Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition seeking the quashment of order passed by SDO (Forest), Ghatigaon, Gwalior, which directed the closure of the petitioner’s stone cutting plant and cancelled the NOC for operating petitioner’s stone cutting plant, a single-judge bench of Anand Pathak, J., upheld the cancellation of the NOC on not finding any procedural or substantive error in the respondent’s actions. The Court held that “when the land is of social forestry then petitioner cannot be permitted to undergo any construction or excavation activity over it.”
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner purchased land at Mohna, Tehsil Ghatigaon, District Gwalior, through a registered sale-deed dated 07-03-2005. An NOC was granted to the petitioner by the SDO (Forest) Ghatigaon on 06-04-2005, allowing operation of the stone cutting plant. The Forest Department later identified the land as revenue land designated for plantation purposes and consequently, cancelled the NOC, vide order dated 13-04-2006, without prior notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the SDO (Forest), which directed the closure of the petitioner’s stone cutting plant, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash the same.
Moot Point
-
Whether the order of cancellation of the NOC was lawful given that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to be heard?
-
Whether the land in question was correctly classified as forest land earmarked as social forestry?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contented that the cancellation of the NOC was executed without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for the petitioner to defend their position, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the land was legitimately purchased and that the cancellation of the NOC was unjustified. However, the respondents argued that the land was previously part of a Panch Van (Social Forest Division) where plantation activities had occurred, and thus, the NOC was rightfully cancelled. The respondents contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond after the cancellation, but failed to comply within the stipulated period. The respondents further contended that construction activities were ceased by the petitioner after 2012, making the petition irrelevant.
Court’s Analysis
While examining whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to, the Court found that the respondents had provided a subsequent opportunity to the petitioner to present their case, albeit outside the original notice period.
The Court stated that “possibility cannot be ruled out, as per the prevalent practice, person who involved in mining or excavation stone etc. tend to expand the area of operation and in that spree, licensee tends to excavate the sand or other minerals beyond the prescribed limit.” The Court noted that the evidence presented shows that the land was indeed part of a forest land earmarked for social forestry under RLGP Scheme plantation. The Court stated that the Forest Ranger’s report confirmed the presence of old and dried plants, thereby supporting the claim that the land was reserved for forestry.
The Court asserted that when the land is designated as forest land, the petitioner cannot be permitted to carry out construction or excavation activities, as it would harm the environment. The Court found that the petitioner’s failure to respond to the show-cause notice and the cessation of construction activities since 2012, weakened the petitioner’s case.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the order dated 13-04-2006 was justified based on the land’s classification and the fact that the petitioner had no standing to continue the case given the cessation of activities. The Court dismissed the present petition for lack of merit.
[Neeraj Vyas v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 3249 of 2006, Decided on -07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri N.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri S.D.Singh, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Vishal Tripathi, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondents/State
