2022 (6) TMI 1478 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of proposal for grant of environment clearance in respect of Laigura Stone Quarry - whether the land in question where the Laigura Stone Quarry situates belongs to the Revenue Department or the Forest Department and if so, does it come under the proposed reserved forest area? - HELD THAT - Referring to the pleadings and documents available on record under Annexure-M/6 series, the letter dated 03.09.2021 of opposite party no. 6 addressed to the Additional Govt. Advocate makes it clear that the proposed reserved forest has not yet been notified under Section-21 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 as reserved forest. As such, the notification dated 28.01.1980, which was issued under Section-4 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 declaring that it has been proposed to constitute as reserved forest lands of Mauza Langposh Baliturei of Lamna Forest Division under Mahulpali Police Station of Kuchinda Tahasil in the district of Sambalpur, the limits of which have been demarcated by cairns and line cleared to a width of 20' or by natural boundaries as specified therein, has not been given effect to. The legislators of the State of Odisha enacted Orissa Forest Act, 1972 giving paramount consideration to the protection and management of the forests and forest produce. Chapter-II of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 deals with Reserved Forest . Section-3 thereof provides that the State Government may constitute any land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government have proprietary rights of the reserved forest in the manner provided therein. In view of aforesaid provisions of law, the procedure which is required to be followed to declare the forest as reserved under Section 21 of the Orissa Forest Act by issuing notification, but the same has not yet been done so far as the present quarry area is concerned. In absence of any materials available on record with regard to compliance of the provision of law, the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer vide letter dated 16.10.2020 under Annexure-11 issuing clarification regarding proposal of environment clearance of Laigura Stone Quarry over an area of 4.81 acres or 1.95 hectare at village Laigura, Tahasil- Kuchinda in the district of Sambalpur cannot sustain in the eye of law and consequential order of rejection passed by opposite party no. 7 dated 26.10.2020 referring to the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer addressed to the Tahasildar, Kuchinda refusing to grant environment clearance of the proposal under Annexure- 12 cannot also sustain in the eye of law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bamara Wildlife Division.
2. Validity of the letter dated 26.11.2020 issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) rejecting the environmental clearance for Laigura Stone Quarry.
3. Determination of whether the land in question belongs to the Revenue Department or the Forest Department and if it falls under the proposed reserved forest area.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Letter Dated 16.10.2020 by the Divisional Forest Officer:

The petitioner sought to quash the letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bamara Wildlife Division, which requested the SEIAA not to grant environmental clearance for Laigura Stone Quarry. The letter claimed the land was not demarcated and was proposed to be included in the Langposh-Baliturei Protected Reserve Forest (PRF). Despite three joint measurements conducted by the Revenue and Forest Departments, the status of the land remained disputed. The Divisional Forest Officer's letter indicated that both departments claimed rights over the land based on their records, leading to ambiguity regarding whether the land was Revenue Land or Forest Land.

2. Validity of the Letter Dated 26.11.2020 by SEIAA:

The SEIAA, based on the Divisional Forest Officer's letter, rejected the environmental clearance for Laigura Stone Quarry. The petitioner argued that the Divisional Forest Officer's letter was arbitrary and lacked justification, as it failed to definitively determine the land's status. The petitioner contended that the disputed plots were not included in the notification for the proposed reserved forest, and the land was classified as 'Rayati,' with rent being paid to the State Government. The SEIAA's decision was challenged as it relied on an unclear and disputed determination by the Divisional Forest Officer.

3. Determination of Land Ownership and Status:

The core issue revolved around whether the land where Laigura Stone Quarry is situated belongs to the Revenue Department or the Forest Department and if it falls under the proposed reserved forest area. The court examined the procedural compliance with the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, particularly Sections 4, 6, and 21, which outline the steps for declaring a reserved forest. The court noted that although a notification under Section 4 was issued in 1980, proposing the land as reserved forest, no subsequent steps were taken to finalize this status, such as issuing a proclamation by the Forest Settlement Officer or conducting necessary inquiries.

Judgment:

The court found that the procedural requirements under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, were not fulfilled, as no proclamation or inquiry was conducted following the 1980 notification. The mere issuance of a notification under Section 4 did not suffice to declare the land as reserved forest, and the rights of the petitioner, whose land was recorded as 'Rayati,' could not be overridden without proper legal processes.

The court quashed the letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bamara Wildlife Division, and the consequential letter dated 26.11.2020 by SEIAA rejecting the environmental clearance. The Tahasildar, Kuchinda, was directed to take necessary steps in accordance with the law.

The writ petition was allowed, and the court emphasized that the authorities must adhere to the prescribed legal procedures to determine land status and rights conclusively.