2022 (6) TMI 1478 - HC - Indian Laws

Stone quarry environment clearance rejection overturned due to incomplete forest reservation notification process under Section-21

Raj Kishor Deo Versus State of Odisha and Ors.

Raj Kishor Deo Versus State of Odisha and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bamara Wildlife Division.2. Validity of the letter dated 26.11.2020 issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) rejecting the environmental clearance for Laigura Stone Quarry.3. Determination of whether the land in question belongs to the Revenue Department or the Forest Department and if it falls under the proposed reserved forest area.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Letter Dated 16.10.2020 by the Divisional Forest Officer:The petitioner sought to quash the letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bamara Wildlife Division, which requested the SEIAA not to grant environmental clearance for Laigura Stone Quarry. The letter claimed the land was not demarcated and was proposed to be included in the Langposh-Baliturei Protected Reserve Forest (PRF). Despite three joint measurements conducted by the Revenue and Forest Departments, the status of the land remained disputed. The Divisional Forest Officer's letter indicated that both departments claimed rights over the land based on their records, leading to ambiguity regarding whether the land was Revenue Land or Forest Land.2. Validity of the Letter Dated 26.11.2020 by SEIAA:The SEIAA, based on the Divisional Forest Officer's letter, rejected the environmental clearance for Laigura Stone Quarry. The petitioner argued that the Divisional Forest Officer's letter was arbitrary and lacked justification, as it failed to definitively determine the land's status. The petitioner contended that the disputed plots were not included in the notification for the proposed reserved forest, and the land was classified as 'Rayati,' with rent being paid to the State Government. The SEIAA's decision was challenged as it relied on an unclear and disputed determination by the Divisional Forest Officer.3. Determination of Land Ownership and Status:The core issue revolved around whether the land where Laigura Stone Quarry is situated belongs to the Revenue Department or the Forest Department and if it falls under the proposed reserved forest area. The court examined the procedural compliance with the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, particularly Sections 4, 6, and 21, which outline the steps for declaring a reserved forest. The court noted that although a notification under Section 4 was issued in 1980, proposing the land as reserved forest, no subsequent steps were taken to finalize this status, such as issuing a proclamation by the Forest Settlement Officer or conducting necessary inquiries.Judgment:The court found that the procedural requirements under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, were not fulfilled, as no proclamation or inquiry was conducted following the 1980 notification. The mere issuance of a notification under Section 4 did not suffice to declare the land as reserved forest, and the rights of the petitioner, whose land was recorded as 'Rayati,' could not be overridden without proper legal processes.The court quashed the letter dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bamara Wildlife Division, and the consequential letter dated 26.11.2020 by SEIAA rejecting the environmental clearance. The Tahasildar, Kuchinda, was directed to take necessary steps in accordance with the law.The writ petition was allowed, and the court emphasized that the authorities must adhere to the prescribed legal procedures to determine land status and rights conclusively.