Rajasthan High Court

State Of Rajasthan vs M/S. Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... on 12 August, 2024

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Praveer Bhatnagar

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 730/2022

M/s Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Heritage
Palaces And Sarais Limited), a Company Incorporated In India
And Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its
Registered Office At B-106 Gujranwala Town Part-1 Opposite
Model Town 2, Delhi- 1100 009, Through Its Company Secretary
And Authorised Signatory, Shri. Mohit Totuka, Aged About 34
Years, S/o Late Shri. Arunkumar Totuka And Resident Of House
No. 1817, Radio Market, Manihaaron Ka Rasta, Jaipur- 302003.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       State    Of    Rajasthan,         Through         The       Chief     Secretary
         Government         Of      Rajasthan,          Bhawani         Singh      Road,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Bhawani Singh Road, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Collector Of Jaipur, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.       Department        Of    Tourism,        Art     And        Culture,    Through
         Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5.       Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (HOFF), Rajasthan
         Aranya     Bhawan,         Jhalana        Institutional        Area,      Jaipur
         302004, Rajasthan (India).
6.       Jaipur Development Authority, Through Commissioner,
         Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru
         Marg, Jaipur- 302004, Rajasthan.
7.       Jaipur Municipal          Corporation, Through Commissioner,
         Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road,
         Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Respondents
                                 Connected With
             D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 329/2020
1.       State    Of    Rajasthan,         Through         The      Chief      Secretary,
         Government         Of      Rajasthan,          Bhawani         Singh      Road,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Bhawani Singh Road, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Collector Of Jaipur, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

                        (Downloaded on 19/08/2024 at 08:49:56 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB]                   (2 of 16)                          [SAW-730/2022]


4.       Department         Of     Tourism,         Art   And        Culture,   Through
         Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5.       Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests, (HOFF), Rajasthan,
         Aranya     Bhawan,          Jhalana        Institutional       Area,    Jaipur-
         302004, Rajasthan (India).
                                                                         ----Appellants
                                        Versus
1.       M/s. Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s.
         Heritage       Palaces      And      Sarais      Limited),       A     Company
         Incorporated         In    India       And       Registered       Under    The
         Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Office At
         B 106 Gujaranwala Town Part-1 Opposite Model Town 2
         Delhi 1100 009, Through Its Company Secretary And
         Authorized Signatory, Shri Mohit Totuka, Aged About 30
         Years, S/o Late Shri Arunkumar Totuka And Resident Of
         House No. 1817, Radio Market, Manihaaron Ka Rasta,
         Jaipur - 302023.
2.       Jaipur Development Authority, Through Commissioner,
         Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru
         Marg, Jaipur-302004 Rajasthan.
3.       Jaipur Municipal           Corporation, Through Commissioner,
         Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road,
         Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :     Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
                                    Assisted by Mr. Sanjay Rahar, Adv. Mr.
                                    Molik Purohit, Adv. Ms. Alankrita
                                    Sharma, Adv. In S.A.W. No.730/2022
                                    Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG Sr. Adv.
                                    Assisted by Mr. Kapil Vyas, Adv.
                                    Mr. Jai Vardhan Joshi, Adv.
                                    Ms. Aditi Vats, Adv. In S.A.W.
                                    No.329/2020
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
                                    Assisted by Mr. Sanjay Rahar, Adv.
                                    Mr. Molik Purohit, Adv.
                                    Ms. Alankrita Sharma, Adv. For
                                    respondent No.1 in SAW No.329/2020
                                    Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG Sr. Adv.
                                    Assisted by Mr. Kapil Vyas, Adv.
                                    Mr. Jai Vardhan Joshi, Adv.
                                    Ms. Aditi Vats, Adv. For respondent

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (3 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Ankit Rathore, Adv. For respondent No.6 in SAW No.730/2022 and for respondent No.2 in SAW

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

Reserved on:: 09/07/2024 Pronounced on:: 12/08/2024

Reportable

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar:-)

1. The writ-petitioner before the Single Bench (hereinafter

referred to as 'the appellant') and the respondent to the writ

petition, the State Government (hereinafter referred to as 'the

respondent'), have assailed the order dated 11.11.2019 of the

learned Single Bench by filing two separate appeals.

2. The writ court vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2019

partly allowed the writ petition of the appellant and passed the

following order:-

"10. In light of the above discussion, this court directs as below:

(i) The impugned order passed by the Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan and the Collector, Jaipur (Respondents 2 and 3 herein)whereby the Respondents revoked/cancelled the order dated 10.08.2001 vide which the land in dispute was set-apart for establishment of a hotel/tourism unit and the unilateral cancellation of Lease-Deed are

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (4 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

here by quashed and set-aside. Further, the show-cause notices dated 23.04.2012, 10.05.2012 and29.06.2012 and all the proceedings initiated and conducted against the Petitioner by the Respondents in pursuance of the aforementioned notices are also hereby quashed and set-aside. However, the Respondents are given liberty to approach a competent court, for seeking cancellation of the Lease-Deed dated 06.11.2001 and the allotment letter dated 20.08.2001, if so advised.

(ii) The Petitioner is hereby directed to not use the approach road to its hotel/resort since part of the same allegedly falls within Forest area. However, the Petitioner is given a liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of a competent court of law, to determine as to whether it has a right to use the road or not and whether or not, the road falls within forest area."

3. In the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the second

part of the order on the grounds that the pathway is already in

existence and this fact is recorded in the order dated 10.08.2001

passed by the District Collector, Jaipur. The writ court did not

consider the above document in the impugned order. It is also

averred in the appeal that the condition of constructing 60 feet-

wide road was impossible to execute as permission for building a

road on the customary pathway was impermissible. The Tourism

Department executed the lease deed under the tourism policy

formulated by the State Government consciously omitted the

condition of constructing a 60 feet wide road while executing the

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (5 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

lease deed in favour of the appellant, and the doctrine of the blue

pen is applicable.

4. In the cross-appeal [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.329/2020], the State Government (from now on referred to as

'the Respondent') has assailed the impugned Judgment on the

grounds that the Writ Court failed to consider that the disputed

land vests in Eco-Sensitive Zone and that the appellant did not

seek permission from the forest department.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

has vehemently argued that the revocation of setting-aside order

was wrong. It is argued that right to way is admitted as the path

way is being used and this fact has been mentioned in the order

dated 21.08.1998 passed by District Collector, Jaipur. It is also

argued that under the Rajasthan Forest Act and Wild Life

Protection Act, the path ways have been protected and this fact

also gets mentioned in order dated 21.08.1998 passed by the

District Collector, Jaipur.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that in the draft

notification dated 12.09.2017, the Eco-tourism activity within the

Eco Sensitive Zone is permissible. It is also argued that as per the

draft notification dated 12.09.2017, establishment of hotel &

resorts are regulated activities and bar contained in the said

notification only limits the construction of new commercial hotels

and resorts within one kilometer of boundary of protected area,

thus, the establishment of appellant's resort in the disputed land is

not prohibited as the lease deed for establishing the resort was

granted in 2011. It is also argued that condition of constructing 60

feet road has become inconsequential as in the lease deed, the

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (6 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

conditions was not mentioned. It is also argued that without

constructing 60 feet road, the appellant can continue operating his

resort in the disputed land as path way is being continuously used

and Collector vide order has clearly mentioned that all the path

ways have been protected. Learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(1) Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG

General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 1

SCC 428

(2) Jda Vs. Anukampa Avas (DBSAW

No.254/2012), decided by Rajasthan High Court,

Jaipur Bench.

(3) M/s Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Limited &

Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP

No.1952/2006), Rajasthan High Court Jaipur

Bench.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that

the disputed land is surrounded by sanctuary from three sides and

the land is necessary for preservation of forest as well as wild life.

It is also contended that in response to the query from Central

Empowered Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the CEC'), a

specific affidavit containing the fact that no permission was

granted by the Forest Department for construction of hotels or

tents in this area, was obtained by the appellant. It is also argued

that on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Forest Department,

the Hon'ble Apex Court issued an order dated 19.03.2012,

directing the Forest Department and the State Government to take

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (7 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

further action in accordance with the law and also directed the

respondent to file its status report thereafter.

8. It is vehemently argued that pursuant to the order dated

19.03.2012, notices were issued to the appellant to explain his

position and thereafter the CEC submitted its report vide letter

dated 12.09.2013 before the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court

on 11.04.2018, directed the State Government to file the status

report.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent also argued that on the

recommendation of the CEC, the District Collector, Jaipur,

cancelled the set apart order dated 10.08.2001, vide order dated

10.05.2018 and Department of Revenue also cancelled the

allotment order dated 20.08.2001, vide order dated 10.05.2018.

Resultantly, the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant was

also cancelled vide order dated 10.05.2018. It is also contended

that the appellant also applied for diversion of Forest Land for

approach to reach the hotel vide application dated 09.02.2007 but

the Forest Department did not grant permission for diversion of

the land as the same was part of the Sanctuary.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. Union of

India, vide order dated 04.12.2006, directed the Ministry of

Environment of Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to

as 'the MoEF'), to declare the Eco-Sensitive Zone vide letter dated

09.02.2011. The State of Rajasthan sent a proposal for treating

area upto 100 meters around the notified boundary of Nahargarh

Wildlife Sanctuary as Eco-Sensitive Zone vide letter dated

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (8 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

07.01.2011 and subsequently vide notification dated 11.09.2017,

the Central Government has issued the Draft Notification.

11. It is also contended that the Collector, Jaipur and other

Authorities acted arbitrary to the Forest, Wildlife and Environment

Laws by setting apart the land for establishing the tourism unit.

The writ court erred in directing the respondents to approach a

Competent Court for seeking cancellation of lease deed dated

06.11.2001 and the allotment letter dated 20.07.2001 as the

matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the

matter of T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS. UNION OF

INDIA & ORS, Hon'ble the Apex Court, on the recommendation

of CEC directed the respondents to proceed with the action in

accordance with law and in compliance to the order passed by the

Apex Court, respondent-State has cancelled the setting apart

order.

12. Heard and perused the record.

13. It is not in dispute that the disputed land was agricultural,

and vide order dated 10.08.2001, the District Collector, Jaipur set

apart the land under Section 92 the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act

and allotted it for establishing the tourism unit. Subsequently, the

Tourism Department, vide its order dated 20.08.2001, executed a

registered lease deed in favour of the appellant.

14. Before delineating the core issue about the legality of the

order regarding cancelling the setting apart order by the

respondent for establishing the resort on the disputed land, it is

pertinent to mention the relevant orders and proceedings passed

and drawn by the Honble Apex Court and CEC. Hon'ble the Apex

Court in the matter of T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS.

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (9 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

UNION OF INDIA & ORS in I.A. No.2066 @ Cont. Pet. (C)

No.133/2007 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995, passed following order on

07.05.2012:-

"302. I.A. No.2066 @ Cont. Pet. (C) No.133/2007 in W.P. (C) No.202/1995.

The application has been preferred seeking a direction that the land in question be not diverted out of the sanctuary for allotment to M/s. Boutique Hotels India Ltd. Paragraph 22 of the application states that undue benefit has been extended to that company.

When the matter came up for hearing the counsel appearing for the State Government made available the copy of the affidavit submitted before the CEC. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jaipur (Central), Jaipur (Raj.) The operative portion of the affidavit reads as follows:

"On the last date of hearing the CEC had made four queries from the State of Rajasthan and the answer to them is as follows:

Query Answer/Response

1. Why permission is given to a No permission has been granted private boutique through rescue by the Forest Department. centre/route of sanctuary?

2. Whether the State Government There is no intention of the is inclined to grant permission for Forest department to grant construction of hotels or tents in an permission for construction of area which is topographically hotels or tents in this area. surrounded by Sanctuary ?

3. Whether the State Government Hotel/Motel in this area. And had granted any permission for Forest Department is of the setting up of their hotel/motel in view that upto 100 mtr. Area the area and what is the stand of From the Nahargarh Sanctuary

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (10 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

the State Government with regard shall be kept as Eco Sensitive to the construction of hotel on the Zone. In this regard State boarder of the sanctuary ? Government vide letter No.23K (71) Forest / 2002 dated 07.01.11 had sent a proposal to the Government of India.

4. The reason of difference in In the map produced by the opinion between the earlier opinion Boutique Hotel earlier Khasra given by DFO and the latest opinion No.011/1 and Khasra No.811/2 which indicate that the area is not has been shown jointly, whereas part of the forest land ? only Khasra No.811/1 has been allotted to the Boutique Khasra, which is a forest land. Khasra No.811/2 forest land which is having area of 2 bigha 6 biswa and at present bearing Khasra no.864. The difference had arisen because earlier only Khasra No.811 was mentioned and it was not bifurcated.

Further it is submitted that the Forest Department is of the view that the Boutique possession is in the form of 'Nozle" as well as it being surrounded by Sanctuary from three sides and it is not desirable that it should continue since the land is necessary for preservation of Forest as well as Wildlife. Moreover, no permission has been granted by the Forest Department in this regard.

Learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan submits that on the basis of the affidavit, further action would be taken by the State. Since the land is required for the Forest Department, the State Government, as desired would take further action in accordance with law within one month from today. Government would also file a status report thereafter."

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (11 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

In the same matter, vide order dated 11.04.2018, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following order:-

"This is an application filed by Mohan Lal Sharma. The prayer in this application is M/s Boutique Hotel is sought to be constructed in a Wildlife Sanctuary. It appears that conversion of land has since been withdrawn by the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 08.06.2012 under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 and proceedings have also been initiated for cancellation of lease but these proceedings are pending since 2012.

Learned AAG for the State of Rajasthan says that he will give the latest status report.

List the application on 11.05.2018."

15. The order described above passed by the Apex Court

unequivocally implies that the State Government was directed to

comply with the directions. Under the above directions, the State

Government, vide order dated 10.05.2018, cancelled the setting

apart order, resulting in the cancellation of the lease deed.

Indubitably, the execution of the lease deed is a subsequent

proceeding arising from setting apart the disputed land order

passed by the concerned Collector.

16. The learned counsel for the appellant's argument that the

Apex Court directions for cancelling the proceedings of conversion

under Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act pertain's to

Hari Narayan's land is also against the record, as the operative

order passed in the order unambiguously refers to the appellant's

land.

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (12 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

17. Further, in its recommendation, the CEC recorded the

viewpoint expressed by the Department of Forests, which clearly

shows that permission from the Forest Department was not

sought and that the disputed land falls in the precinct of the Eco-

Sensitive Zone.

18. The CEC was constituted by the Apex Court by order dated

09.05.2002 to monitor the implementation of its orders and to

present cases of non-compliance, including concerning

encroachment removals, implementation of working plans,

compensatory afforestation, plantations and other conservation

issues.

19. The above order required that the reports and affidavits filed

by states under Apex Court's orders be placed before the CEC for

its examination and recommendations. The recommendations of

the CEC would be placed before the Apex Court for orders.

Further, persons aggrieved by any steps taken by the government

in purported compliance with the Apex Court's orders could seek

relief from the CEC, which must decide the applications in

conformity with the Apex Court orders.

20. Further, the CEC was given the power to call for documents

from any person or government, summon any person and receive

evidence on oath, and seek assistance/presence of any person or

official, including the power to co-opt persons as special invitees

for dealing with specific issues. When an issue pertains to a

particular state, the Chief Secretary and Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests of that state were to be co-opted as special

invitees wherever feasible.

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (13 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

21. The first modification of the order dated 09.05.2002 came

from the order dated 14.12.2007. The modified terms of

reference, which superseded all previous orders, were as follows:

The committee shall exercise the following powers and perform

the following functions:

(i) to monitor the implementation of this Court's orders and place

reports of non-compliance before the Court and the Central

Government for appropriate action;

(ii) to examine pending interlocutory applications in the said writ

petitions (as may be referred to it by the Court) as well as the

reports and affidavits filed by the States in response to the orders

passed by the Hon'ble Court and place its recommendations

before the Court for orders;

(iii) to deal with any applications made to it by any aggrieved

person and, wherever necessary, to make a report to this Court on

that behalf;

(iv) For the purposes of effective discharge of powers conferred

upon the Committee under this order, the Committee can:

(a) call for any documents from any persons or the Government of

the Union or the State or any other official;

(b) undertake site inspection of the forest area involved;

(c) seek assistance or presence of any person(s) or official(s)

required by it about its work;

(d) co-opt one or more persons as its members or as special

invitees for dealing with specific issues;

(e) co-opt, wherever feasible, the Chief Secretary or his

representative and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (14 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

State as special invitees while dealing with issues about a

particular State;

(f) to suggest measures generally to the State, as well as Central

Government, for the more effective implementation of the Act and

other orders of this Court;

(v) to examine and advise/recommend any issue referred to the

Committee."

22. The Single Bench of this Court, while passing the impugned

judgment, did not consider the Apex Court order and

recommendation of the CEC. This court can not ignore that the

State Government cancelled the setting apart order of the

disputed land in compliance with the directions rendered by the

Apex Court and on the recommendation of the CEC. The

cancellation order contains that:-

" izdj.k esa fjV fifV"ku ¼flfoy½ 202@1995 Vh0,u0xks/kk oeZu cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k ,oa vU; esa voekuuk ;kfpdk la[;k 133@2007 Jh eksgu yky "kekZ cuke Hkkjr ljdkj o vU; esa ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vkb0,0 uEcj 2086 esa 19-3-2012 ,oa iqu% fnukad 7-5-2012 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;s x;s gSaA mDr fu.kZ;ksa dh ikyuk esa eSllZ C;wfVd gksVy bf.M;k izk0fy0 dks vkoafVr Hkwfe ds vkoaVu vkns"k o fu'ikfnr yht MhM dk fujLr djus dh dk;Zokgh djus gsrq i;ZVu foHkkx us ftyk dk;kZy; dks vius i= Øekad ,Q-9¼148½gksVy@ifo@139 fnukad 30-4-2018 }kjk fy[kk x;k gSA i;ZVu foHkkx us voxr djk;k gS fd jktLo foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad ,Q-11¼4½jkt&6@14@17 fnukad 22-5-2015 ds }kjk i;ZVu bZdkbZ;ksa dks Hkwfe vkoaVu@:ikUrj.k gsrq i;ZVu foHkkx ds LFkku ij ftyk dysDVlZ dks vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gSA ftlds Øe esa Hkwfe vkoaVu vkns"k@yhtMhM fujLr djus gsrq ftyk dyDVlZ vf/kd`r gSA ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; esa nk;j fjV fiVh"ku ¼flfoy½ 202@1995 Vh0,u0xks/kkoeZu cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k ,oa vU;

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (15 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

esa voekuuk ;kfpdk la[;k 133@2007 Jh eksgu yky "kekZ cuke Hkkjr ljdkj o vU; esa ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vkbZ0,0 uEcj 2066 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 19-3-2012 ,oa fu.kZ; fnukad 7-5-2012 ds Øe esa C;wfVd gksVYl bafM;k fy0 dks i;ZVu bZdkbZ iz;kstukFkZ vkoafVr Hkwfe ds lsV&vkikVZ vkns"k] vkoaVu vkns"k ,oa fu'ikfnr dh xbZ yhtMhM dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa ek0 eq[; lfpo egksn; dh v/;{krk esa vk;ksftr ehfVax esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds fcUnq la[;k&4 esa mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd ftyk dysDVj }kjk fnukad 10-8-2001 ds }kjk i;ZVu bZdkbZ iz;kstukFkZ vkjf{kr dh xbZ Hkwfe ds lsV&vikVZ vkns"k dks fujLr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA vr% mDr izdkj ls fy, x, fu.kZ; dh ikyuk ,oa lsV vikVZ&vkns"k esa of.kZr "krZ&i;ZVu bZdkbZ ds lkeus 60 fQV dh pkSMh lM+d fuekZ.k ugha fd;s tkus ij mDr "krZ dk mYya?ku gksus ij ftyk dk;kZy; ds vkns"k Øekad vkj-18ch¼13½97@6297 fnukad 10-8-2001 ds }kjk C;wfVd gksVYl bafM;k fy0 dh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe xzke vkesj rglhy vkesj fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 802 jdck 2 ch? kk 03 fcLok o [kljk uEcj 811@1 jdck 13 ch?kk 18 fcLok dqy 16 ch?kk 01 fcLok uohu [kljk uEcj 846] 847] 848] 856] 859] 860] 861] 862] 863] 868] 869] 855@9722] 849@9723] 850@9724 jdck 4-06 gSDVs- Hkwfe dks jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 92 ds varxZr i;ZVu bZdkbZ gsrq lsV&vikVZ ¼vkjf{kr½ dh xbZ Hkwfe ds lsV&vikVZ ¼vkjf{kr½ vkns"k dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA "

23. The appellant did not assert the fact before the Hon'ble Apex

Court and instead challenged the cancellation order through the

writ petition in the High Court questioning the order passed by the

State Government. The writ court can not sit over the directions

rendered explicitly by the Apex Court.

24. The arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

that the disputed land does not fall in the Eco-Sensitive Zone and

permission of the forest department was not necessary, the lease

deed was cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to

the appellant, the State Government was precluded from

[2024:RJ-JP:34039-DB] (16 of 16) [SAW-730/2022]

cancelling the lease deed without the intervention of the civil court