Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a public interest litigation filed seeking settlement of forest dwellers in the Morni Hills area as per the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (‘Revenue Act’) and the Punjab Settlement Manual and incidental directions, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Sumeet Goel*, J., allowed the petition, holding that the Forest Settlement Officer (‘FSO’) was vested with the power to, inter alia, conduct survey, make demarcations, make maps, and act as a Civil Court as per Section 8 of the Forest Act, 1927 (‘Forest Act’). The Court also condemned the governmental lapse of failing to notify Morni Hills as a Reserved Forest under Section 4 of the Forest Act as per the notification issued almost 38 years ago in 1987.
Background
The petitioner, espousing the cause of the public at large especially people living in the Morni Hills area, urged that though the residents of the Morni Hills area come within the definition of “traditional forest dwellers” for all intents and purposes, no efforts have been made to treat them as such. The petitioner referred to a notification issued in 1987 (‘the notification’) whereby the Government decided to constitute the land specified in the notification’s Schedule as ‘Reserved Forest’ under Section 4(1) of the Forest Act.
Issue
Whether the settlement of the Morni Hills area, including the process of demarcation, is required to be carried out entirely by the FSO alone.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the Forest Act remained a pivotal legislative instrument within Indian environmental jurisprudence, notwithstanding its historical antecedents in the pre-independence era. Enacted primarily to amalgamate and modify extent statutes about forests and arboreal produce, it has, for nearly a century, furnished the quintessential legal framework underpinning forest administration across the subcontinent.
The Court further stated that the Forest Act enunciates that whenever the State Government intends to designate any land as a Reserved Forest, it must mandatorily issue a formal notification in the official gazette under Section 4 of the Forest Act.
Regarding the State’s contention that FSO has no jurisdiction to conduct demarcation & survey of the area proposed to be proclaimed as Reserved Forest, and the said power lies within the exclusive domain of the Revenue Authorities, the Court stated that a bare perusal of Section 8 of the Forest Act revealed that the FSO was vested with the power to, inter alia, conduct survey, demarcation, making maps and act as a Civil Court. This provision in no uncertain terms statutorily empowered the FSO to conduct demarcation and survey in areas decided under Section 4 to be constituted as Reserved Forest.
Noting this, the Court stated that the State was under a misconception that the function & power of carrying out demarcation was out of the jurisdictional purview of FSO. Another misconception was that the exercise of demarcation under Section 4 is to be undertaken by the Revenue Authorities under the Revenue Act, read with Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (‘Preservation Act’). The Court explained that once a special law, i.e., the Forest Act, is enacted covering the entire subject matter of Reserved Forest, the FSO assumes exclusive jurisdiction for performing all substantive and ancillary functions, including demarcation and survey. The general law, i.e., the Revenue Act and Preservation Act stand excluded qua the subject matters covered by the Forest Act. However, the FSO can take the assistance of functionaries of the Forest and/or Revenue Department. The Court reiterated the principle of statutory interpretation, viz., Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, that the general law stands excluded in its application to the extent provided for by subsequent special law. In this regard, the Court referred to Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira, (2019) 20 SCC 85.
Upon further examination of the Forest Act, the Court remarked that the designation of an FSO, coupled with the vesting of such an officer with all necessary and requisite resources, constitutes an essential and non-derogable element of the entire process. The FSO is tasked with a pivotal and exigent role in this intricate legal and administrative journey, undertaking meticulous inquiries into claims of rights and adjudicating them. The FSO’s function, therefore, is not merely ancillary but fundamentally integral to the legitimate establishment of a Reserved Forest.
Regarding the facts of the case, the Court noted that the notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act way back in 1987. The Court remarked that the pleadings filed by the State reflect a sordid state of affairs because no concrete steps appeared to have been taken since 1987. The Court added that Article 48-A of the Constitution, though not justiciable in a Court of law binds the State to treat it as fundamental in the governance of the nation and while making laws. It imposes a positive and peremptory imperative upon the State to strive for the improvement of the environment and the vigilant protection and safeguarding of forests and wildlife. The supine inaction of the State in adhering to the dictates of this foundational Article constitutes not merely a perfunctory disavowal of a directive principle of state policy, but also stands as an outrageous affront to the capacious ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further stated that Article 21 includes the indefeasible right to a healthy and unpolluted environment, thereby encompassing the imperative for the preservation of natural flora and fauna, including, inter alia, the forests. Such dereliction, therefore, transmutes from a procedural lapse into a direct infringement upon a fundamental human right. In this regard, the Court referred to Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B., (1987) 2 SCC 295.
The Court further remarked that the procrastination exercised by the State after the issuance of the notification presented a lamentable illustration of classic administrative lethargy. The Court said, “To permit nearly four decades to elapse without any discernible, substantive action flowing from a statutory declaration is, to put it mildly, an affront to the principles of effective governance and a manifest failure at the end of officers concerned, both statutory and Constitutional. Such inaction on the part of such officers, particularly in a matter of such profound public importance, merits the unequivocal condemnation of this Court.” The Court highlighted that the State, as the ultimate custodian and protector of its citizens’ rights, is endowed with a solemn responsibility to act with dispatch and diligence, especially when confronted with issues of pressing environmental concern. The prolonged failure to finalize the process initiated by the 1987 notification undermined the very spirit of the Forest Act and portrayed a shocking lack of urgency. Thus, the Court was compelled to deprecate, in the strongest possible terms, the protracted official lethargy and its discernible unwillingness to discharge its solemn responsibilities in a timely and conscientious manner.
Given the aforesaid circumstances, the Court issued a writ of mandamus to compel the official authorities concerned to undertake, with immediate and unwavering resolve, all consequential steps in furtherance of the notification. Permitting such inordinate inaction and pervasive sluggishness to persist would allow the very object and purpose of the Forest Act to be utterly defeated, rendering a vital piece of legislation a mere dead letter from the statute.
The Court also commented that the Morni Hills served as the prime green cover, acting as lungs for tri-city Chandigarh, Panchkula, and Mohali.
Decision
Given the discussion hereinabove, the petition was disposed of in the following terms:
- The FSO shall take requisite steps to ensure expeditious submission of his report with a further direction to the State to thereafter issue a notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act of the scheduled land as a Reserved Forest latest by 31-12-2025.
- The FSO shall be given all the documents qua demarcation and survey which are presently in possession of the Revenue Authorities, Forest Authorities, and Survey of India Authorities. The FSO shall be provided, forthwith, with all requisite facilities/infrastructure to enable him to discharge his duties contemplated in Chapter II of the Forest Act.
-
The interim order passed by this Court restraining all non-forest activities in the Morni Hills area, as per the notification, shall continue till issuance of a notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act.
Furthermore, the Court directed the Forest Secretary, Haryana, to file a compliance affidavit, in terms of the directions made hereinabove, within 7 months from today, failure wherein may invite punitive consequences for the officer and other functionaries concerned.
The next date of hearing was listed in the second week of January 2026 for consideration of such compliance affidavit.
[Vijay Bansal v. State of Haryana, CWP-469-2017 (O&M), decided on 20-06-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sumeet Goel
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ravi Sharma, Sandeep Singh Sangwan, and Raywant Kaushish
For the respondent: Addl. Advocate General of Haryana Deepak Balyan, Secretary (Forest) of Haryana V. Tyagi, and Puneet Kaur Sekhon