Summary
The Supreme Court held that Kant Enclave was forest land, or had to be treated as such, and construction after the 18 August 1992 closure notification was unlawful. Earlier planning permissions and court orders did not override the forest restrictions. The Court protected specified pre-notification construction, ordered demolition of later construction, directed purchaser refunds with 18% interest and compensation for demolished buildings, and required a Rs.5 crore environmental rehabilitation deposit.
Issues
- Whether Kant Enclave land closed under the Punjab Land Preservation Act was forest land subject to restrictions on non-forest use.
- Whether earlier exemptions, planning approvals, court orders or B.S. Sandhu authorised construction or reopened settled issues.
- What demolition, purchaser compensation and environmental rehabilitation relief should follow.
Provisions considered
- Section 4 and notification dated 18 August 1992, Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900The notification prohibited clearing or breaking up the land; construction necessarily involved that activity. The land remained notified and was forest land or required to be treated as such on the record and prior decisions. (¶¶ 9–12, 64–66, 75, 86–121)
- Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980Non-forest use of the notified forest land required prior Central Government approval; planning permissions and State departmental support did not substitute for it. (¶¶ 34–38, 45–48, 62–64, 99–105, 141)
- Section 23, Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975The earlier exemption under this enactment did not exempt the developer or land from the subsequent PLP notification. The original exemption’s validity was not adjudicated. (¶¶ 4–5, 128)
- Section 29(1) and (7), Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971The controlled-area planning provisions did not displace the later forest-protection notification. (¶ 125–127)
Held
- The consistent government records, senior officers’ affidavits, statutory notifications and previous judgments established Kant Enclave’s forest character. The 1980 commencement date of the conservation law was not a bar to subsequent recognition or treatment of land as forest. B.S. Sandhu was distinguished on its facts and did not reopen the settled Haryana decisions. (¶¶ 67–77, 86–121, 129)
- The notification had neither been withdrawn nor directly challenged. Its applicability could not be avoided by asserting an administrative mistake, invoking development legislation or relying on earlier exemptions and approvals. Court orders permitted only action consistent with law and did not nullify the notification. (¶¶ 119, 124–131)
- The previous orders protected the Aravalli environment from both mining and construction. Recasting already rejected submissions as clarification or modification did not change their substantive character as review applications, ordinarily requiring circulation; nevertheless, the Court examined the merits here. (¶¶ 78–85, 122–123)
- All construction after 18 August 1992 was unlawful. Construction made pursuant to the 17 April 1984 exemption before the notification was left undisturbed. Haryana was directed to demolish post-notification construction by 31 December 2018. (¶¶ 121, 139–140)
- Persons conveyed land without construction were entitled to a full investment refund with 18% annual interest from investment, payable entirely by R. Kant & Co. Owners whose post-notification buildings were to be demolished were also entitled to refund of their land investment with the same interest. (¶¶ 137–138, 141)
- For owners whose post-notification construction was ordered demolished, construction compensation was tentatively fixed at Rs.50 lakh, payable equally by R. Kant & Co. and Haryana’s Town and Country Planning Department by 31 December 2018. A dissatisfied owner could pursue a civil suit against them, with the cause of action arising on the judgment date. (¶ 142)
- Applying the polluter-pays principle, the Court directed R. Kant & Co. to deposit Rs.5 crore in the Aravalli Rehabilitation Fund within one month and in any event by 31 October 2018. This direction was to be listed for compliance in the first half of November. (¶ 143)
- Haryana’s incumbent Chief Secretary was directed to secure compliance with the remaining orders by 31 December 2018. The substantive applications were disposed of on these terms. (¶ 144–145)
Result
Applications disposed of with post-18 August 1992 demolition and specified compensation due by 31 December 2018; purchaser refunds with 18% interest; Rs.5 crore rehabilitation deposit due within one month and no later than 31 October 2018. Specified earlier construction protected.