Entire Gurugram, Faridabad, 9 other districts 'forest' as per 2018 SC judgment; demolition of constructions not practical: Haryana Govt

The Haryana government has told the Supreme Court that complying with the top court's 2018 judgment on definition of 'forest land' would have huge practical implications since constructions and structures on almost 40 percent of the geographical area in the State would have to be demolished thereby, affecting millions of people. .Going by the 2018 judgment in MC Mehta (Kant Enclave matters) v. Union of India), 100 percent of the area in eleven districts including Gurugram, Faridabad, Panchkula, Ambala and Yamunanagar would be considered as forest land under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLP Act) and all constructions on such land would have to be demolished, an affidavit filed by the State government said. The demolitions required are on a mammoth scale and beyond the capacity of the State government and would also create serious and unparalleled law and order problems, the Manohar Lal Khattar government told the apex court."About 39.35 percent of the geographical area of the State of Haryana being notified under the provisions of PLP Act are required to be considered as forest and every structure constructed after issuance of the notification for the first time are required to be considered as illegal and are required to be demolished. There are millions and millions of people who are severely affected due to almost 40 percent of geographical area of the State now being considered as forest lands and due to millions of structure which are now required to be considered as illegal," the affidavit pointed out. .The affidavit was filed in response to an October 5, 2021 order of the top court asking the Haryana government to clarify how how ares in the State were first notified as forest area. .Earlier, on July 23, 2021 a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari had directed the Haryana government to ensure that all unauthorised structures standing on Aravali forest land should be cleared. The demolition of Khori gan jhuggis had happened pursuant to the same..The government in its affidavit said that the Supreme Court in its 2014 judgment in BS Sandhu versus Government of India had held that mere issuance of notifications under PLP Act will not make an area 'forest'. However, the Court in 2018 judgment in MC Mehta (Kant Enclave matters) case took a contrary view and held that mere inclusion of any land in any notification issued under the provisions of PLP Act would make the land 'forest'. .The government has contended in its affidavit that object of PLP Act is conserving and restoring land and soil from erosion, and notification of land for the same would be in force only for a limited period till the expiry of the notification, and not forever."Intention of PLPA has never been to create or convert notified land into forest land in any manner. The closure or prohibition which is sought to be enforced as a temporary measure solely as a measure to regulate, restrict or prohibit certain activities during the period of such closure which is lifted upon the expiry of the said period," the affidavit said.But by way of 2018 judgment, all areas notified under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PLP Act are deemed to be 'forest land' even if the validity of the notification under PLP Act has expired..Later, with the order passed on July 23, 2021 by the Supreme Court, every unauthorised structure standing on forest land would have to be removed.This would create practical difficulties, the State highlighted.."The lands notified under the provisions of the Punjab land preservation act include both Government and private land and also the structures that have come up on these lands including schools, colleges, hospitals, Police Stations, roads, transmission lines, government buildings, defence establishment, infrastructure, residential houses. including those developed by the government corporations," the State government submitted.It would lead to unprecedented law and order issues, the affidavit underscored..The Haryana government also highlighted that the Haryana assembly had passed an amendment to PLP Act by excluding certain land out of the ambit of PLPA notification for purposes of construction. However, the amendment was stayed by Supreme Court on March 1, 2019. The Haryana government has sought to justify the amendment by submitting that the basis of a court ruling can be taken away by the legislature and a consequential law can be brought into force.