JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, C. J.—The petitioner is a mining lease holder of Gare Goshini quarries and had been quarrying slate-stones from the said quarry atleast from 1985. Agreement Annexure P-l indicates that he purchased the quarrying right of the aforesaid quarry in a public auction on 21-5-84 and was granted the lease hold w.e.f. 25-3-1985 for a period of five years ending on 24-3-1990 The said lease was extended for a further period of five years from 25-3-1990 to 24-3-1995, vide Annexure P-2. It appears that in the year 1992, respondent Deputy Commissioner, classified the said area as un-demarcated forest land and, therefore, directed that all mining operations thereupon -should be stopped forthwith. The order of said respondent dated 4-5-1992 was conveyed to the petitioner as Annexure P-3 The petitioner protested against the aforesaid order and requested that the same be withdrawn (vide Annexure P-4) Since no action, whatsoever, was taken on the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the legal validity of the order, Annexure P-3, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court by its interim order dated 30th December, 1992 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order and hence the petitioner is continuing the mining operations thereupon. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the quarry-site cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as forest land and hence the impugned order is illegal. It is specifically submitted that the quarrying in that area has been continuing since long and the said rights were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985 and hence stopping the mining operation after the same has been done by the petitioner for little over six years, is illegal. The learned Advocate General brought to our notice the notification of 1st June, 1986 issued by the Lt. Governor of the then State of Punjab under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, constituting the area covered by the petitioners lease as part of "protected forest" and submitted that since the leased area is a part of "protected forest", provisions of section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1980) are attracted and hence no mining operation could be permitted. The petitioners learned Counsel in reply submitted that even if the said notification was held to be valid, the area would be a part of protected forest under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act and hence provision of section 2 of the Act of 1980 would not be attracted. 3. Section 2 of the Act admittedly applies to forest land and not to protected forest. A protected forest under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act may consist of forest land as well as waste land. Under the circumstances, simply because a particular area forms part of protected forest, it cannot be assumed that all lands including therein is forest land. There is nothing on record to indicate that the laud covered by the mining lease is recorded as forest land anywhere in the revenue record. Indeed, the revenue records—maintained under the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, require the nature of land to be specifically recorded. Under the circum stances it is reasonable to assume that if the land covered by the agreement with the petitioner was recorded as forest land in any of the revenue records maintained under the aforesaid Act, the respondents would have produced the said record for consideration of this Court. Since no such record is produced, it is reasonable to assume that the land in dispute is not recorded as forest land anywhere in the revenue record. As long as it is not established as a fact that the land in dispute is forest land, section 2 of the Act would not be attracted. There is, therefore, no justification in law for the impugned order which must be held to be illegal and un justified. 4. The learned Advocate General then referred to the impugned order as well as the order of the respondent Deputy Commissioner, dated 27-8- 1991, (Annexure P 6) and submitted that the disputed land is recorded as Government land and thereafter classified as un-demarcated forest land by the respondent, Deputy Commissioner and hence section 2 of the Act would be attracted. A reading of the impugned order Annexure P-3 indicates that the reason for stopping of mining operation is that Government land has been classified as undemarcated forest land by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. A reading of the impugned order Annexure P-3 indicates that the reason for stopping of mining operation is that Government land has been classified as undemarcated forest land by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. The letter of the respondent Deputy Commissioner, (Annexure P-6) indicates that he believes that all the un-demarcated land in District Kullu is covered by the definition of forest land. These documents, therefore, establish that the land in dispute is either Government land as in Annexure P-3 or un-demarcated land as in Annexure P-6. These letters would further indicate that it is the respondent Deputy Commissioner, who has now treated the laud to be forest land. It was because of this that this Court required the learned Advocate General to clarify the source of authority of the respondent Deputy Commissioner to make the aforesaid classification. In this connection, it is also necessary to refer to the interim order dated 2-3-1993 whereby the respondent Deputy Commissioner was required to file a detailed affidavit pointing out how the land in question has been classified as forest land when according to the averments of the petitioner it is a Banjar land and quarrying operations are continuing over it even prior to 1985. No affidavit seems to have been filed by the said respondent. The learned Advocate General has also not been able to point out any authority given by any law to the said respondent to make the aforesaid declaration. The reply affidavit dated 4-1-1993 filed by Shri Subhash Negi, the respondent Director of Industries, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 indicates that the respondent Deputy Commissioner had after renewal of the lease of the petitioner, classified all un-demarcated Government land as forest land. In the absence of any authority vested in the respondent Deputy Commissioner to make such a declaration, his declaration cannot have any legal effect. The H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 would indicate that the Deputy Commissioner of a District, as such, is not recognised as a Revenue Officer. Section 7 (2) of the said Act appoints him as an ex-officio Collector, who is one of the Revenue Officer under the Act. Section 34 of this Act requires the Collector to cause to be prepared by the Patwari of each estate yearly, an edition of the record-of-rights amended in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV thereof. Section 7 (2) of the said Act appoints him as an ex-officio Collector, who is one of the Revenue Officer under the Act. Section 34 of this Act requires the Collector to cause to be prepared by the Patwari of each estate yearly, an edition of the record-of-rights amended in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV thereof. The record-of-rights as would be clear from section 32 of the said Act, includes the record even in relation to the land belonging to the State Government. As regards quarries and waste lands section 43 of the Act is relevant, and provides for some presumptions. Section 45 of this Act clearly indicates that an entry made in the record-of-rights is presumed to be true unless proved to the contrary, or a new entry lawfully substituted therefor It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that in case the land was recorded as forest anywhere in any record-of-rights completed before 18-11-1971 and it was not provided that the same belongs to any owner, it will be presumed to be belonging to the State Government. In other words, it indicates that if a land was forest quarry or waste land, it was required to be so recorded in the record-of-rights. The Act does not give any power to the Collector to make any changes in the record-of-rights maintained under the provisions of the aforesaid Act by simply classifying Government land as Forest land. The impugned classification must, therefore, held to be without any authority of law and hence of no consequence. 5. The word forest land is not defined either in 1980 Act or in the Indian Forest Act. The provisions of the Indian Forest Act, however, indicate that reserved forest or protected forest may be constituted by including forest land and waste land belonging to the Government. It is, therefore, submitted that the word forest land would include all lands of reserved forest as well as protected forest. If reserved forest and protected forest were to be constituted by forest land belonging to the Government only, the argument may have been accepted. But that is not so. The original Indian Forest Act, 1878 under which the notification of the Lt. Governor of Punjab had been made, has been repealed long back and what is in force at the present is the Indian Forest Act, 1927. But that is not so. The original Indian Forest Act, 1878 under which the notification of the Lt. Governor of Punjab had been made, has been repealed long back and what is in force at the present is the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Act admittedly applies to the State of Himachal Pradesh because of H. P. Act of 25 of 1968. This Act does not define forest land as such. Section 3 of the Act, however, permits the State Government to constitute any forest-land or waste land which is the property of the Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights as reserved forest in the manner provided in Chapter II thereof. Once the reserved forest has been constituted by a notification under section 4 of the said Act, all rights in respect of which no claim has been preferred under section 6 become extinguished. Quarrying in a reserved forest area is also not permitted and is an offence under section 26(1) (g) of the said Act. Similarly, section 29 of the Act permits declaration to any forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserved forest but which is the property of the Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce as protected forests. Assuming that the notification issued by the Lt. Governor of Punjab on 1st June, 1896, is the notification issued under this provision, the same would, at the most, create protected forests in the area Declaration of a protected forest by itself would not be of any consequence as far as quarrying is concerned. In order to prohibit quarrying of stone, a separate notification under section 30 (c) of the above Act would be required. It is not shown to us that any notification has been issued under section 30 of this Act and hence it is reasonable to assume that there is no prohibition against the quarrying of stone within the protected forests The purpose of creating a protected forests appears to be to regulate cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees and timber by granting licence or otherwise. The land included in the protected forests can be cleared and broken up for cultivation and other purposes. Such forest land may also permit cutting of grass and pastering of cattle. The land included in the protected forests can be cleared and broken up for cultivation and other purposes. Such forest land may also permit cutting of grass and pastering of cattle. All these rights are to be regulated by making Rules under section 32 of the said Act. Whether the Government wishes to create a reserved forest or a protected forest, a notification is a must and after notifications have been issued, the record in respect of the area has to be corrected in the manner provided under the Land Revenue Act. This would be clear from the provisions of section 20 (1) as well as section 29 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Once a declaration about a reserved forest or protected forest has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the area is known as reserved forest and protected forest and ceases to be known as waste land or the Government land or forest land. The question requiring consideration is whether section 2 of the Act 1980, which prohibits any portion of forest land to be used for any non-forest purpose applies to land included in the reserved forests or protected forest. Reading section 2 of the Act in the context of statement of objects and reasons, it is not possible to hold that the word forest land would include any land anywhere outside a reserved forest area, The objective of the Act is to require prior approval of the Central Government for de-reservation of the reserved forest and use of forest land for non forest purpose and nothing more. It is intended to prevent de-afforestation which causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental deterioration. Since reserved forest area is exclusive area for the purpose of forest and afforestation, it would be reasonable to hold that the prohibition under section 2 of the Act 1980 applies to—forest land within a reserved forest area and nothing more. In this view of the matter, there would be no justification for imposing the burden of section 2 of the Act 1980 on the petitioner. 6. In this view of the matter, there would be no justification for imposing the burden of section 2 of the Act 1980 on the petitioner. 6. Even if it was to be held that the word forest land includes every land recorded as such whether in any reserved forest or protected forest or outside thereof, there must be evidence to show that the land in dispute is the land recorded as such Since there is no evidence in this behalf even the wide meaning given to the words forest land would not help the respondents. 7. In view of the discussion aforesaid, petition succeeds and is allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 4-5-1992 (Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No. 4 and the order dated 27-8-1991, (Annexure P-6) —issued by respondent No. 5. As a necessary consequence, the petitioner would be entitled to work his quarry during the leased period. No costs. Petition allowed.