IFS officer bares land mess before tribunal

CHANDIGARH: An Indian Forest Services (IFS) officer in the Punjab government has, in a statement to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), said land preservation law PLPA 1900, Forest Conservation Act 1980, and “judgments” of the Supreme Court and Punjab and Haryana high court, are “not followed properly” in the ecologically sensitive forests of the Lower
Shivaliks in Mohali and rest of Punjab.

Senior forest officer Harsh Kumar, in his March 1 reply to NGT summons issued to him over a controversial letter on PLPA, has pegged the number of cases under which permissions have not been sought under the Punjab Land Preservation Act of 1900 (PLPA) at

120. He has mentioned the seven-star hotel, Sukhvilas Spa and Resort, “owned by former deputy chief minister Sukhbir Badal’s companies” among these cases.

That is not all.

Kumar, who made news over the controversial letter he wrote to developers to inform them about the upcoming “expiry” of the PLPA in Mohali, said forest and non-forest land in the entire Kandi belt of Punjab had not been demarcated. “No one in the field knows which areas are forests and non-forests, and which areas are covered under PLPA 1900 and which are under sections 4 and 5 of PLPA,” he wrote to NGT. “The only thing being done is to harass public and allow unscrupulous people to do felling of trees.”

Following the letter to developers, Kumar was transferred from the post of chief conservator of forests (hills) to CCF (IT) on January 30, 2018. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal two days later, and a status quo was imposed on the transfer. While Kumar claims he continues to be the CCF (hills), the state government has clarified that IFS officer Saurabh Gupta is occupying the post.

PLPA will be changed, says forest officer

When contacted, Punjab principal chief conservator of forests Jitendra Sharma said Kumar’s claims were “lies”. “To begin with, he is not CCF (hills),” he said.

Sharma has called Kumar’s submission fallout of “a grudge against the answering deponent for cancelling his unauthorized letters to safeguard environment in Punjab and upholding directions of the tribunal”.

Admitting that the PLPA was an old law that needed to be changed, Sharma said the state government was in the process of framing a policy on the PLPA. He, however, could not give a timeframe. “All I can say is that it is going to take some time,” he said.

Clarifying on the issue of the seven-star resort, Sharma said: “As far as the resort is concerned, it has been granted clearances under the Forest Conservation Act, so we don’t need to give it a clearance under PLPA. The FCA is overarching on lands where both PLPA and the forest Act apply.”

On its part, the company which set up the seven-star resort, Metro Eco Green Resorts, reiterated there was no wrongdoing. “We have taken all required permissions from both the Union government as well as the State of Punjab. The project is not in violation of any environment law. In fact, all necessary permissions under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) were taken after meeting all requirements. This includes handing over alternative land for afforestation and compensatory planting of trees. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has given clearance to the project under the FCA after studying all aspects, including the applicability of PLPA. The FCA is an overarching law,” a representative of the firm said in an email to The Times of India.

Sharma confirmed there had been some violations in the resort. “They had cut trees and a penalty has been imposed on them,” he said.

Confusion for villagers too

Kumar’s contentions on the lack of clarification over PLPA and non-PLPA land find echoes in a civil writ petition filed by Saroj Devi, the sarpanch of Majrian, one of the 14 villages in Mohali district which fall under PLPA, in the Punjab and Haryana high court.

In the petition filed on behalf of residents of the village for compensation under PLPA, Devi has submitted that “the State of Punjab has been mechanically and without any application of mind, applying the instructions under Sections 4 and 5 of PLPA, 1900 over the lands situated in Village Majrian for the last more than 100 years”.

Devi’s petition adds that the notification does not mention which part of Majrian is to be brought under PLPA.

“Even in the remarks column there is a mention of some map, but to the knowledge of the petitioner no such map was prepared and in case it was, the same was not/ has not been made available. Further, in the remarks column, it has been mentioned that the field maps are being prepared however, no such exercise has been done by the respondents and as such the boundaries cannot be ascertained,” it has been submitted.