मसूरी: शिकायत कर्ता मुकुल हांडा की शिकायत पर कसमंडा लॉज स्टेड के निर्माण पर एम,डी, डी, ए, ने लगाई रोक

Mussoorie: M,D,D,A put a stay on the construction of Kasamanda Lodge Stadt on the complaint of complainant Mukul Handa

रिपोर्टर,,,,, सतीश कुमार: मसूरी,,,,पहाड़ो की रानी मसूरी वेध व अवैध निर्माणों को लेकर चर्चाओं का सिलसिला जारी रहता है कारण यहां मसूरी देहरादून विकास प्राधिकरण से आवासीय नक्शा स्वीकृत करवाकर ओर नक्शे के विपरीत जा कर निर्माण कर व बाद में पर्यटन विभाग तथा अन्य विभगों से सांठगांठ कर होटलों में तब्दील करने की परम्परा बन सी गई है मेरा कहना यहाँ यह नहीं है कि वर्तमान में तैनात एम,डी, डी, ए, के सहायक अभियंता, अवर अभियंता, व अधिशासी अभियंता बड़ी ही मुस्तेदी से इन निर्माण कार्यों का समय समय पर जायजा लेते रहतें है और अभी पिछले कुछ महीनों में अवैध निर्माणों का ध्वस्तीकरण व सीज भी किये है ।

ऐसा ही एक मामला कसमंडा लॉज स्टेड के मानचित्र को लेकर सामने आया है जिसका खुलासा शिकायत कर्ता मुकुल हांडा ने सूचना के अधिकार 2005 अधिनियम के माध्यम से कसमंडा लॉज स्टेड के मानचित्र को चुनोती दी मुकुल हांडा जिन्होंने उक्त स्वीकृत मानचित्र के प्रति आरोप लगाते हुवे कहा कि मानचित्र गलत तरीके से विभाग ने स्वीकृत किया है उन्होंने सबूतों के साथ बताया कि जहाँ मानचित्र स्वीकृत किया गया है वहां पीलिंत एरिया नगर पालिका से प्राप्त वर्ष 60/70 के दशक के मानचित्र में उक्त जगह पर एक टिन का छोटा सा हवा घर पहाड़ी पर हुवा करता था वहां किसी भी प्रकार का भवन या आउट हाउस नही थे और यदि थे भी तो नगर पालिका में हाउस टैक्स क्यो नही भरा गया मुकुल हांडा शिकायत कर्ता ने कहा कि नगर पालिका के ड्राफ़्ट मेन व वनविभाग ने गलत एनओसी साठगांठ कर कर दी जो नियमो के विपरीत है ।

उन्होंने इसकी शिकायत एम, डी, डी, ए, वन विभाग ,नगर पालिका, मोनेटिरिंग कमेटी सुप्रीम कोर्ट ,सतर्कता विभग ,आदि आदि को की जिसका समाचार गत दिनों प्रकाशित किया गया जिसका संज्ञान लेते हुवे प्राधिकरण के कर्मठ अतुल गुप्ता अधिशासी अभियंता ने बताया कि एम ,डी, डी, ए, ने उत्तराखंड प्रदेश (उ,प्र,नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम 1973)की धारा 27(1)एवं 28(1)के अंतर्गत निर्माण कार्य को रुकवा दिया है । इससे भोखलाकर निर्माण करा रहेे स्वामी द्वारा समाचार प्रकाशित करने को ले कर पत्रकार को देख लेंगे व न्यायालय में जाने की धमकी दे डाली जबकि उन्हें यह नही मालूम कि वे खुद मा, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों की अववेलना कर रहें है ।

यहां चाहे कुछ भी हो सच को सच ओर ग़लत को ग़लत लिखना एक पत्रकार की जिम्मेदारी बनती है ।यहां मा, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों की प्रति भी प्रकाशित की जा रही है ताकि नगर पालिका ,वनविभाग, प्राधिकरण, सनद रहे ।
SUPREME COURT MONITORING COMMITTEE V. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Order

1. By our order dated 10-7-1996 we had passed an interim order to the effect that construction which has begun at the site but had not proceeded beyond the plinth shall not be permitted to be started till we know the stand of the State of U.P and the Union of India as regards the applicability of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules made thereunder. We had also noticed the submissions of the counsel for MDDA that the provisions of the said statute has limited application, in that, it prohibits breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants for any purposes other than afforestation excluding any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development, management of forest and the establishment of check-posts etc. The question which this Court is required to consider is whether the area in question is a forest and stands covered under the 1980 Act, to prevent building activity on open areas within the forest. MDDA had then contended that according to its understanding the activity which is not covered under the explanation to Section 2 of the 1980 Act is permissible. After this order was made notices were issued to as many as 27 parties and their responses were called for. The allegations against these 27 parties was that they had raised construction within the forest area in violation of the provisions of the 1980 act without obtaining clearance from the Central Government. So far as State of U.P and MDDA are concerned they were at that relevant point of time of the opinion that the permission of the Central Government was not required if the building activity did not, in any manner, require felling of trees or causing any harm to the existing trees. This is what is found to have been stated in the letter of the Conservator of Forests, Yamuna Circle, U.P dated 13-9-1988. That is, however, a matter of the past. What is important is that the stand now taken by the State of U.P as well as MDDA is that in view of Section 2(ii) the clearance from the Central Government was necessary. That provision states that notwithstanding anything contained for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose and the explanation states that non-forest purposes shall mean the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants for any purpose other than afforestation but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forest. It is, therefore, clear from this provision which has overriding effect on all laws for the time being in force in a State that no State Government or other authority which would include MDDA can make any order without the approval of the Central Government for the user of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose as explained by the explanation thereto. The term “forest land” has not been defined under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or the 1980 Act and, therefore, has to be understood as including an extensive track of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture, i.e, it will have to be understood in the broad dictionary sense. So understood any area which the State Act considers to be a forest and is governed under that law will also be subject to Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act. Viewed in this light, any land which the State of U.P by notification declares to be a forest would be governed under Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act.

2. Mr Ahmad, the learned ASG appearing for MDDA, very fairly stated that on a true construction of Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act before permitting any non-forest activity it was required to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government. Mr Sehgal, the learned counsel for the State of U.P, did not contest this proposition. That being so it is obvious that if MDDA or the State Government granted permission to the user of any area notified and declared to be a forest area under the U.P Private Forest Act, 1948 without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government, that was prima facie in violation of Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act. The question then is to ascertain what non-forest activity has been permitted by MDDA or the State of U.P without the prior approval of the Central Government. Any building activity permitted within the forest area would certainly be a non-forest activity which requires the prior approval of the Central Government. We are also told that residents of Mussoorie have applied for permission to use some portions of the forest area for building purposes but MDDA has not taken any decision thereon. That is what the association of estate owners in Writ Petition No. 469 of 1996 complain of. In the circumstances we think it appropriate to give the following directions:

(1) The State of U.P as well as the MDDA will enlist cases in which they gave permission to make use of any forest land for non-forest purposes without seeking the prior approval of the Central Government. All those cases will be forwarded to the Central Government for seeking ex post facto approval in the matter which will be considered in accordance with the Rules framed under the 1980 Act. While examining the question regarding grant of ex post facto approval, the Central Government will also enquire into the matter whether these permissions were granted on extraneous considerations or were only by way of a bona fide mistake. If the Central Government comes to the conclusion that they were granted on extraneous considerations they will try to identify the officer/person responsible for the same and also ascertain if the action of that person amounts to an offence under any provision of law and if yes, to take consequential action.
(2) All applications pending with the State Government or MDDA seeking permission to use forest land for non-forest purposes shall be processed under Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act read with the Rules framed thereunder. This would be necessary where the State Government or MDDA is of the view that permission should be granted subject to prior approval by the Central Government. The said order of this Court will operate so long as prior approval of the Central Government is not obtained.
3. We are told that the Central Government has also issued directions to the State Government to take action against the officers responsible for granting permission without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government. That process may continue but that may not cover cases where the permission was granted for extraneous considerations. That is the reason why we have directed that the Central Government will bear this aspect in mind also while dealing with the first category of cases where permissions were granted and non-forest user has taken place without the prior approval of the Central Government.

4. As this is an urgent matter we would expect the State Government, MDDA as well as the Central Government to swing into action immediately so that an early end can be put to the present writ petitions.

5. List these matters after 10 weeks.

Court Masters