Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raja Shivdev Inder Singh vs Karan Avtar Singh And Ors on 27 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -1-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
I. COCP-1672-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : April 11, 2023
Date of Pronouncement : April 27, 2023
Raja Shivdev Inder Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
II. COCP-1902-2018
Karanvir Singh Rai .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
III. COCP-1903-2018
Surinder Kaur .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
IV. COCP-1904-2018
Brig. Ajay Singh Panwar .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
V. COCP-1905-2018
Dr. Akhil Bhargava and another .....Petitioners
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2023 01:03:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -2-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
VI. COCP-1906-2018
Bhupinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
VII. COCP-3085-2018
Kulwant Singh Pama .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others
...Respondents
VIII. COCP-3784-2018
Tejinder Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
IX. COCP-3802-2018
Jasjit Singh and another .....Petitioners
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ....Respondents
X. COCP-3792-2018
Hardyal Singh Cheema and others .....Petitioners
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
XI. COCP-3800-2018
Bikramjit Singh Bawa .....Petitioner
Vs.
Karan Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2023 01:03:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -3-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. G.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners
(in COCP-1672-2018).
Mr. Rahul Vijay Singh Chugh, Advocate for the petitioners
(in COCP-3085-2018)
Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner
(in COCP-1902 to 1906, 3784, 3802, 3792 and 3800-2018)
Mr. Ayush Sarna, AAG, Punjab.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
The petitioners allege the non-compliance of the judgment
dated 8.2.2017 passed in CWP-17216-2016 titled as "Raja Shivdev Inder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another".
As per the judgment, the petitioner has sought quashing of
notification dated 3.2.2003 and the subsequent corrigendum modifying
the impugned notification on the ground that the land of the petitioners
for the purpose of cultivation be excluded from the purview of Punjab
Land Preservation Act, 1990 (for short 'PLP Act').
The writ petition, along with the bunch of other writ
petitions, was disposed of on 8.2.2017 with the following directions :-
"In the circumstances, it would be just and
expedient to uphold the impugned notifications dated
23.09.1914 and 20.11.1950 issued under Section 3 as
the also the notification dated 03.02.2003 issued
under Section 4 of the PLP Act.
The reasons for upholding the Section 3
notifications are that these were issued several years
earlier and challenge to the same has been dismissed
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -4-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
by this Court on the ground of delay in B.S. Sandhu's
case (supra) and Harmesh Kumar's case (supra),
which orders have been upheld by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court vide order dated 25.05.2015 passed
in Dashmesh Educational Society v. Punjab Urban
Development Authority and others (supra).
The notification dated 03.02.2003 issued under
Section 4 of the PLP Act even though it is not shown
that the State Government had satisfied itself after
due enquiry that the regulations, restrictions,
prohibitions or directions contained in the said
notification dated 03.02.2003 were necessary
for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of
the PLP Act but nevertheless the notification is not to
be invalidated at this stage as it espouses a public
cause as also the fact that it was issued about
fourteen years back and the duration of same is for
fifteen years till 2018, which is about to expire.
The State Government shall, however,
preferably before the expiry of the period of fifteen
years from the date of notification dated 03.02.2003
and in any case within a period of one year from the
date of receipt of copy of the judgment, carry out an
exercise for consideration as to whether it is desirable
to continue with the directions of the PLP Act in an
area for the conservation of sub-soil water and
prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion
or likely to become liable to erosion and further
satisfy itself after due enquiry whether the
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -5-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
regulations, restrictions, prohibitions and/or directions
by general or special order are necessary within the
notified areas for the purpose of giving effect to the
provisions of the PLP Act. In case these are to be
continued, then the procedure provided by the PLP
Act must be adhered to and followed by making
necessary publication in the official
gazette and also a proclamation of the regulations,
restrictions, prohibitions or directions in the area in
respect of which a notification has been published
under Section 3 and that upon such publication any
general order made under Sections 4 or 5-A has
become applicable to such area or any special order
under Sections 4, 5 or 5-A is made in respect of such
area.
It shall also be determined by the State
Government as to whether the lands in question are
'forest' or 'forest land' primarily in terms of the
provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 etc. as also the judgments
of the Supreme Court in B.S. Sandhu v. Government
of India (supra), which is reiterated in Dashmesh
Educational Society v. Punjab Urban Development
Authority and others (supra) as also in Tanu Bedi v.
B.S. Sandhu and others (supra); besides, T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and
others (supra). The exercise of payment of
compensation to the land owners whose land has
been locked by the provisions of the PLP Act shall
also be carried out in accordance with the provisions
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -6-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
of Sections 14 and 15 and all land owners or affected
persons entitled for compensation shall be paid the
compensation, which shall be restricted to a period of
three years from the date of filing the petitions by
them or on their behalf.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in
the above terms."
Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the respondents
were restrained from issuing fresh notification under Sections 3 and 4 of
the PLP Act before expiry of the 15 years, that too after determining
whether it is desirable to continue the restriction by conducting a proper
enquiry. It is also stated that the payment of compensation to the land
owners, whose land has been locked by the Government under PLP Act
is also not released.
Affidavit of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation, Mohali is on record,
wherein it is stated that a scientific exercise by way of survey was
conducted under the PLP Act through two reputed organizations, i.e. Soil
and Land Use, Survey of India (SLUSI), New Delhi dated 15.1.2018
(Annexure R3-1) as well as Indian Institute of Soil and Water
Conservation Research Centre (IISWCRC), Chandigarh (Annexure R3-4).
It is stated that as per the report, the department has
recommended closure of the areas of the village under PLP Act, which
were affected by severe categories of soil erosion. Thereafter, in due
compliance, the State Government by adhering to the procedure
provided under the PLP Act, published an order in the official gazette
dated 2.2.2018 to prohibit certain acts within notified area, temporarily
for a period of 15 years giving effect to the provisions PLP Act and,
therefore, the respondents have followed the proper procedure under
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -7-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
the PLP Act. It is also stated that as per the reports by the two
organisations, the land of the petitioners was found to be affected by
severe category of soil erosion.
It is stated that the Government will provide the following
benefits to the land owners :-
"The Management Plan provide a host of benefits to
the land owners which inter alia include :-
i. Undertaking measures to prevent degradation of
ecologically fragile ecosystem and also
undertake measures to conserve and improve
biodiversity and the wildlife habitat.
ii. Implementing technical works to prevent soil
erosion, conserve soil and sub soil moisture.
iii. Conservation of natural regeneration and
undertaking artificial regeneration.
iv. Promoting measures to enhance productivity of
the closed/forest areas through qualitative and
quantitative improvements.
v. Issuing permits to the land owners in respect of
the regulated, restricted and prohibited activities
for their bona fide purposes and also sale of
trees for their income.
vi. To ensure active community participation.
vii. To create awareness and Eco-education through
Eco-tourism and other measures.
viii. To provide gainful employment to the people of
the area and undertake capacity building of the
stakeholders through trainings, self help groups
and entry point activities.
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -8-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
It is further stated that the land in the villages falling in SAS
Nagar, including the land of the petitioners in village Majrian, the Forest
Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun has also
submitted reports Annexures R3-6 to R3-8, according to which the land
of the petitioners is notified under the PLP Act as 'forest land' and
thereafter, the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, Mohali
invited the claim for compensation from the affected land owners by
publishing it in newspapers dated 20.3.2018 and 28.3.2018. After
receiving the claim by speaking order (Annexure R3-11), the same was
disposed of.
A catagoric stand is taken by the respondents that the
petitioners have neither filed any claim nor have submitted any proof of
filing the claim before the competent authority and, therefore, in terms
of Section 7(2) of the PLP Act, i.e. if any claim is not preferred within the
time fixed in the proclamation made under Sub-section(1), shall be
rejected. It is submitted that even after the expiry of the period, no
such claim was filed for which, the Commissioner was competent to
accord the sanction. It is, thus, stated that the proper compliance of the
order has been made. The respondents have also relied upon certain
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the declaration of
the land as 'forest land'. It is submitted that as per the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition (Civil) 202 of 1995
titled as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and
others dated 12.12.1996, it is held that the use of land under the forest
cannot be changed and cannot be utilized for any non-forest purposes,
i.e. for cultivation, construction, mining or other related activities, except
with prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest
Conservation Act.
It is also stated that a case under Section 7 of the Punjab
Village Common Land Act is also filed against the petitioners for seeking
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
COCP-1672-2018 (O&M) and -9-
connected cases 2023:PHHC:060291
their eviction from the Gram Panchayat land and the petitioners have
not submitted any proposal for diversion of land or their ownership for
non-forest purpose under the Forest Conservation Act and, therefore, no
willful disobedience is made out.
It is noticed that these contempt petitions are pending since
2018 and the primary grievance in these petitions is that a notification
under Sections 3 and 4 of the PLP Act putting restriction for eviction or
direction prior to expiry of the period of 15 years from 3.2.2003 is in
violation of the directions contained in judgment dated 8.2.2017.
After hearing counsel for the parties, considering the stand
taken by the respondents that after getting the scientific survey done by
the two Government of India's agencies, a management plan was
prepared for the benefit of the land owners, as noticed above, and the
petitioners have not preferred any claim in response to the notice
published in the newspapers dated 20.3.2018 and 28.3.2018 and,
therefore, as per Section 7 (2) of the PLA Act, the respondents are not
bound to consider the case of the petitioners, as they themself have
defaulted in not filing a claim.
Therefore, no willful disobedience is made out.
Dismissed.
( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
April 27, 2023 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060291
9 of 9
