) By filing this intra-court appeal, the Adityapur Industrial Area
Development Authority has assailed the order dated 28.06.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4742 of 2008,
whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondent Ashok Kumar
Singh was allowed and directions were given to the respondents-
authorities to allot the land in question to the respondent-writ
petitioner within a period of three months.
2) Facts of the case are as follows:-
The Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority,
Adityapur Region (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development
Authority' for brevity) is a statutory body created under the Bihar
Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974. In the year 1989 the
appellants took a decision to develop certain lands which were
recorded as forest lands, admittedly, for construction of different
development projects including residential houses. The respondent-
writ petitioner applied for the same and also deposited security
amount of 25% of the value. However, on 13.03.1989 the appellants
indicated that the plot will be assured to the private respondent on
payment of security deposit and the respondent would be allowed to
withdraw the said earnest money without any interest if the Authority
(Appellants) decides not to issue order of allotment of plot in favour of
the respondent for any reasons and considerations.
3) Admittedly, at the time of such notifications inviting applications
from intending purchasers, the provision of Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 had not been complied with. It reads as
under:-
"2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of
forest land for non-forest purpose.--Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall
make, except with the prior approval of the Central
Government, any order directing - (Underlined to emphasise)
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the
expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time
being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall
cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used
for any non-forest purpose.
(iii)that any forest land or any portion thereof may be
assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private
person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any
other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by
Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be
cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land
or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section ''non-
forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any
forest land or portion thereof for--
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms,
oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal
plants;
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not
include any work relating or ancillary to
conservation, development and management of
forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of
check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and
construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams,
waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines
or other like purposes."
4) While interpreting this provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union Of India &
Ors, (1997) 2 SCC 267, has held that the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which
ultimately ultimate results in ecological imbalance; and, therefore, the
provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters
connected therewith, must apply to all forest irrespective of the nature
of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be
understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description
covers all statutorily recognized 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 "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 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.
5) This observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the present case.
6) A careful examination of the impugned judgment reveals that
the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration two principles -
one is the legitimate expectation and the other is principles of
promissory estoppel.
7) In our considered opinion, both the principles are not applicable
in the present case, as admittedly, when the Development Authority
initiated the proposal of developing the land for the purpose of setting
up industries as well residential purposes, it did not have the prior
permission of the Central Government in the Ministry of Forests and
Environment and that makes the whole exercise illegal.
8) It is also not disputed that forest clearance of the aforesaid
Ministry was received by the State of Jharkhand in the Forest
Department on 01.07.2009. So, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the principle of 'promissory estoppel' shall not be applicable to an
illegal contract as the appellants were not in a position to enter into a
contract with respect to the land which could not be used for any other
purpose as provided in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 and interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad's case (supra).
9) In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that
the learned Single Judge has committed error on record by applying
the principles of 'promissory estoppel' as well as theory of legitimate
expectation and, hence, the appeal should be allowed. We, therefore,
allowed this appeal.
10) However, it has been brought to our notice that the respondent-
writ petitioner is an employee of Civil Courts and he belongs to low
income grade employee and he has invested a huge amount while
depositing the earnest money. In that view of the matter, we further
direct the appellant to refund the entire amount to the applicant, who
is respondent here, within 40 days hence along with simple interest
@15% p.a. to be calculated from the date of deposit till the date of
actual payment.
11) In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed with the
aforesaid observations.
12) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.
13) No order as to costs.
14) Urgent copies as per Rules.
(S. K. Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Manoj/-
