ORDER : Petitioner is assailing the Order P/1 passed by State Government on 26th June, 2002 whereby the State Government has held that area in question falls within the forest area as such petitioner cannot be allowed operation of the quarry. 2. Lampoo Ganod/petitioner was granted quarry lease for extraction of flag stone for a period of ten years, which was sanctioned on 12-3-1998. Collector, Panna sent the case for reconsideration under Rule 58 of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 on 22-4-1998. On 13-10-1998 the State Government sanctioned the lease on the condition that Collector to ensure that the area in question is not affected by the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. DFO in his report dated 16-3-2000 reported to the Collector that Sy. No. 140 has been notified under section 4 of the Forest Act, 1927; hence the matter was referred by the Collector to the State Government for cancellation of the lease granted to the petitioner Lampoo Gond; on 31-3-2000 the State Government cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. The order of cancellation dated 31-3-2000 was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 3088/2000 which was decided on 9-11-2000; this Court remitted the matter to the State Government and directed consideration of the documents and holding enquiry and in case area is a reserved forest, the petitioner shall have no right to operate the quarry. Another Writ Petition 410/2001 was preferred which was decided on 30-1-2001; the State Government was directed to consider the various reports the order was passed on 18-2-2001 holding that area in question is in forest and the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 are applicable. The order was passed by the State Government on 19-2-2001. Against this order another Writ Petition 1463/2001 was preferred in which it was directed that as the Government did not hear the petitioner before passing the order, direction was given to the State Government to grant hearing to the petitioner; thereafter the matter was again taken up by the State Government and the petitioner has been heard and the impugned order (P/1) has been passed on 26-2-2002 after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner. On considerations of various documents on record the State Government has come to the conclusion that the area in question falls within the forest area and is covered by notification issued under section 4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 on 3rd May, 1957. On consideration of the survey demarcation report, it has been held that the area in question falls within the forest. On consideration of the answer given in the legislative assembly and other relevant material the finding given is that the area has never been separated from the forest nor has been allotted to any displaced person and the nature of land is a forest land. 4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner Shri N. C. Jain submits that section 4 of the Forest Act prescribes the procedure for notifying the land as reserved forest and this notification represents merely the intention of the State Government; issuance of section 4 notification does not mean that reserved forest has been constituted. When the declaration is made under section 20 of the Forest Act, thereafter the land only becomes the reserved forest. Learned senior counsel for petitioner further submitted that from the various documents, it is clear that area in question is not in the reserved forest and inspite of the directions issued by this Court the documents have not been taken into consideration, thus, the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. His alternative submission is that as the petitioner had invested the amount and was not at fault as the lease was granted and he operated it for more than an year, thus, the respondents should be directed to pay adequate compensation. 5. It is clear from the order (P/1) that area in question is covered by the notification issued under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 provides that whenever it has been decided to constitute any land, a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the official gazette. Once a notification is issued under section 4 as per section 5 of the Indian Forest Act there is bar of accrual of forest rights. Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 provides that whenever it has been decided to constitute any land, a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the official gazette. Once a notification is issued under section 4 as per section 5 of the Indian Forest Act there is bar of accrual of forest rights. After the issue of a notification under section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued, and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf. Section 7 empowers the Forest Settlement Officer to make an enquiry; section 8 deals with powers of Forest Settlement Officer; section 9 deals with extinction of rights; rights in respect of which no claim has been preferred under section 6 and of the existence of which no knowledge has been acquired by inquiry under section 7, shall be extinguished, unless before the notification under section 20 is published, the person claiming them satisfies the Forest Settlement Officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within the period fixed under section 6. The orders can be passed, after issue of notification under section 11, with respect to the right over the land; section 12 deals with claim to rights of pasture or to forest produce. The Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the claim to right to pasture or to forest produce in whole or in part; the record has to be prepared under section 13 and section 15 requires that in record of the Forest Settlement Officer rights admitted are to be indicated and an appeal lies under section 17 from the orders passed under section 11, 12, 15 or 16. Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act deals with notification declaring forest reserved. Section 20 of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 read as under :- "20. Notification declaring forest reserved. Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act deals with notification declaring forest reserved. Section 20 of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 read as under :- "20. Notification declaring forest reserved. - (1) When the following events have occurred, namely - (a) the period fixed under section 6 for preferring claims has elapsed, and all claims, if any, made under that section or section 9 have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer ; (b) If any such claims have been made, the period limited by section 17 for appealing from the orders passed on such claims has elapsed, and all appeals (if any) presented within such period have been disposed of the appellate officer or Court; and (c ) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement Officer has, under section11, elected to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have become vested in the Government under section 16 of that Act, the State Government shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette specifying definitely, according to boundary-marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and declaring the same to be reserved, and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification. (2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest." 6. It is clear from the scheme of the Indian Forest Act that there is bar on accrual of the rights; once notification under section 4 has been issued notwithstanding the fact that area has not been declared finally as reserved forest under section 20 the area in question remains the forest. However, not the reserved one. The meaning of word "forest" has been defined by the Apex Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others, (1997) 2 SCC 267 , in which the following general directions were issued for the State of M. P. :- 1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. In accordance with section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith. 2. In addition to the above, in the tropical wet evergreen forests of Tirap and Changlang in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there would be a complete ban on felling of any kind of trees therein because of their particular significance to maintain ecological balance needed to preserve bio-diversity. All saw mills, veneer mills and plywood mills in Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a distance of 100 kms. from its border, in Assam, should also be closed immediately. The State Governments of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam must ensure compliance of this direction. 3. The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the working plans of the State Governments, as approved by the Central Government. In the absence of any working plan in any particular State, such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system exists, the felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest Department of the State Government or the State Forest Corporation. 4. There shall be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to any other State of the country either by rail, road or waterways. The Indian Railways and the State Governments are directed to take all measures necessary to ensure strict compliance of this direction. This ban will not apply to the movement of certified timber required for defence or other Government purposes. This ban will also not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area, which is not a forest. 5. This ban will not apply to the movement of certified timber required for defence or other Government purposes. This ban will also not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area, which is not a forest. 5. Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to : (i) Identify areas, which are "forests", irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest; (ii) Identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and (33) Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. 6. Each State Government should within two months, file a report regarding; (i) the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills actually operating within the State, with particulars of their real ownership; (ii) the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing; (iii) their proximity to the nearest forest; (iv) their source of timber. 7. Each State Government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess ; (i) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State qua saw mills and timber-based industry; (ii) the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State; (iii) the optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, at which the saw mill should be located. 8. The Expert Committee so constituted should be requested to give its report within one month of being constituted. 9. Each State Government would constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee the compliance of this order and file status report." 7. The Apex Court imposed complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber for any of the seven North-Eastern States. The Apex Court defined the meaning of word "forest" to mean that it must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land" occurring in section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land" occurring in section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. The Apex Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others (1997) 2 SCC 267 , held that :- "4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambic Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee vs. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram Modhi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area, which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area, which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay." Special High Power Committee and Empowered Committee have been constituted by the Apex Court in the said matter as per the orders passed time to time. 8. The submission raised by learned counsel for petitioner that area in question cannot be treated as the "forest" is devoid of merit as the area is covered by the notification issued under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. The intention is writ large. Even otherwise the interpretation of "forest" for the purposes of section 2(i) has to be taken in the light of the Apex Court decision in T. N. Godavarman (supra). There is no iota of doubt that area in question is in the forest and finding on fact has been properly recorded in the impugned order P/1. 9. The ground raised in the petition that only this was open to be seen whether the area is reserved forest or not; no other questions could be considered by the respondents is not correct. This Court has not decided on merits of the matter on earlier occasions and if the area in question is in the forest and within the meaning of the "forest" as defined by the Apex Court in T. N. Godavarman (supra), in my opinion, it is preposterous submission that the petitioner be allowed the operation within the forest area. The submission raised that final notification under section 20 has not been issued as such area cannot be treated as reserved forest. No doubt that area cannot be treated as reserved forest in the absence of notification issued under section 20 but nonetheless it does not lose its nature as that of forest land and the finding recorded after appreciation of the evidence on record is proper. This is the fourth writ petition being filed by the petitioner before this Court; agitating the same question on earlier occasions, the matter was remitted back. This is the fourth writ petition being filed by the petitioner before this Court; agitating the same question on earlier occasions, the matter was remitted back. Now after due consideration of the matter the controversy has been decided as per order P/1 and I find no infirmity in the finding of fact recorded which is in accordance with the definition of "forest" as per T. N. Godavarman's case. 10. Learned senior counsel for petitioner alternatively submitted that petitioner should be directed to be compensated as lease was granted by the State and petitioner had spent the amount on making the quarry operatable. Firstly, there is no prayer made; secondly the ground itself is untenable in law. Over the forest area, the operation was allowed for a period of one year; wrong has been done by the action of illegal grant as the petitioner operated the quarry in the forest area in contravention of the Forest Conservation Act, thus, in no case petitioner has any right to claim the compensation from the respondents; on the contrary, having done wrong to the forest, petitioner can be asked to compensate, but that is not being resorted to as the writ petition is being dismissed. 11. Resultantly, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine.