JUDGMENT Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.— This writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation seeks to challenge the allotment of 300 acres of land by Jaipur Development Authority to the International Amusement & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Noida (respondent No.5). 2. According to the petitioner, allotment of the aforesaid land to the respondent No.5 by Jaipur Development Authority (for short, the “JDA”) has been made in violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short, “FC Act”), Section 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, “Wild Life Act”), Sections 54 and 90 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, “JDA Act”), Sections 92, 93, 102A and 103 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, “Land Revenue Act”), Sections 26 and 33 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (for short, “State Forest Act”), Section 5(28) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “Tenancy Act”), Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short “Rules of 1955”), Rule 15B of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short, “Rules of 1974”) and Articles 14, 19, 48A and 51A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contends that this land costs not less than Rs.600 crores, which has been allotted to respondent No.5 at a throw away price of Rs.48 crores. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the letter of allotment dated 23/1/2008 as also the decision of the Board of Infrastructure Development & Investment Promotion (for short, “BIDI”) dated 10/8/2007 directing the JDA to make such allotment with an additional prayer that the letter dated 8/2/2008 handing over possession of the land in question to respondent No.5 be quashed and setaside and possession of the said land be restored to Forest Department of the State. Background Facts : 3. The State Government by issuing notification under Section 2(8) of the JDA Act notified the area of “Jaipur Region” wherein, 153 revenue villages were included in the first instance. Village Daulatpura, which is where the disputed land is situate, was included at Sr.No.17 of the said notification. It is common ground between the parties that Delhi-Ajmer bye-pass, which connects the National Highway No.8 through outskirts of Jaipur City passes through the land in question. Village Daulatpura, which is where the disputed land is situate, was included at Sr.No.17 of the said notification. It is common ground between the parties that Delhi-Ajmer bye-pass, which connects the National Highway No.8 through outskirts of Jaipur City passes through the land in question. Respondent No.5 submitted an application to the Commissioner, Investment and NRI, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for allotment of 400 acres of the land for developing Mega Tourism City and then submitted a detailed application on 25/5/2006 spelling out its profile with other accomplished projects and overview of Mega Tourism City indicating that initial cost of this project would be approximately Rs.300 crores. The Commissioner, Bureau of Investment Promotion (for short “BIP”) vide his letter dated 6/6/2006 requested the Department of Urban Development & Housing, Government of Rajasthan to convey their views about the allotment. Separately, the Commissioner also wrote to the Secretary, Department of Forest vide letter dated 17/18.7.06 to send the views of his department on allotment of the said land. According to the respondents, a team of the State Government visited the site of another project of respondent No.5, which is located at Noida, on 4/10/2006. The matter was then considered by 15th Pre-BIDI and 39th State Level Empowered Committee (for short, “SLEC”) in a meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State. J DA wrote to the Deputy Conservator of Forest (for short, “DCF”) a letter dated 27/11/2006 to enquire about the status of the land as the adjoining area was forest land and land in question was recorded as pasture land (charagah land) in the revenue records. Separately, Commissioner BIP wrote to the Commissioner JDA on 7/12/2006 to ascertain whether the land lies in the ecological zone and that the JDA should provide revenue maps to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) along with khasra numbers of the land so that it can be determined whether the land was forest land or not. He advised the JDA to negotiate the rate with promoters so that the matter could be considered in the next Pre-BIDI meeting. The JDA vide its letter dated 28/10/2006 informed the Commissioner BIP that the reserve price for commercial land was Rs.5000/- per square meter and for residential land, it was Rs.2500/- per square meter and DLC rate for agricultural land was Rs.4.5 lacs per bigha. The JDA vide its letter dated 28/10/2006 informed the Commissioner BIP that the reserve price for commercial land was Rs.5000/- per square meter and for residential land, it was Rs.2500/- per square meter and DLC rate for agricultural land was Rs.4.5 lacs per bigha. It also indicated that though the project report submitted by respondent No.5 was for 400 acres of land but the land available at site was only 371.46 acres. It may be noted that DLC rate referred to above is the rate fixed by District Level Committee under the Rajasthan Stamp Act for registration of the conveyance deeds. Forest Angle : 4. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under Section 20 of the State Forest Act, 1953 on 21/11/1961 thereby declaring, apart from lands of other adjoining revenue villages, a large chunk of land measuring 1197.25 acres situated in revenue village Daulatpura as 'reserve forest'. It was thereafter that the Government of Rajasthan issued another notification on 22/9/1980 under Section 18 of the Wild Life Act constituting Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary (for short, “Sanctuary ”). In the said notification, the boundaries of the Sanctuary in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act of 1972 have been specified. Forest area of village Kukas upto the northern limits of village Surad, and lands of Khasra Nos.1090 & 1091 of village Daulatpura and Northern parts of Khasra Nos.4, 5, 6 & 8 of village Kukas were specified as northern boundary. On Western side also, apart from indicating other mile stones, boundaries were indicated by the forest land adjoining village Taleda and lands of Khasra Nos.1092 & 1093 of village Daulatpura. 5. When JDA inquired from the forest department, the matter was eventually referred to the DCF Jaipur (East) who vide his letter dated 22/2/2007 informed the Chief Conservator of Forest (for short the “CCF”) that 139.3 hectares out of the land proposed to be allotted, though entered in the name of JDA in the revenue records, has dense forest developed therein by plantation trees of Shisham, Desi Babool, Tortils, Churail, Ronge etc. density of which is .4 to .8. DCF further stated that according to G.T. Sheet (prepared in 1973 by Surveyor General of India), this area falls within the forest limits whereas, as per the revenue maps, it is outside. density of which is .4 to .8. DCF further stated that according to G.T. Sheet (prepared in 1973 by Surveyor General of India), this area falls within the forest limits whereas, as per the revenue maps, it is outside. It was stated that 550 trees per hectare are available in this area and that this land is adjoining the land of the Sanctuary and is regularly visited by the wild animals. The land is used for grazing of cattles of the adjoining villages and in the event of setting up Mega Tourism City, it would create immense pressure of cattles for grazing in the Sanctuary and therefore, it would be appropriate that project is set-up at some other place. 6. Upon survey of the land, DCF Jaipur (Central) vide letter dated 17/3/2007 informed the CCF Jaipur that a joint survey of the site was undertaken by the representatives of the JDA and the forest department on 7/3/2007 and 8/3/2007 and it was decided to demarcate the boundaries of the forest land by constructing the pillars. He therefore advised that before any final decision is taken, views and consent of the State Wild Life Advisory Board should be obtained. Though, this is not a forest land but this is adjoining the reserve forest of Forest Division Amer-54. It was informed that dense forest has been developed by undertaking continuous plantation in about 200 hectare of this land between 1990 and 1998. This land is contiguous to the land of the Sanctuary and due to development of dense forest therein, it has become natural habitat and roaming area and breeding ground of the wild animals such as; Leopard, Baghera, Jackal, Fox, Lion, Neel gay, Bear etc. The plantation was undertaken under the scheme sponsored by the Government of India which was funded by the Government of Japan. It was also informed that besides being natural habitat of the wild life, there is flow of water of nullahs from the Wild Life Sanctuary into this land. 7. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) vide his letter dated 29/3/2007 while forwarding the matter to the Secretary, Department of Forest, referred to the contents of the letters of CCF and DCF and stated that since the land does not fall within the Sanctuary, it would not be necessary to ascertain and obtain the views and permission of the State Wild Life Advisory Board. He however advised that the government should create a zone around Sanctuary in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of India and Supreme Court. PCCF therefore left the matter to be decided at the appropriate level in the government. Further Developments : 8. Meeting of the 18th Pre-BIDI (42nd SLEC), headed by the Chief Secretary of the State was convened on 22/2/2007 and attended by Secretaries of the concerned departments of the government, recommended for allotment of the land to respondent No.5 and also that it would have to pay compensation for loss of trees to the forest department. It was around this time that Gram Panchayat Daulatpura through its Sarpanch conveyed by resolution dated 9/4/2007 that the Gram Panchayat would have no objection if the subject land is allotted to respondent No.5. The matter was thereafter again considered in 19th Pre-BIDI (43rd SLEC) chaired by Chief Secretary on 13/4/2007 which again recommended for allotment of the land. Respondent No.5 vide its letter dated 22/5/2007 conveyed to the Commissioner, BIP that it shall abide by the environmental norms as laid down in the government circular dated 2/9/2006 and the guidelines issued by the Department of Forest from time to time. It was after so much of exercise that the matter was finally placed before the BIDI on 10/8/2007 which decided to allot 300 acres of land to respondent No.5 on DLC rate subject to the condition that it shall make investment of atleast 400 crores and generate employment for 1500 persons and further that promoter company would continue to hold at least 51% equity in the project and there shall be no change in the nature of project activities. Respondent No.5 was accordingly informed vide letter dated 5/10/2007 of the aforesaid terms & conditions which it accepted vide letter dated 6/10/2007. As a follow up action, JDA in its 42nd meeting of Land Project Committee (LPC) held on 16/10/2007 decided to allot 300 acres of land consisting of Khasra Nos.4143/1503, 1280, 1281, 1287/1507, 1287/1508, 1291, 1292, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1318, 1319, 1331, 1332, 1340, 1347, 1348, 1350, 1352, 1389/1416, 1391, 1392, 1394 and 1395 in revenue village Daulatpura, Tehsil Amer. The JDA accordingly issued demand notice to the respondent No.5 on 7/11/2005 demanding Rs.49.20 crores as cost of land which was deposited by respondent No.5. 9. The JDA accordingly issued demand notice to the respondent No.5 on 7/11/2005 demanding Rs.49.20 crores as cost of land which was deposited by respondent No.5. 9. A memorandum of understanding was thereafter signed between the parent company of respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 on 1/11/2007 whereupon, a separate memorandum of understanding was signed between the Government of Rajasthan and respondent No.5 for setting up Mega Tourism City on the allotted land. The JDA then demanded from respondent No.5 Rs.1,21,43,178/- toward cost of plantation on 202 acres of land against felling of trees on 101 hectares of land as also cost of fire wood and building wood, which respondent No.5 deposited on 2/2/2008. The JDA issued formal letter of allotment to respondent No.5 on 23/1/2008 incorporating the conditions referred to above, including condition for maintaining 500 meters wide eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary. JDA then issued letter of possession to respondent No.5 on 8/2/2008 and thereafter executed lease deed in its favour on 31/3/2008. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board also accorded its consent to the respondent No.5 vide letter dated 22/4/2008 to establish Mega Tourism City. Constitution of BIDI : 10. Before we proceed to notice the rival submissions, a brief mention of the constitution and composition of BIDI would be apposite. Rule 55(1) of the Rajasthan Rules of Business framed under the authority of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, was amended by the Governor of the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 10.1.1999 so as to provide for setting up an Empowered Committee to take major policy decisions for approval of estimates, sanction of expenditure, grant of concessions and incentives to achieve the object and fulfill the purposes for which committee was set-up. The Governor vide order dated 26.10.1999 thereafter constituted such committee headed by the Chief Minister, which was christianed as Board of Infrastructure Development & Investment Promotion (BIDI). The BIDI was then re-constituted vide order of the Governor of the State dated 15.1.2005 with the Chief Minister as its Chairman, Industry Minister as Vice Chairman and Ministers of the Departments of Finance, Energy and Urban Development as members and Chief Secretary of the State as its Member-Secretary. The BIDI was then re-constituted vide order of the Governor of the State dated 15.1.2005 with the Chief Minister as its Chairman, Industry Minister as Vice Chairman and Ministers of the Departments of Finance, Energy and Urban Development as members and Chief Secretary of the State as its Member-Secretary. According to the order dated 15.1.2005, BIDI is authorized to consider and review schemes and provide directions for accelerating investment into the State, to make amendments in investment policies and systems to accelerate economic development of the State, to decide the policy matters bearing direct/indirect impact on investment promotion, to clear projects pertaining to investment involving Rs.25 crores and above, to approve customized package of incentives for generating employment and encouraging further investment in the State. Pre-BIDI is a committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State with Secretaries from the concerned departments. It is also known as State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC). Bureau of Investment Promotion (BIP) works as the secretariat of the BIDI. Pre-BIDI examines the proposals at the threshhold and submits them with its recommendations for approval by the BIDI. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the intervenors at length. Arguments of the Petitioner : 12. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that substantial part of the disputed land is reserve forest notified under Section 20 of the State Forest Act. The DCF in his letter dated 22/2/2007 has clearly stated that this land, which is now a dense forest, is in fact part of the reserve forest as shown in G.T. Sheet. It is further argued that even the JDA was not clear whether the land was a reserve forest and sought clarification from the forest department. The exercise of demarcating boundaries of the forest land was undertaken in a perfunctory manner and as is evident from the letter of DCF, no actual demarcation from pillar to pillar as per notification dated 21/11/1961 has so far taken place. Letter merely indicates that a decision was taken to construct the boundary pillars as per the demarcation. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and others : 1996(5) SCC 647 , M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others : 1997(1) 388 and A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and others : 1996(5) SCC 647 , M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others : 1997(1) 388 and A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and others : 1999(2) SCC 718 to argue that even if there is any dispute about the rigidness of boundaries, the respondents ought to have invoked precautionary principle as it was better to err on the side of protecting trees rather than destroying them. It is submitted that evidence clearly proves existence of 550 trees per hectare in this entire area. Once the respondent No.5 is permitted to go ahead with the construction of Mega Tourism Project, all these trees would have to be uprooted and such a lush green forest would be completely ruined. Extensive plantation in and around the land was undertaken by the forest department of the State under the scheme sponsored by the Central Government which was funded by the Government of Japan. Even if this is not considered as a reserve forest, it will nevertheless be a forest as per the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 , wherein the Supreme Court held that Forest Conservation Act, 1980 must apply to all forests, regardless of classification and that the word “forest” must be understood in its ordinary dictionary meaning, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise, irrespective of ownership. Shri Bapna also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Supreme Court Monitoring Committee vs. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Ors. : (1997) 11 SCC 605 and argued that Supreme Court in that case also held that term 'forest land' has to be understood including a land covered with trees, shrubs, vegetation and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with trees and pasture. According to Section 2 of the FC Act, therefore, it was mandatory for the State Government to seek prior approval of the Central Government before allowing the use of this forest land for non-forest purpose. 13. According to Section 2 of the FC Act, therefore, it was mandatory for the State Government to seek prior approval of the Central Government before allowing the use of this forest land for non-forest purpose. 13. Contesting the claim of the respondents that plantation undertaken on a non-forest land, cannot make the land as such forest for the purpose of Section 2 of the FC Act, learned counsel argued that this issue has been settled long back by judgment of the Supreme Court in Samatha vs. State of A.P. and others : (1997) 8 SCC 191 . Reference was made to paras 120 to 127 and 197 & 233 of the report to argue that the forest as referred to in Section 2 of the FC Act would have extended meaning of a tract of land covered with trees, shrubs, vegetation and undergrowth intermingled with trees and pastures, be it of natural growth or man-made forestation. The issue whether the man-made forest or plantation under the scheme sponsored by the Central Government and funded by the European Communities fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others : (2004) 12 SCC 118 . Reference was made to paras 56 to 81 of the report and it was argued that Supreme Court in that case categorically held that large scale afforestation which was undertaken by the forest department of State of Haryana from 1990 to 1999 would be forest for the purpose of Section 2 of the FC Act. 14. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the expert committee set up by the State Government in terms of directions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman dated 12/12/1996 exceeded its brief when it maintained that plantation on non-forest land are not to be treated as forest. Supreme Court in para 5 of the judgment directing the State Government to constitute expert committee merely required such committees to: identify areas which are “forests”, identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. Supreme Court in para 5 of the judgment directing the State Government to constitute expert committee merely required such committees to: identify areas which are “forests”, identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. The expert committee was thus asked to only identify the areas covered by plantation trees but the expert committee appointed by the State of Rajasthan has acted wholly without jurisdiction in holding that the plantation on non-forest land is not to be treated as forest. The committee, in this regard, according to Shri Bapna misunderstood and misapplied the specific exemptions granted by the Supreme Court to the States of Himachal Pradesh, U.P., West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir. This issue in any case was clarified by the Supreme Court itself in subsequent judgments of Samatha and M.C. Mehta. Report of the expert committee to the extent it is inconsistent with these judgments of Supreme Court is illegal and void. 15. Inviting our attention to the National Forest Policy 1988, Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this policy has got statutory force as held by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta supra and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and others : (2006) 1 SCC 1 (87). It was argued that the Supreme Court held that Forest Policy, 1988, which has a statutory flavour, dictates that derivation of economic benefits must be subordinated to ensuring environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance and non-fulfillment of this principle would be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel argued that Section 18(2) of the Wild Life Act provides that the notification issued sub-section (1) thereof shall specify, as nearly as possible, situation and limits of Wild Life Sanctuary and this has to be done by indicating intelligible boundaries. In the present case, the lands of Khasra Nos.1090 & 1091 of village Daulatpura have been indicated as outer limit of the northern boundary of the Sanctuary whereas, Khasra Nos.1092 & 1093 of the same village Daulatpura, were indicated as the limits of the western boundary. In the present case, the lands of Khasra Nos.1090 & 1091 of village Daulatpura have been indicated as outer limit of the northern boundary of the Sanctuary whereas, Khasra Nos.1092 & 1093 of the same village Daulatpura, were indicated as the limits of the western boundary. It was therefore necessary for the respondents that prior to making allotment, even if the respondent No.5 would be required to maintain eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary, the boundary marks are established as required by Section 27(3) of the Wild Life Act. Boundaries of not only the Sanctuary but also reserve forest have not been demarcated in any acceptable or satisfactory manner. 16. Shri G.S. Bapna further argued that it is amply proved from three letters written by the DCF, CCF and PCCF that apart from the fact that the disputed land has become dense forest having 550 trees per hectare, this area is contiguous to the notified Wild Life Sanctuary and has since become natural habitat and visiting and breeding area of wild animals such as Leopard, Baghera, Jackal, Fox, Lion, Neel Gay, Bear etc. It has been opined that the entire area has been recorded as pasture land in the revenue records where thousands of the cattles of adjoining villages come for grazing and this was purposely developed to produce the fodder for grazing, which, if now diverted to any other purpose, will disturb the ecological balance of the area and the cattles would then enter the adjoining Sanctuary and reserve forest for grazing. Allotment of land thus would also be violative of Section 29 of the Act of 1972 which prohibits that no person shall destroy, damage or divert the habitat of any wild animal by any act whatsoever or divert, stop or enhance the flow of water into or outside the Sanctuary, except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Chief Wild Life Warden and no such permit shall be granted unless the State Government is satisfied in consultation with the Board that such removal of wild life from the Sanctuary or the change in the flow of water into or outside the Sanctuary, is necessary for the improvement and better management of wild life therein. It was argued that in the present case, even though the DCF suggested for approaching the State Wild Life Advisory Board but this suggestion was illegally over ruled with a view to favouring the respondent No.5. Shri G.S. Bapna in this connection relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan and others : (1988) 4 SCC 655 and Essar Oil Ltd. vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and others : (2004) 2 SCC 392 . 17. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the State Government and the JDA have in making allotment to respondent No.5 violated Section 54 of the Act of 1982 as also Rule 15 and 15B of the Rules of 1974. The JDA is a statutory Authority and the power of allotment is statutorily exercisable by the JDA alone. Neither the State Government nor the BIDI has any authority to direct the JDA to make allotment of the land in question to respondent No.5. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in K.K. Bhalla vs. State of M.P. and others : 2006(3) SCC 581 and Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan : 2003(12) SCC 91. The Industry Minister, who is Vice Chairman of the BIDI, opposed the proposal of making allotment of the disputed land to the respondent No.5 but his objection was over ruled in BIDI which by majority resolved to allot this land to respondent No.5. It was argued that while under Section 90 of the JDA Act, the government can simply issue general policy guidelines, Section 54 merely provides that JDA may allot nazul land placed at its disposal subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Government may, from time to time, lay down and in such manner, as it may, from time to time, prescribe. Similarly, Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974 simply provides that the land may be allotted for infrastructure projects with the prior approval of the State Government. In none of these provisions, the State Government has been statutorily empowered to direct the JDA to make allotment of a particular land in favour of particular party. The JDA has thus illegally abdicated its power in favour of the State Government. In none of these provisions, the State Government has been statutorily empowered to direct the JDA to make allotment of a particular land in favour of particular party. The JDA has thus illegally abdicated its power in favour of the State Government. Approval implies that the proposal is to be initiated and forwarded by the Jaipur Development Authority and the State Government is only required to grant approval whereas in the present case each and every action, right from initiation to approval, has been taken at the end of the Government. Reliance in this connection was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the State of Assam vs. Keshav : AIR 1953 SC 309 . It was argued that Article 166 of the Constitution of India envisages framing of rules for convenient transactions of business and for allocation of business amongst the ministers. This rule cannot override statutory provisions of the JDA Act and Rules of 1974. According to Section 54 of the Act of 1982 and Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974, power of allotment is exercisable only by the JDA with the approval of the State Government but, the State cannot assume supervisory control and itself exercise such power by making any provision in the Rules of Business. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the BIDI in its decision dated 10.8.2007 merely directed for allotment of land to respondent No.5 at the prevailing DLC rates. The land was meant for use of commercial purpose, therefore, as per the letter of the JDA dated 28.12.2006, it could not be allotted for any price less than Rs.5000/- per square meter which was the reserve price for the commercial land. By making allotment of the land at throw away price of Rs.10/- lacs per bigha which is equivalent to Rs.395/- per square meter, functionaries of the government have bestowed an undue favour upon the respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, 300 acres of land is equivalent to Rs.12,14,80 square meter and as per the DLC rate (commercial rate) of Rs.5000/-, it would fetch more than 600 crores whereas, it has been allotted to respondent No.5 only for Rs.48 crores. The land is situated at a strategic location on both the sides of national highway. According to the petitioner, 300 acres of land is equivalent to Rs.12,14,80 square meter and as per the DLC rate (commercial rate) of Rs.5000/-, it would fetch more than 600 crores whereas, it has been allotted to respondent No.5 only for Rs.48 crores. The land is situated at a strategic location on both the sides of national highway. Such allotment, even in the scope of Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974, ought to be made by public auction and not by private negotiation as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Guru Nanak Tubewells Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal No.814/1994, decided on 19/5/1995). Reliance was also placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in “Gyan Vihar” Senior Secondary School vs. State of Rajasthan & Others : 2007(3) WLC 340 wherein the Division Bench while interpreting Rule 15B held that policy of allotment by ad hoc procedure to meet exigencies of a particular case would be unsustainable in law. Fixation of reserve price and competitive bid would check arbitrariness and provide transparency. Reliance in this connection was also placed on the celebrated judgment of Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam vs. State of Haryana, 1985(3) SCC 267 and Mahesh Chand vs. UPFC, 1993 (2) SCC 279 . 21). 19. Lastly, Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the provisions of Sections 92, 93, 102-A and 103-(a)(iv) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and Section 5(28) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 argued that present land being charagah land, could not be allotted for commercial purpose of Mega Tourism City. It was therefore submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the decision of the BIDI and the allotment order issued by the JDA in favour of respondent No.5 be quashed and set-aside and consequently, execution of lease deed be declared null and void. Arguments of the Intervenors : 20. Shri Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the intervener Shri Harsh Vardhman has argued that the land which has been allotted to respondent No.5, is a forest land, which is habitat and visiting place for wild animals and different spices of the birds. Arguments of the Intervenors : 20. Shri Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the intervener Shri Harsh Vardhman has argued that the land which has been allotted to respondent No.5, is a forest land, which is habitat and visiting place for wild animals and different spices of the birds. He in this connection referred to brochure issued by the forest department on Nagargarh Wild Life Sanctuary and argued that the birds, who have no speech, are gift from nature to the humanity, ought to be imparted justice by this Court. The respondents have not undertaken satisfactory exercise to demarcate boundaries of the Sanctuary. Moreover, the extensive plantation developed by forest department adjacent to the Sanctuary has since become a dense forest. Apart from Sanctuary, the land in dispute has now become habitat and breeding place for the wild animals as also variety of the birds such as peacock, sparrow, bulbul, pigeon, parrot, koyal etc. Birds also visit this area from far and distant places like Europe and Sybaria. It has been argued that vegetation growth in this area is very extensive and it has got thousands of trees of dozens of variety. Shri Vimal Choudhary argued that the land in dispute is situated at the foot of the Arravali Range in the vicinity of the Jaipur City. In the Master Plan of 2011 of the city of Jaipur, this land has been shown as part of the ecological zone. Citing judgment of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamalnath : (2004) 12 SCC 118 , Shri Vimal Choudhary argued that allowing respondent No.5 to develop the Mega Tourism city at the foot of this part of Arrawali Range would result into serious environmental degradation. Public has a right to enjoy such natural resources in their original characteristics. The government merely holds the land in question in public trust. Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta held that doctrine of public trust would apply in such matters which enjoins upon the government to protect the resources in public interest rather than permitting their use for private ownership or for commercial purposes. Citing judgment of this Court in Kamlakar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. : 1996(3) WLC (Raj.) 611. Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta held that doctrine of public trust would apply in such matters which enjoins upon the government to protect the resources in public interest rather than permitting their use for private ownership or for commercial purposes. Citing judgment of this Court in Kamlakar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. : 1996(3) WLC (Raj.) 611. Shri Vimal Choudhary argued that this court in para 66 of the judgment referred to the study undertaken by the Society for public awareness and conservation of environment in relation to Jaipur City wherein it has been shown that Jaipur is grossly deficient in developing the green areas. Jaipur needs about 1500 hectares of open green areas at present considering the population requirement, whereas actually there are only 420 hectares of green areas. He has also referred to para 101 of the judgment to argue that mean maximum temperature of Jaipur city is 41 degree celsius and the mean minimum temperature is 6.5 degree celsius as Jaipur lies between the Nahargarh and Jhalana hill ranges. Therefore, he submitted that land in dispute is required to be retained in its original form to act as lungs of the city. Citing from judgment of this Court in Ram Chandra Kasliwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 1993(2) WLC 501, Shri Vimal Choudhary argued that it is duty of the State to protect the environment and preserve the open spaces and develop the forest. Growing urbanization today is taking conflict with the nature. He argued that concern was voiced by this Court in para 19 of the said judgment observing that animal has now been recognized as an animal citizen in the world. Large number of animals and birds, who have made the land in question as their habitat, are speechless species of the God which have no tongue to speak, yet convey their miseries through their eyes and expressions. The State Government has no power to direct the JDA to allot the land to respondent No.5 which is a separate body in its own right. He also cited judgment of M.I. Builders Pvt.Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others : (1999) 6 SCC 464 and argued that a prime land has been given for a song by JDA to respondent No.5. He also cited judgment of M.I. Builders Pvt.Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others : (1999) 6 SCC 464 and argued that a prime land has been given for a song by JDA to respondent No.5. Supreme Court in MI Builders case by invoking doctrine of public trust held that the Municipal Corporation acted contrary to public interest in allowing the builder to construct underground shopping complex as it will destroy true nature of the park. Shri Vimal Choudhary lastly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Yashwant Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others : 2005(2) WLC 559 = RLW 2005(2) Raj. 1080 and argued that this court in the aforesaid case while permitting JDA to divert 200 bighas of land of ecological zone as one time measure on undertaking that it would set apart 200 bighas of land at the appropriate place elsewhere, warned the respondents not to amend the master plan in future unless and until it is necessarily warranted to do so and in that too, such modification or deviation should be in the limited scope. Shri Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel argued that JDA even then modified the master plan 2011 recklessly diverting thousands of bighas of land for other purposes from the ecological zone. 21. Shri Anil Mehta, learned counsel appearing for Kisan Sangh, Gram Panchayat Daulatpura and six residents of adjoining villages, who were allowed to intervene, argued that there are about 2500 families in villages Daulatpura, Kotda, Kherwadi and Sewapura with population of about 10000. Almost all of them are earning their livelihood through farming and animal husbandry. The land over there yields three crops a year. All these villages possess about 25000 animals in the form of buffalos, sheeps, she-goats and the land is used by them for grazing of their cattles from times immemorial. Agricultural produce and milk are supplied to the city of Jaipur. Due to rainfall and catchment areas in this charagah, water level of the adjoining villages is regularly maintained which form the basis for three crops in a year. It was argued that the livelihood of these people largely depends on the existence of charagah in its present form. All these facts are corroborated from the letters written by forest authorities to the government. It was argued that the livelihood of these people largely depends on the existence of charagah in its present form. All these facts are corroborated from the letters written by forest authorities to the government. Respondent No.5 under the garb of providing employment to 1500 people would in fact snatch the livelihood of more than 10000 self-employed poor farmers and agriculturists. Explaining the Gram Panchayat resolution, Shri Anil Mehta, learned counsel argued that the Gram Panchayat was mislead into believing that the development shall have no adverse effect on the existing greenery, charagarh and the wild life, but the fact of the matter is that respondent No.5, when it was handed over possession of the land on 15/4/2008, has by using bulldozers and JCB machines uprooted about 5000 trees on single day. Shri Anil Mehta also submitted that this disputed land was originally proposed to be made part of the Sanctuary and it was on the objections raised by the villagers in response to notification issued under Section 18 of the Wild Life Act that the area was excluded when the Sanctuary was finally notified and exclusion was made specifically for the purpose of grazing of their cattles and animals. This fact can be verified from the government records. He also argued that Mega Tourism City is bound to produce enormous amount of garbage at the foot of the Sanctuary and would certainly disturb the eco-system of the area. 22. Shri Jinesh Jain, who has also intervened on behalf of Mrs.Kusum Jain, has argued that his client is engaged in the protection of environment and plantation of trees in Arrawali ranges of Jamua Ramgarh and Amer and has so far planted over 1 lac plants since 1984. He has argued that if respondent No.5 is allowed to go ahead with the project of Mega Tourism City, lacs of trees planted by the forest department and dense forest developed thereby would be completely ruined which will not be in the interest of the environment of Jaipur city because the fast growing urbanization in the city has hardly left any green area in the vicinity. 23. 23. Shri Mahendra Singh Kachchawa has also appeared on behalf of Shri R.K. Somani, as intervener and has argued that the government having notified the Sanctuary was duty obliged to clearly demarcate its boundaries so that the law enacted by the parliament for protection of the wild life could be effectively enforced. He argued that the forest department has resisted the proposal of Mega Tourism City in question and there is no manner of doubt that the area in question is habitat of wild life animals and no authority can unlawfully disturb the land, water or vegetation in the area. It is argued that the area is full of natural nullahs which flow into the disputed land from the Sanctuary and the action of the respondents is violative of Section 29 of the Wild Life Act. No proposal could be processed and finalized by the respondents without consulting the Wild Life Advisory Board and this can be done only for improvement and better management of the Sanctuary. In the present case, what is being done is for the worst of the Sanctuary. He disputed the concluding part in the letter of PCCF wherein, it was observed that the area is not part of the forest and was not in possession of the forest department. It was argued that leaving only 500 meters corridor would hardly be sufficient for the safety of wild life. Arguments of the Respondents : 24. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the JDA argued that the land in question has been allotted to the respondent No.5 for setting up a very ambitious Mega Tourism City under the policy of the government to encourage such projects which have the potential to give a boost to the tourism in the State. He argued that the tourism is a major component in the economic planning of the State. Allotment has been made as per the decision of the BIDI which is the highest policy making body on matters related to major infrastructure projects involving sizable investments. Shri Vikas Singh argued that the land in dispute falls within the Jaipur Region defined under Section 2(8) of the JDA Act. Allotment has been made as per the decision of the BIDI which is the highest policy making body on matters related to major infrastructure projects involving sizable investments. Shri Vikas Singh argued that the land in dispute falls within the Jaipur Region defined under Section 2(8) of the JDA Act. So long as competence of the JDA to make allotment is not questioned, the fact that JDA has done so as per the guidelines issued by the State Government, does not make any difference because government is equally competent to issue such guidelines in view of Section 90 of the JDA Act. This court cannot go into the validity of decision and can only examine the decision making process which has been fair and transparent at all levels. Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel further argued that the subject land is not a forest land as would be evident from the communication received from the PCCF. Contents of the letters sent by the DCF and the CCF are only part of the intra-departmental correspondence and what is of significance is the ultimate decision of the government in the matter. He further argued that the plantation undertaken on a non forest land, whether government or private, would not bring such land within the purview of forest in meaning of Section 2 of the FC Act. Referring to Section 2(iv) of the FC Act, Shri Vikas Singh argued that it is only such trees, which have grown spontaneously and which are sought to be uprooted for the purpose of reforestation that the prior approval of the Central Government would be required. It was argued that as per Supreme Court directions in para 5.5 of T.N. Godavarman supra, the expert committee in the State of Rajasthan has in its report made identification of such forests and the land in question has not been identified as forest land. The Supreme Court in the said order observed that plantation on non-forest land are not to be treated as forest. Reference in this connection was made to the later part of the judgment in T.N. Godavarman supra, wherein States of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh were granted permission for felling of trees in such plantations. The Supreme Court in the said order observed that plantation on non-forest land are not to be treated as forest. Reference in this connection was made to the later part of the judgment in T.N. Godavarman supra, wherein States of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh were granted permission for felling of trees in such plantations. It was argued that the government has itself imposed reasonable conditions by requiring the respondents to maintain 500 meters wide eco-sensitive zone from the boundaries of the Sanctuary and further by requiring the respondents No.5 to grow two times the number of fallen trees. Shri Vikas Singh in this connection referred to circular of the forest department dated 2/9/2006 and argued that respondent No.5 has been required to pay compensation for the loss of 47000 trees in terms of the aforesaid circular. He argued that preservation of ecology is important but at the same time, development of the State is also equally important and a balance has to be struck between the two. 25. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General, also appearing for the JDA argued that the decision to allot land in question to respondent No.5 was taken by the BIDI in 23rd meeting on 10/8/2007 at the DLC rates prevalent at the relevant time. The land in question is entered in the name of respondent JDA in the revenue records and it is not the land of the forest department. Still, however, the respondent got the matter thoroughly examined in the forest department. Gram Panchayat Daulatpura vide resolution dated 9/4/2007 has given its consent to the proposed mega tourism city. BIDI before its decision in the matter, took into consideration the views of the forest department which reported that though the land is not part of the forest but care should be taken to ensure that minimum disturbance is caused to wild life and no trees are cut within the radius of 500 meters. It is evident from the record that the matter was processed at different levels so much so that though the application for allotment was submitted by the respondent no.5 for the first time on 22/5/2006 and the decision to make allotment was taken by the BIDI as late as on 10/8/2007. It has thus taken 15 months' time to ultimately finalise the process. It has thus taken 15 months' time to ultimately finalise the process. Shri Parag Tripathi refuted the allegation that the land has been allotted to private respondent on a throw away price. The land was allotted at DLC rates prevalent as on 15/1/2008. Area in question is undeveloped agricultural land which lies at the distance of approximately 30 kms. from Jaipur City and therefore land was purposely allotted at the prevalent DLC rates of the agriculture land. There can be no comparison of this land with the commercial land and to hold on that basis that the land has been allotted on low price. DLC rate for the land adjoining highway is Rs.10 lacs per bigha and for the interior area, the DLC rate is on lower side. Still, rate of Rs.10 lac per bigha has been charged for this entire chunk of land. PCCF in his letter dated 12/4/2007 categorically informed the government that the area does not come under the forest and therefore they would not have any objection for development of Mega Tourism City but at the same time he suggested that vide letter dated 2/9/2006 that since mega tourism city is adjacent to the Sanctuary, minimum disturbance should be caused thereto and felling of trees within 500 meters eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary should be banned. Learned counsel argued that the respondent has already paid the amount of Rs.1,27,43,178/- towards cost of plantation which has since been paid to the forest department. Reference was made to the letter of the government dated 26/3/2007 whereby Chief Wild Life Warden was asked to inform the Government of India about decision of the State Government to maintain a strip of variable width of 500 meters ecological zone in all the national parks in the State of Rajasthan. He was also informed that proposals may be sent for notifying such eco-sensitive zone in the State for approval of the government. Shri Parag Tripathi also referred to the Master Plan of 2011 especially its Page 51, according to which functions and activities which are eco-friendly and occupy minimum built area for incidental use like; recreation and health resorts, sports complexes , stud farms and golf courses etc. would be permissible in ecological zone. Shri Parag Tripathi also referred to the Master Plan of 2011 especially its Page 51, according to which functions and activities which are eco-friendly and occupy minimum built area for incidental use like; recreation and health resorts, sports complexes , stud farms and golf courses etc. would be permissible in ecological zone. It was argued that kind of activities respondent No.5 would have in the mega tourism city, like; golf course, amusement parks, water park, resorts etc., would be consistent with the object of ecological zone as envisaged in the master plan itself. It was submitted that the allotment has been made on certain conditions that the respondent-company shall have to make investment of minimum of 400 crores and generate employment for 1500 persons within a period of three years. Promoter company should continuously hold 51% equity in the company and that nature of project shall not be changed and further that 500 meters wide eco-friendly zone shall be maintained around the Sanctuary and minimum disturbance should be caused to the forest and trees in the area adjoining to the Sanctuary. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the disposal of land by auction need not necessarily be the only mode and in exceptional cases, land can be allotted in favour of a potential party consistent with policy of the government to invite investment into the State in add of its economical growth. He therefore submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. 26. Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan submitted that the government upon being satisfied about the potential of respondent No.5 has in the public interest decided to allot the land in question for setting up Mega Tourism City which is an infrastructure project. Respondent-company is credited to have run famous Appu Ghar in New Delhi and presently its two more ambitious projects of similar nature are coming up in Noida and Rohini. It is supported by number of foreign consultants in the implementation of the project. The company needed allotment of 400 acres of land so that it could develop thereat amusement park, water park, themed retail, parking, golf course, attached facilities and landscaped gardens etc. It was argued that decision making process has been absolutely transparent. The project was examined at different level in the government. The company needed allotment of 400 acres of land so that it could develop thereat amusement park, water park, themed retail, parking, golf course, attached facilities and landscaped gardens etc. It was argued that decision making process has been absolutely transparent. The project was examined at different level in the government. The Commissioner Investment and JDA while processing the matter, made specific enquiries whether the land in question is part of the forest. It was only after the forest department conveyed that it was not a forest land that the Pre-BIDI recommended its allotment on condition of maintaining 500 meters wide eco-sensitive zone and paying compensation for loss of plantation to the forest department. As against the demanded 400 acres of land, only 300 acres of land has been allotted on the condition that the respondent-company shall make investment of 400 crores and generate employment for 1500 persons within three years and further that the company should continue to hold atleast 51% equity and shall not change the nature of project in future. Shri Bharat Vyas argued that the BIDI is the highest policy making body of the State which has been constituted by His Excellency the Governor of the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Rules of Business with a view to encouraging investment in the State. This body is authorised to consider and clear infrastructure projects involving investment of Rs.25 crores or more. This has been authorised to grant incentives and concessions wherever necessary to encourage investment in the State. It cannot therefore be said that the BIDI has no authority to take decision on such projects. It was argued that 61% of the total area of the State is desert and it has always been the endeavour of the government to encourage growth in the industrial and service sector as a measure to make the State drought-proof thereby reducing dependence of its economy on the monsoon. Various measures of liberalization, de-licensing and single window clearance system would help in attracting more investments in the industrial and infrastructure sector and an environment conducive to promote exports. For this purpose, special economic zones have also been set up in the State. BIDI is headed by Chief Minister whereas the State Level Empowered Committee for single window clearance system is constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary. For this purpose, special economic zones have also been set up in the State. BIDI is headed by Chief Minister whereas the State Level Empowered Committee for single window clearance system is constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary. Since inception of the single window system, 1010 meetings of State and district level committees have been conducted upto December 2006 whereat 1632 projects involving investment of over Rs.25,734.32 crores have been cleared, out of which, 662 projects amounting to Rs.3013.96 crores have been completed and 203 projects involving an amount of Rs.22,431.67 crores are under implementation. The State of Rajasthan has its rich historical, cultural and environmental heritage. It has with its colourful fairs and festivals, become major tourist attraction and one of the important destinations for both domestic and international tourists. During the year 2006-07, an amount of Rs.1,521.81 lacs has been utilized against sanctioned amount of Rs.2200.01 lacs in providing infrastructure facilities for the tourists. About 199.18 lacs tourists have visited Rajasthan during 2005, of which about 187.87 lacs were domestic and 11.31 lacs were foreign tourists. During 2006, number of domestic tourists was 234.83 lacs with 12.20 lacs foreign tourists. There was increase in total number of tourists in the year 2006 compared to the previous year, percentage of which comes to 24.02 percent for domestic and 7.87 for foreign tourists. The State of Rajasthan has received many awards in various tourism marts including 'Rajasthan as the most favourite destination in Asia' and has acquired significant place in tourist map of the world. Proposed Mega Tourism City would in fact cater to the need of people at large and in itself is a project set up in public interest. 27. Most of the arguments which have been raised in the present writ petition were considered and rejected by this Court in Ajay Chabra vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No.76782/03 decided on 12/8/2004) and in Poonam Chand Bhandari vs. State of Rajasthan : RLW 2008(1) Raj. 885. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 28. Shri Bharat Vyas refuted the assertion that the land in question is part of the forest. Referring to the letter of PCCF, he submitted that PCCF informed the government that this was not a forest land but at the same time suggested certain precautions which have all been accepted. Similarly, the Gram Panchayat has also concurred in favour of allotment. Shri Bharat Vyas refuted the assertion that the land in question is part of the forest. Referring to the letter of PCCF, he submitted that PCCF informed the government that this was not a forest land but at the same time suggested certain precautions which have all been accepted. Similarly, the Gram Panchayat has also concurred in favour of allotment. The land, which is allotted to respondent-company, is neither part of the reserve forest nor is it the part of the Sanctuary. Reference was made to the copies of the jamabandi relating to reserve forest and also of the subject land which is recorded in the name of JDA. It has been argued that notification dated 22/9/1980 issued under Section 18 of the Wild Life Act includes only khasra Nos.1090 & 1091 of the revenue village Daulatpura, lands of which are also part of the reserve forest. These khasras have not been allotted to the respondent-company. It was argued that though the land falls in the ecological zone but it has been allotted to respondent-company keeping in view the fact that the mega tourism city shall be developed in accordance with the permitted land use in the Master Plan 2011 of Jaipur City itself. The land being undeveloped agriculture land, DLC rate of such land abutting the main road has been charged for the entire land. Since the land was not a commercial land, the DLC rate for the commercial land was rightly not charged. Responding to contents of the report submitted by the DCF, Shri Bharat Vyas submitted that the report was not accepted by the higher authorities and therefore a joint survey was ordered to be conducted. Such a joint survey was conducted on 7/3/2007 and 8/3/2007 in presence of Shri Murlidhar, Range Forest Officer Nahargarh, Shri Ramdhan, Surveyor Forest Department, Shri Digvijay Singh, Aamin JDA and Shri Ramavtar Jangid and other employees of the forest check post. From the joint survey, it was established that the land in question does not fall in the reserve forest but it is situated nearby the land of Forest Block Amer-54, which is a reserve forest. The work of afforestation took place in about 200 hectares of land with the aid of centrally sponsored scheme and that for the loss of plantation, respondent-company has paid compensation to the forest department. 29. The work of afforestation took place in about 200 hectares of land with the aid of centrally sponsored scheme and that for the loss of plantation, respondent-company has paid compensation to the forest department. 29. It was denied that there are more than 25000 cattles in the adjoining areas. According to the State, number of such animals can hardly exceed 10000. Shri Bharat Vyas submitted for perusal of the court a chart prepared by the JDA which indicates that there is still 556.33 hectares (225 bigha approximately) of charagah land available for revenue villages Badagaon Jarkhya, Khora Shyamdas, Chonp, Kukas, Kherwadi, Rampura and Bagwada and in revenue village Daulatpura itself, 165.91 hectares of charagarh land is still available. In any case, respondent-company has undertaken not to exceed the construction in more than 12% of the total area and retain minimum 80% of the land as green area where it would also grow plantation double the number of uprooted trees. Shri Bharat Vyas argued that the State Level Expert Committee pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman has already made identification of various forest lands in the State. The committee opined that plantation on a non forest land was not to be treated as forest. A clarification was issued by the Government of India earlier in its Circular dated 31/8/2005 to the effect that the FC Act shall be applicable to notified forest and to such areas that are identified as forest by the District Committees constituted pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996. This clarification was issued in the context of doubt created by the Forest Department as to whether plantation raised in the revenue lands and waste land, would be covered within the meaning of “forest” referred to in T.N. Godavarman supra. Based on such clarification, State Government issued a letter on 2.9.2006 that revenue/barren community land having plantation by forest department would be allowed to be used for non forest purposes subject to condition of payment of cost of such plantation. Shri Bharat Vyas argued that judgment of Supreme Court in K.K. Bhalla would not be applicable to the present case because allotment in the present case has been made as per the collective decision of empowered committee constituted under Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Rules of Business. Shri Bharat Vyas argued that judgment of Supreme Court in K.K. Bhalla would not be applicable to the present case because allotment in the present case has been made as per the collective decision of empowered committee constituted under Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Rules of Business. Reference was made to Sections 54 and 90 of the JDA Act and Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974 to argue that government had got requisite competence to take a decision for allotment of land for infrastructure projects and can accordingly require the JDA to do so. It was argued that the government as per Section 90 of the JDA Act has got the supervisory power of control over JDA. It can also according to Rule 15-B of the Rules of 1974 require JDA to make allotment for infrastructure project which includes tourism unit and public utility project of Mega Tourism City which is being set up by the respondent-company. Reference was also made to definition of 'tourism unit' in Rule 2(10B) of the Rules of 1974 which includes hotel motel, restaurant, amusement park, holiday resort, all of which are included in the mega tourism city proposed to be set up by the respondent-company. 30. Shri C.A. Sundram, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-company submitted that the land in question is not part of the reserve forest as none of the khasra numbers allotted to respondent- company have been included in the schedule appended to the notification dated 21/11/1961. It was argued that the jamabandi, which is the revenue record concerned, also does not show the allotted land as reserve forest but has entered such land in the name of the JDA. This land is also not part of the notified Sanctuary as the notification issued under Section 18 merely indicates Khasra Nos.1090 and 1091 of village Daulatpura as northern boundary of the Sanctuary and not the entire revenue village Daulatpura. In any case, when the land has been notified as part of the Jaipur Region under Section 2(8) of Schedule-I appended to the JDA Act and is entered in the revenue record in the name of JDA, JDA is very much competent to allot such land to the respondent-company. In any case, when the land has been notified as part of the Jaipur Region under Section 2(8) of Schedule-I appended to the JDA Act and is entered in the revenue record in the name of JDA, JDA is very much competent to allot such land to the respondent-company. Some observations made by DCF in his letter dated 22/2/2007 cannot be read out of context to hold the entire land as part of the Sanctuary and what would be material would be the final decision of the government as PCCF in his letter dated 12/4/2007 conveyed to the government that the subject land does not come within the forest and therefore he would have no objection to its being allotted. It was argued that plantation on a non forest land, which is essentially a barren revenue land, cannot, in the meaning of Section 2 of the FC Act be described as forest. JDA as per circular of the government dated 2/9/2006 imposed a condition for payment of double the cost of plantation and accordingly the respondent-company has paid a sum of Rs.1,21,43,178 towards cost of plantation on 202 hectares of land against plantation of 101 hectares for one lac trees whereas at present 47000 trees are there on the subject land. This amount has now been paid to the forest department. Shri Sundram argued that in its order dated 12/12/1996 in T.N. Godavarman supra, Supreme Court has made clear distinction between forest and plantation and treated both as different. In paras 4 and 5 of the judgment, it was expressly made clear that while there is a ban on felling of trees in forest but there is no ban on felling of of trees in plantation. The State Governments were directed to constitute committees to determine and identify the forest. Such committee was also appointed in the State of Rajasthan which clearly held that plantation in a non-forest land cannot be treated as forest. Learned counsel argued that observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Samtha supra, was made in the context of scheduled land regarding natural forest and man-made forest. But those observations would not apply to the present case because expression 'man-made forestation' pre-supposes that still it is forest which may have been caused by initial man made growth. Judgment however did not declare planned man made cultivation of trees i.e. plantation, as a forest. But those observations would not apply to the present case because expression 'man-made forestation' pre-supposes that still it is forest which may have been caused by initial man made growth. Judgment however did not declare planned man made cultivation of trees i.e. plantation, as a forest. This issue has been directly answered in paras 4 and 5 of the order by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman supra itself which clearly distinguishes plantation from forest. The Supreme Court in the said case directed the State Governments to set up expert committees to determine the forest as against plantation and specifically made it clear that cutting of trees was banned only in forest and not plantation. This showed that plantation was not intended to be a forest. The report submitted by the State Level Expert Committee to the Government of Rajasthan has not been objected to by any one and still holds good. Such report need not be interfered with unless it is arbitrary or otherwise perverse. It was argued that circular of the Government of Rajasthan dated 2/9/2006 has rightly been issued on the basis of clarification issued by the Government of India dated 31/8/2005. Reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta’s case, which dealt with mining in Arrawali Hills, is wholly misconceived because in that case there was a project of afforestation. It was specifically observed in paras 81 and 82 of the judgment that the Arrawali Hills were originally part of forest and it was subjected to exhaustive mining by uprooting the trees grown there. In the present case, subject land was originally a barren land and the purpose for which it is going to be used is compatible with the ecological zone as indicated in the Master Plan 2011 itself. If the land is not a forest land, there was no question of any prior approval of the Central Government for its allotment to the respondent-company and the provisions of the FC Act would not be applicable. It was argued that Section 29 of the Wild Life Act has no application as it applies to the wild life and its habitat inside the Sanctuary. Judgment of Supreme Court in Essar Oil Ltd. supra would also have no application to the facts of the present case. It was argued that Section 29 of the Wild Life Act has no application as it applies to the wild life and its habitat inside the Sanctuary. Judgment of Supreme Court in Essar Oil Ltd. supra would also have no application to the facts of the present case. In paras 28 and 29 of the judgment, the Supreme Court dealt with a case of the land within the Sanctuary and accordingly Section 29 was invoked. 31. Shri C.A. Sundram, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the objection of the petitioner that the land should have been put to public auction rather than being allotted by negotiation is wholly untenable. There is no restriction for use of such land just because this land is charagah land as well as part of the ecological zone. But at the same time, it has to be considered that the JDA Act does not put any restriction regarding allotment of government land, categorised as charagah, forming part of the ecological zone. This area has been shown part of ecological zone in the Master Plan 2011 and at Page 52 of Part-I thereof, land falling in such an area has been allowed to be put to uses given therein which provides inter-alia the use of golf course, parks, recreational & health resorts, sports complexes, stud forms etc. which is the purpose of the project in question. It was argued that Section 2(8) of the JDA Act defines Jaipur Region as specified in Schedule-I and village Daulatpura forms part of Jaipur Region by virtue of notification dated 25/10/1997. The land itself has been recorded in the name of JDA in the revenue records. JDA by virtue of Section 54 of the Act is therefore empowered to dispose of the land vested in it by way of allotment. The term 'tourist unit' is defined in Rule 2(10B) of the Rules of 1974 and according to Rule 15B, JDA can allot a land for infrastructure project on such terms and condition and on such rates as may be determined by the State Government. The term 'tourist unit' is defined in Rule 2(10B) of the Rules of 1974 and according to Rule 15B, JDA can allot a land for infrastructure project on such terms and condition and on such rates as may be determined by the State Government. The State Government in the present case has not only determined the rate but also imposed certain conditions such as that there shall be maintained 500 meters wide eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary and that the circular dated 2/9/2006 regarding payment of cost of plantation shall be adhered to and that before utilizing land for any other purpose, as specified in master plan, requirement of Section 25 of the JDA Act would be mandatorily followed. Respondent-company has agreed to abide by all such conditions. It was argued that the land was allotted at DLC rates as this was totally undeveloped agriculture land situated at a distance of 30 kms. from Jaipur and is part of ecological zone where minimum construction is permissible. Even though as per the letter dated 28/12/2006, the JDA conveyed to the Government about the DLC rates for agricultural land Rs.4.5 lac per bigha but still the respondent-company has been allotted such land at the rate of Rs.10 lacs per bigha which is applicable only for the land abutting main road. It was argued that the question of public auction would in any case not arise because the Government of Rajasthan has specifically approved the mega tourism project. This cannot be therefore taken as a case for auctioning of land for construction purposes or for selling of land for any other commercial venture. When the land is meant to be used for specific purpose, government has to see who can best subserve the object, which is what has been done in the present case. Learned counsel in this respect relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MP Oil Extraction and another vs. State of M.P. And others : (1997) 7 SCC 592 and Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Poonam Chand Bhandari vs. State of Rajasthan : 2008(1) RLW Raj. 885 wherein it was held that the government land may also be disposed of by way of negotiation. Respondent No.5, who has created and run the famous Appu Ghar in New Delhi has the capability to expeditiously set up and successfully run the proposed project. 885 wherein it was held that the government land may also be disposed of by way of negotiation. Respondent No.5, who has created and run the famous Appu Ghar in New Delhi has the capability to expeditiously set up and successfully run the proposed project. When allotment of land is made for purpose of project keeping in view the business policy of the government, relevant considerations as to who can best undertake the project for its long term benefits and not merely getting the highest price, which would be the criteria if the land was being sold for use in any manner the buyer may choose. It was argued that the public interest can be judged by taking into consideration all factors and not merely one or two aspects. Though the land is going to be used for setting up mega tourism city and mostly for amusement park but 80% of the land would still be required to be kept green with no constructions thereupon. Doctrine of sustained development as enunciated by the Supreme Court where development and ecology have to go together, would therefore have to be invoked in such matters. Reliance in this connection was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co.Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and others : 2006(3) SCC 434, specially the observations made in paras 63, 64, 99, 100, 251, 252 and 273 of the report. It was argued that the parameters laid down therein have been met by the respondent-company which has undertaken to plant 1 lacs trees over the subject land, twice the number of trees standing there. It was argued that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and interveners on various judgments of Supreme Court dealing with the term of forest, proceeded on the assumption that the subject land is forest land whereas the State Government holds the view that it is not a forest land. In matters of this nature, it is ultimately the determination made by the State Government, which is material. Proposition of law as enunciated in those judgments cannot be contested but they can be applied only in a case where land in question is a forest land. Once it is found that the land is not a forest land, then none of these judgments would apply. Proposition of law as enunciated in those judgments cannot be contested but they can be applied only in a case where land in question is a forest land. Once it is found that the land is not a forest land, then none of these judgments would apply. It was argued that the Central Government has no role to play in the matter and identification of the forest has to be made by the State Government alone as per the judgment of Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman supra and therefore the submissions made in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India based on letter of DCF dated 22/2/2007 and CCF dated 29/3/2007 to the effect that this question, whether the land is forest or not, would require determination, is totally unfounded and misconceived particularly when such assertion has been made in isolation of the fact that none of those letters was accepted either by the PCCF or the government. This statement in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of UOI is wholly unacceptable because this is contrary to the stand taken by it in its originally filed counter affidavit. 32. Shri K.K. Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India has submitted that supplementary affidavit was filed in response to the arguments in the court about the role of the Union of India in such matters. Whether or not prior approval of the Central Government would be necessary in terms of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act depends on determination of the fact if the subject land is forest land or not. He submitted that the State Forest Department found that 47000 trees are standing on the subject land. The Central Government provided funds to the State Government for such plantation. If trees are cut, the State Government should ensure plantation double the number of plants and the cost of alleged felling of trees. He submitted that the State Forest Department found that 47000 trees are standing on the subject land. The Central Government provided funds to the State Government for such plantation. If trees are cut, the State Government should ensure plantation double the number of plants and the cost of alleged felling of trees. Although, the JDA has imposed condition in the allotment letter with regard to maintaining 500 meters of land as eco-sensitive zone from the boundary of Sanctuary, Shri K.K. Sharma in this connection also referred to the order dated 4/8/2006 passed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman in which Supreme Court on consideration of the report of the Central Empowered Committee permitted grant of temporary mining permits as an interim measure on the condition that it should not result in any manner of the activities within 1 km. around the Jamwa Ramgarh Wild Life Sanctuary that may be passed in IA No.1000. 33. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and also studied the cited precedents. 34. Consideration of the aforenoted arguments raised by the learned counsel representing the contesting parties would show that apart from few other points, major questions that call for determination by this court in the present matter are; (i) Whether the disputed land is forest land and therefore was it not mandatorily required of the State Govt. to seek prior approval of the Central Government before it was allotted to the respondent No.5? (ii) Whether such land by reason of the fact that it has become habitat of the Wild Life in the Sanctuary, could be legally allotted?, (iii) Whether BIDI or for that matter, the State Government, was competent to direct the JDA to make allotment of the land in question to respondent No.5? (iv) Whether the auction was the only mode of disposal of the land in question and then the related question would be (v) Whether the land has been allotted to respondent No.5 at a very low price to confer upon it undue advantage so much so that the land worth Rs.600 crores has been allotted to the respondent-company on a throw away price of Rs.48 crores only? Whether the Allotted Land is Forest Land? 35. Whether the Allotted Land is Forest Land? 35. Supreme Court in its order dated 12/12/1996 in T.N. Godaveraman supra, now recognised as magna carta of the forest laws in India, effectively enforced the provisions of the FC Act which was hitherto, though available in the statute, largely remained unimplemented. It was in T.N. Godavarman that the Supreme Court clarified as to what was meant by the word 'forest land' as occurring in Section 2 of the FC Act. It was held that 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 of the FC 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 question that really arises for determination in the present matter is whether the plantation made by the government under centrally sponsored scheme funded by the Government of Japan, on a charagah land entered in the name of JDA in the revenue record, would be forest in the meaning of Section 2 supra. In so far as plantation in a private land is concerned, there is no manner of doubt that it was held to be not a forest. This is clear from para 5.4 of the order where the Supreme Court observed that there shall be a complete ban on movement of cut trees and this ban would not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest. In para 5.5 of the order, the Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to constitute the expert committees, which were required to identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. But then, the Supreme Court in para 5.II(1), while dealing with the State of Jammu & Kashmir directed that ban will not affect felling in any private plantations by private persons or the Social Forestry Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. But then, the Supreme Court in para 5.II(1), while dealing with the State of Jammu & Kashmir directed that ban will not affect felling in any private plantations by private persons or the Social Forestry Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. In para 5.III (1), while dealing with the State of Himachal Pradesh and hill regions of the States of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, it was directed that ban will not affect felling of any trees in any private plantation in any area which is not a forest and which has not been converted from an earlier forest. In para 5.IV(1), while dealing with the State of Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court directed that there will be complete ban on felling of trees in all “forest areas” and this ban however would not apply to trees which have been planted and grown, and are not of spontaneous growth and are in areas which were not forests earlier, but were cleared for any reason. This was reiterated in para 5.IV(4) in relation to the plantations (tea, coffee, cardamom etc.), wherefor it was directed that felling of shade trees in these plantations will be limited to trees which have been planted and not those which have grown spontaneously. In para 5.IV(4)(c) and (d) of the order, the Supreme Court further clarified by directing the State Governments to ascertain and identify those areas of the plantation which are “forest” and not in active use as a plantation and further that there will be no further expansion of the plantations in a manner so as to involve encroachment upon “forests”. 36. Learned counsel appearing from both the sides have interpreted the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court in their own manner. The expert committee constituted by the State of Rajasthan on the basis of its own interpretation of the aforesaid order of Supreme Court held that only those tracts of land which are covered by naturally grown trees and undergrowth are forests and the tracts which are covered by plantation trees would not be treated as forest and this is why the Supreme Court has directed for identification of areas which were earlier forests but stood degraded, denuded or cleared and separately asked for identification of those areas which are covered by planted trees belonging to the government and those belonging to the private persons, in the category other than forests. The expert committee held that plantations on non-forest land are not to be treated as “forests”. 37. In Samatha supra, the Supreme Court however clarified the meaning of the word “forest” observing that “forest” bears extended meaning of a tract of land covered with trees, shrubs, vegetation and undergrowth intermingled with trees and pastures, be it of natural growth or man-made forestation. It held that Section 2 of the FC Act prohibits deforestation of the forests or use of any forest land for any non-forest purpose or assignment by way of lease or otherwise of any portion of forest land to any private person other than Government controlled or owned, organised or managed agency by the State Government. It further prohibits clearance of trees or natural growth in the forest land or any portion thereof to use it for reforestation, except for preservation. The Supreme Court in the context of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 held that promotion of environmental protection implies maintenance of eco-friendly environment as a whole comprising of man-made and the natural environment. The Supreme Court so held in the context of argument that only of such area which is declared as reserve forests or forests under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, should be treated as 'forest' for the purpose of FC Act and not the one which is outside the 'reserve forest'. 38. In M.C. Mehta supra, Supreme Court was dealing with the mining operations carried out in Arravali Hills of the forest of the State of Haryana where area under the lease was covered by notification under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. Those provisions empowered the State Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit the quarrying of stone in the notified area. Besides, the area in question was also shown as forest in their records by the Forest Department. Area was covered by notification issued by MOE & F, Government of India dated 7/5/1992 which prohibited mining operation in Arravali Hills except with its prior permission and environmental clearance. Central Empowered Committee also recommended banning of mining activities in this area. Besides, the area in question was also shown as forest in their records by the Forest Department. Area was covered by notification issued by MOE & F, Government of India dated 7/5/1992 which prohibited mining operation in Arravali Hills except with its prior permission and environmental clearance. Central Empowered Committee also recommended banning of mining activities in this area. The stand that was taken by the State Government was that it was on account of erroneous viewpoint of the Forest Department, but in fact and law, such area was not forest and mining was not prohibited and therefore the question of seeking permission under Section 2 of the FC Act did not arise. The material placed before the Supreme Court showed that the State Forest Report, 1999 issued by the Forest Survey of India in relation to State of Haryana provided that large-scale plantations were carried out under the Arravali Project in 1992 and this resulted in increase of forest cover in the State, mainly in Gurgaon and Faridabad. In that context, Supreme Court held that the State could not be permitted to take a stand that the areas covered under the Arravali Project are not forest. But those observations of the Supreme Court were founded on the premise that the area in question had been treated as Forest even by the Forest Department of the State which fact was proved from the affidavits of PCCF Haryana filed in Environmental Awareness Forum vs. State of J & K (Civil Writ Petition No.171/96) and also from letter dated 26/11/2002 addressed by the DFO Faridabad to the Mining Officer Faridabad forwarding a list of blocked forest areas of Faridabad district with a request that such areas are not affected by mining operations and also letter dated 17/9/2001 sent by PCCF Haryana to Director Environment to the same effect. 39. What is contended by the petitioner is that Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta supra had treated the areas covered by plantations on government land which had taken place under the scheme of the Central Government funded by the European Community, such land has to be therefore treated as forest land. 39. What is contended by the petitioner is that Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta supra had treated the areas covered by plantations on government land which had taken place under the scheme of the Central Government funded by the European Community, such land has to be therefore treated as forest land. There is no doubt that the forest in the meaning of Section 2 of the FC Act need not necessarily be always a forest notified either as a reserve forest or protected forest under the Indian Forest Act or State Forest Act and as per the law propounded by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godaveraman supra, it has to be understood in the dictionary sense, irrespective of its classification or ownership. But the Supreme Court in T.N. Godaveraman supra laid down the detailed guidelines to be followed for the purpose of deciding as to what is meant by 'forest land' as occurring in Section 2 of the FC Act. Determination of this fact was left to be made by the expert committees to be set up by the State Governments which were to identify the areas which are forest, whether notified, recognised or classified or otherwise, irrespective of ownership and to identify the areas which were earlier forests and has been degraded, denuded or cleared. And the Supreme Court further directed the expert committees to also identify the areas covered by plantations belonging to government and those belonging to private persons. In para 5.5 of T.N. Godevaraman, the Supreme Court thus clearly makes a distinction between the areas identified as forest and those which were earlier forests but have now been degraded, denuded or cleared and the areas covered by plantations belonging to government and private persons. That is why the Supreme Court in para 5.5 while imposing ban on felling of trees in forest, in the self-same order made an exception by permitting such felling in private plantations comprising of trees planted by private persons and the social forestry department of the States of Himachal Pradesh, hilly regions of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. That is why the Supreme Court in para 5.5 while imposing ban on felling of trees in forest, in the self-same order made an exception by permitting such felling in private plantations comprising of trees planted by private persons and the social forestry department of the States of Himachal Pradesh, hilly regions of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. This distinction was sought to be logically explained by the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of State of Tamil Nadu in para 5.5(4)(i) when it held that ban on felling of trees would not apply to trees which have been planted and grown but would apply to those of spontaneous growth and further that felling of shed trees in plantations would be limited to trees which have been planted and not those which have grown spontaneously. This distinction between planted trees and those which have spontaneously grown is thus to be found in the scheme prepared by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godevaraman for protection of the forest land under the FC Act. 40. In Sri Ram Saha vs. State of W.B. and others (2004) 11 SCC 497 , dealing with somewhat similar question regarding distinction between the natural forest and non-forest plantation, as we have referred to above, the Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment held as under:- “10. It is clear from the aforesaid judgment of this Court that the observations made and directions given were in relation to forest land. The only term “forest land” occurring in Section 2 of the Conservation Act will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense but also includes any land recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership. It is also stated that the provisions of the Conservation Act for the conservation of forest and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of ownership or the classification thereof. By the directions given in the said judgment, certain bans are imposed including a ban in respect of felling of trees in forest, irrespective of the nature of the forest i.e. whether the forest is public forest or private, reserved, protected or otherwise. By the directions given in the said judgment, certain bans are imposed including a ban in respect of felling of trees in forest, irrespective of the nature of the forest i.e. whether the forest is public forest or private, reserved, protected or otherwise. It is clear from the observations made and directions given in the aforesaid judgment of this Court that though ban was imposed in respect of undesirable activities in the forest irrespective of the nature of the forest and its ownership but such a ban did not affect felling of trees in any private plantation in an area which is not a forest. Thus, it is clear that the direction given by this Court is clearly confined to felling of trees in forest land and the said ban was not extended to non-forest private plantation.” 41. A question however may arise whether the exemption from the ban imposed on felling of trees in non forest plantation could be extended to plantation which, though carried out in a non forest land but is on a government waste land. And related thereto may also arise the question whether plantation which started in 1990 and was carried upto 1998, would not be taken to have been developed as forest for the purpose of Section 2 of the FC Act. But answer to the second question thus posed would necessarily depend on the answer to the first question whether any distinction can be made between the forest of natural and spontaneous growth and the work of plantation which is man-made and by human intervention. Supreme Court in Samatha supra though was considering a case where part of the land for which mining lease was granted was situated in reserve forest but part of the land covered by mining area was outside the reserve forest. Referring to word “forest” in dictionary sense, Supreme Court observed that “forest” bears extended meaning of a tract of land covered with trees, shrubs, vegetation and undergrowth intermingled with trees and pastures, be it of natural growth or man-made forestation. Judgment in Samatha supra was decided by three judge bench of the Supreme Court. Leading judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Saghir Ahmad in a separate judgment concurred with Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy. Judgment in Samatha supra was decided by three judge bench of the Supreme Court. Leading judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Saghir Ahmad in a separate judgment concurred with Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy. However, Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.B. Pattanaik in a separate judgment in para 230 of the report though concurred with the interpretation of forest land as given by Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy, yet directed that unless and until it was determined by the State Government that the mining activities of the respondents are being carried on over forest land, it will not be possible to hold that the provisions of Section 2 of the Conservation Act gets attracted and direction was therefore issued to the State Government through its officers of the forest department to immediately inspect the mining areas and find out whether the lands covered under the mining leases in question forms part of the forest land and if it comes to the conclusion that it is part and parcel of the forest land and no prior approval of the Central Government has been obtained for carrying out the mining activities, then immediately directions should be issued to the lease holders to stop the mining activities. It was observed that it was necessary to issue such directions because it is not possible for the court to come to the conclusion that the land in question forms part and parcel of the forest land. 42. In the Malankara Rubber and Produce Col.Ltd. etc. vs. State of Kerala and others : AIR 1972 SC 2027 , the question that fell for consideration of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was about validity of Kerala Land Reforms Act whether it was hit by Article 31A of the Constitution of India. Amendment in the Act sought to reduce the ceiling area. Supreme Court in para 53 of the report, observed that lands under eucalyptus or teak plots which are the result of agricultural operations normally would be agricultural lands. They would certainly not be forests but facts suggested that operations were carried thereon for the express purpose of growing these plants and trees. However, lands which are covered by eucalyptus or teak plants grown spontaneously as in a jungle or a forest, would be outside the purview of acquisition. They would certainly not be forests but facts suggested that operations were carried thereon for the express purpose of growing these plants and trees. However, lands which are covered by eucalyptus or teak plants grown spontaneously as in a jungle or a forest, would be outside the purview of acquisition. In Bhavani Tea and Produce Co.Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and others : (1991) 2 SCC 463 , again distinction between spontaneously grown trees in a forest and the man-made plantation was noticed in the context of provisions of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. High Court in that case held that some of the plots had old plants and shed trees, and were treated abandoned plantations by the forest department. Therefore, “the area had reverted to nature decades ago and such reversion was naturally a forest.” Supreme Court reversed that view holding that “mere abandonment would not convert an area into a forest, unless the owner had decided to do so or the appropriate authority has notified it to be so. Mere visual test would not be enough.” The Supreme Court while considering the question whether the land which has been converted in eucalyptus plantation could be said to be forest within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the said Act, observed in the context of the term 'private forest' that it applied to lands other than those on which human skill, labour and resources had been spent for agricultural operations. 43. A distinction between the spontaneously grown forest and manmade plantation has thus always been judicially recognised. It must therefore be held that what is true of a non forest private plantation, equally applies to a non forest government plantation if the basic parameters in both the cases remains the same that the land on which plantation has been undertaken was not a forest land. Equally true however is the fact that an area may be a forest even if it is not notified either as reserve forest or protected forest but is a result of spontaneous growth of the trees, shrubs, vegetation undergrowth intermingled with trees and pastures. Equally true however is the fact that an area may be a forest even if it is not notified either as reserve forest or protected forest but is a result of spontaneous growth of the trees, shrubs, vegetation undergrowth intermingled with trees and pastures. Some clue as to what was the intendment of the scheme prepared under the orders of the Supreme Court with regard to plantations on a private or community land has to be found in the subsequent order of the Supreme Court dated 15/7/1998 in T.N. Godaveraman vs. Union of India : 1998(2) SCC 59 . In para 3.10 of the said order, the Supreme Court while permitting disposal of the existing inventorised stock of timber originating from plantations in private and community holdings in five northern-eastern states of India by their owners under the relevant State laws and the rules, further directed that where such laws and rules do not exist, the necessary laws and rules may be framed within six months. In para 3.23, the Supreme Court directed working plans to be prepared by the State Governments for all forest divisions and get the same approved from the Government of India which may include annual felling programme of trees. In para 3.25 of the order, however, the Supreme Court excluded the plantations raised on private and community holdings from these requirements and directed that they shall be regulated under the respective State rules and the regulations. This was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in its order dated 12/05/2001 passed in I.A. No.295 in WP(C) 202 of 1985 in T.N. Godaverman supra wherein, it was observed that “for felling of trees from non-forest area including in respect of plantation on non-forest area, detailed guidelines/rules shall be framed by the concerned State Govt. which shall come into effect after the same are concurred with modification, if any, by Ministry of Environment and Forests.” State Level Expert Committee has in its report noticed this order. Government of Rajasthan also sought clarification on this aspect from Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India which has by its letter dated 31/8/2005 clarified this position. 44. which shall come into effect after the same are concurred with modification, if any, by Ministry of Environment and Forests.” State Level Expert Committee has in its report noticed this order. Government of Rajasthan also sought clarification on this aspect from Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India which has by its letter dated 31/8/2005 clarified this position. 44. In Sri Ram Saha supra, the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of felling of trees in private non forest plantation observed that the same would be governed by a statutory or enacted laws of the State and since there was none, the High court was not justified in imposing further restrictions on felling of trees. No such rule or regulations on the question of felling of trees in non forest plantations, whether developed on private or government land have been brought to our notice. What is however of significance is the fact whether plantation as such would make the land covered thereby as a forest land under Section 2 of the FC Act? If such land can be held to be a forest, then ownership of the land would not be a relevant criterion in deciding so. This is so because Supreme Court in all the above referred to judgments is consistent on this aspect of the matter that the word 'forest' as referred to in Section 2 of the FC Act must be understood according to its dictionary meaning, covering all the statutorily recognised forests, designated as reserve, protected or otherwise, irrespective of the ownership. Ownership therefore would be inconsequential to the character of the land being ‘forest’. As a logical corollary thereto, therefore, even if the land is a government land, if a private plantation is excluded from the purview of Section 2 of the FC Act, land being non forest, a government plantation, if it is not otherwise not a forest, cannot be held to be a forest just because such plantation is developed on a government land in contra-distinction to a private land. 45. In fact, the Government of Rajasthan vide letter of PCCF dated 2/4/2004 requested the Government of India to clarify regarding applicability of the FC Act on the plantation raised on revenue waste land and community waste land. 45. In fact, the Government of Rajasthan vide letter of PCCF dated 2/4/2004 requested the Government of India to clarify regarding applicability of the FC Act on the plantation raised on revenue waste land and community waste land. The Ministry of Environment and Forest (FC Division), New Delhi vide its letter dated 31/8/2005 conveyed to the PCCF, Government of Rajasthan as under:- “The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, shall be applicable to the notified forest and to such areas that are identified as forest by the District Level Committees (DLCs) constituted by the State / Union Territory government pursuant to the orders of Supreme Court on 12/12/1996 in CWP No.202 of 1995 with reference to the dictionary meaning of the term Forest, irrespective of its ownership.” 46. Prior approval of the government sought to be insisted upon by the petitioner should therefore be taken to have been satisfied from the aforesaid clarification made by the Government of India itself where it maintained that only such areas which are identified as “forest land” by the District Level Committees constituted by the State/Union Territory Government pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 12/12/1996 with reference to the dictionary meaning of the term “forest”, irrespective of its ownership, be treated as Forest. This clarification should therefore make it abundantly clear that plantation raised either on revenue waste land or on community waste land, if not identified as forest by the District Level Committees, are not to be treated as forest and ownership would not a relevant consideration for deciding so and thus, the clarification should cover within its purview not only the private plantations but also government plantations on a non forest land. Competence of BIDI :- 47. Allotment of land in the present case has in fact been made by the JDA but this was preceded by a decision of the BIDI dated 10/8/2007. We have referred to the constitution of the BIDI in the preceding paras. BIDI owes its constitution to the amendment in the Rajasthan Rules of Business which rules have been framed by the Governor of the State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by Article 166 of the Constitution of India. It is headed by the Chief Minister of the State with Industry Ministry, Finance Minister, Energy Minister and UDH Minister as its members and Chief Secretary of the State as its Member-Secretary. It is headed by the Chief Minister of the State with Industry Ministry, Finance Minister, Energy Minister and UDH Minister as its members and Chief Secretary of the State as its Member-Secretary. We have referred to in the beginning of the judgment, that the matter was examined on different levels in the government before it was finally placed for consideration of the BIDI. Question that has been raised is whether BIDI was competent to take a decision of this nature and whether the JDA by following its mandates has not abdicated its power by making the allotment to the respondent-company. An identical question was raised in Ajay Chabara supra in which case also the allotment of the land was made for infrastructure project by JDA pursuant to the decision of the BIDI. Argument was that according to division bench judgment of this court in Guru Nanak Tubewells Pvt.Ltd. as also in Shripal supra, which have been relied on by the petitioner in the present case too, land ought to have been auctioned rather being allotted straightway. Argument was also raised that the allotment has been made at much lower rate than the prevalent market rate. The government in that matter defended the action on the premise that allotment was made in accordance with its Information Technology Policy of 2000 so as to provide to the allottee a customized package in I.T. Sector. Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974 provides sufficient guidelines for such allotment against the vice of discrimination and arbitrariness. The Division Bench of this court in para 13 of Ajay Chhabra supra held as under:- “13. Undoubtedly, the information technology has vast vistas and possibilities for fast development. The reply of the State shows that it has been making all the efforts to attract big and well known players in the field. In order to two big players in the IT sector, it may be necess-ary for the State Government to give reasonable concessions, incentives and provide facilities to them. In order to give fillip to the investment in IT sector, the State Government has framed a policy which is called Rajasthan Information Technology Policy, 2000. Its preamble contains the mission statement and its objectives. As per this policy, the creation and up-gradation of the IT Infrastructures and development of core human resources and information technology in the State are its main objectives. Its preamble contains the mission statement and its objectives. As per this policy, the creation and up-gradation of the IT Infrastructures and development of core human resources and information technology in the State are its main objectives. The policy also envisaged providing several concessions, incentives and facility to the investors, besides making projects to be set up the investors free from red-tapism and removal of the stumbling blocks in their way. The High Powered Committee viz., the BIDI reflects the importance being attached to the State to this sector. The allotment of land in question to respondent No.4 on concessional rates with other facilities and incentives has been made by the High Powered body in accordance with the said policy. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner himself has not levelled any allegation of malafides or corruption against this body or any of its members.“ 48. This issue was again raised in a public interest litigation titled as Poonam Chand Bhandari, supra that whether the auction should be the only mode for disposal of the land by the State. Division Bench in para 34 of the judgment held that public auction for the disposal of the government land is the ordinary rule but it is not invariable. In order to ensure, fair play and transparency in State action, distribution of largess by inviting open tenders or public auction is desirable but it cannot be held that in no case distribution of such largess by negotiation is permissible. Petitioner in the present case himself earlier filed a PIL titled as Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No.2207/07 decided on 10.8.2007 = RLW 2007(4) Raj. 3247) : questioning the allotment of 1600 bighas of land and proposal to further allot the same amount of land to M/s. Mahindra World City (Jaipur) and Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. for setting up a Special Economical zone (SEZ) in Jaipur. Allotment in that case too was made by the JDA pursuant to the decision of BIDI. Apart from other arguments, argument with regard to competence of the State Government and/or BIDI with reference to Section 90 of the JDA Act and Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974 were also raised therein. It was argued that there should have been auction or advertisement before allotment of the land and that the land has been allotted at a throw away price. It was argued that there should have been auction or advertisement before allotment of the land and that the land has been allotted at a throw away price. Division Bench dismissed the writ petition holding that the decision to allot the land was taken by the JDA in public interest as SEZ was being set up for economic growth of the country with a view to attract investment and generate foreign exchange through export of goods and services. All the aforesaid arguments with regard to the competence of the BIDI were rejected, while Division Bench observing as under:- “Even otherwise the record would indicate that the respondents have acted in a transparent manner before allotting the land for setting up SEZ. The matter has been scrutinized at different levels in the government. Initially it was examined by the Inter-departmental Steering Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. The BIDI, which is the highest policy making body of the State Government for deciding upon the issues relating to economic development and investment promotion in the State, also upon scrutiny cleared the proposal. This body is headed by the Chief Minister with Ministers from various major departments of the State as its members and Chief Secretary of the Government as Member-secretary and then finally it was approved by the State Cabinet.” 49. Allotment of land in the present case however, has been made pursuant to the decision of the BIDI which is a body constituted with reference to Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution. BIDI is authorised to take measures and policy decisions with regard to infrastructure projects involving huge investments in the States so as to accelerate its individual growth and over-all development and ensure employment generation. This high level body, which is headed by none other than Chief Minister of the State, with Ministers of the four major departments as its Members, is intended to act as a single window mechanism. Somewhat similar issue arose in the State of Karnataka with regard to the allotment of land made to BPL Ltd. which was offered a customized package by the State. In a PIL matter, High Court quashed the allotment. Matter was then considered by the Supreme Court in Chairman & M.D. BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja : (2003) 8 SCC 567 . In a PIL matter, High Court quashed the allotment. Matter was then considered by the Supreme Court in Chairman & M.D. BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja : (2003) 8 SCC 567 . Allotment in that case too was made by a High Level Committee headed by the Minister constituted under the order of the Governor of the State under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Argument was raised that Karnataka Industrial Development Area Board, being a statutory authority constituted under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 could not pursuant to the decision of the High Level Committee allot 175 acres of land to BPL Ltd. It was also argued that allotment was made at a much cheaper rate as compared to the rates at which land was sold to other entrepreneurs and that allotment was made without inviting applications and without notifying the land to general public. Reversing judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that “the State had developed policy of single-window system with a view to get rid of red-tapism prevalent in the bureaucracy. A decision which has been taken after due deliberations and upon due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law.” It was held that “different conditions arise for the purpose of fixation of price in respect of the price of land for a small area vis-a-vis large area.” Fixation of price having regard to policy decision of the State could not be said to be wholly arbitrary warranting interference by the court as such allotment could not be compared with normal allotment. 50. It would be relevant to quote here the observations of the Supreme Court in para 18 of the above referred to judgment with regard to competence of the High Level Committee, similar to the BIDI in the present case, constituted under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, which runs thus: “In terms of the provisions of the Act, consultation with the State Government are required if Regulation 13 of the Regulations in place of Regulation 7 is to be taken recourse to. Does it mean that consultations must be held in a particular manner i.e. by exchange of correspondence and in no other? Answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. Does it mean that consultations must be held in a particular manner i.e. by exchange of correspondence and in no other? Answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. The High-Level Committee was chaired by the Minister who in terms of the Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India was entitled to represent the State. Once a consultation takes place by mutual discussions and a consensus is arrived at between different authorities performing different functions under the statutes, the purpose for which consultation was to be made would stand satisfied. Under the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder, no procedure for holding such consultations had been laid down. In that situation it was open to the competent authorities to evolve their own procedure. Such a procedure of taking a decision upon deliberations does not fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No malice of fact has been alleged in the instant case.” Price of the Land :- 51. Contention that the land is intended to be used for commercial purpose, therefore, decision of the BIDI to allot the same at DLC rates should have been interpreted to mean its allotment on commercial rates prescribed by DLC is also equally untenable. In the first phase, allotment of the land and fixation of its price, are relatable to the state of the land on the date of its allotment. Secondly, we find that as held by the Supreme Court in BPL Ltd. Supra, different criteria would apply for price fixation of a small area vis-a-vis large area, and this land is stated to be about 30 kms. away from city of Jaipur. Thirdly, the land has not been allotted for construction of buildings and houses etc., which the allottee could use the way he liked. This land, being part of eco-sensitive zone, respondent No.5 shall have to keep the extent of constructions to the minimum and it shall also keep at least 80% of the allotted land open. Fourthly, the land has not been allotted for developing a housing colony or for construction of building etc., which the allottee could use the way he lived. This land being part of eco-sensitive zone, respondent No.5 shall have to keep the extent of construction to the minimum and it shall keep at least 80% of the allotted land open. Fourthly, the land has not been allotted for developing a housing colony or for construction of building etc., which the allottee could use the way he lived. This land being part of eco-sensitive zone, respondent No.5 shall have to keep the extent of construction to the minimum and it shall keep at least 80% of the allotted land open. And fourthly, the JDA has charged from the respondent-company price of the land @ Rs.10 lacs per bigha which is in fact DLC rate of the agriculture rate abutting the main road and yet the same rate has been charged for the entire tract of the land though the substantial part of the lands are away from the highway in the interior and are priced at Rs.4.5 lacs according to the rates prescribed by the DLC. Such similar argument was raised by the present petitioner in the PIL relating to SEZ also and was rejected on the same analogy. Government's Power under Sections 54 & 90 of JDA Act :- 52. Argument has been raised that the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 90 of the JDA Act could not issue instructions to the JDA in individual cases. Section 90 merely envisages that the Authority shall exercise its powers and perform its duties under the JDA Act in accordance with the policy framed and guidelines laid down by the State Government from time to time for the development of the area in Jaipur region and that the Authority shall be bound to comply with the guidelines issued from time to time, by the State Govt. for effective administration of the said Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in K.K. Bhalla supra. 53. In K.K. Bhalla challenge was made to the grant of lease of a land on concessional rate by the Jabalpur Development Authority. On facts, it was found that one allotment was made to proprietor of a newspaper and another to a charitable organisation at the instance of Chief Minister. 53. In K.K. Bhalla challenge was made to the grant of lease of a land on concessional rate by the Jabalpur Development Authority. On facts, it was found that one allotment was made to proprietor of a newspaper and another to a charitable organisation at the instance of Chief Minister. It was in that context that the Supreme Court observed that under Section 73 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Act, 1973, which is analogous to Section 90 in the JDA Act herein, power of the State Government to issue directions to the Authority constituted under the Act should be confined to matters of policy and not any other and that the State had no power to interfere with day to day functioning of the JDA. Any direction of the Chief Minister without adherence to the provisions of the Act was held to be void and was of no effect. In those facts, observations made by the Supreme Court in para 64 of the judgment are worth quoting:- “64. The purported policy decision adopted by the State as regards allotment of land to the newspaper industries or other societies was not a decision taken by the appropriate Ministry. If a direction was to be issued by the State to JDA, it was necessary to be done on proper application of mind by the Cabinet, the Minister concerned or by an authority who is empowered in that behalf in terms of the Rules of the Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution. Such a direction could not have been issued at the instance of the Chief Minister or at the instance of any other officer alone unless it is shown that they had such authority in terms of the Rules of the Executive Business of the State. We have not been shown that the Chief Minister was the appropriate authority to take a decision in this behalf. We have noticed hereinbefore that the purported policy decision is in respect of the lands belonging to the State and not those belonging to JDA. The said policy decision applies to the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not applicable in relation to such lands which come within the purview of any scheme framed under the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the purported policy decision is in respect of the lands belonging to the State and not those belonging to JDA. The said policy decision applies to the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not applicable in relation to such lands which come within the purview of any scheme framed under the Act. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x xx x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x “ 54. Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. supra was a case where the State Government directed the JDA to adhere to FAR from 2.0 to 1.75 provided contrary to what was provided in JDA (Jaipur Region Building) Regulations, 1996 and in that context, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 90. It was held that the government can direct the Authority to exercise its powers and lay down in the guidelines from time to time for general application and/or for a class of persons and/or area or based on some such other criteria as may withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. But this power cannot be exercised by the government to give directions to increase FAR in one individual or particular case. This was so held because Supreme Court found that the said direction of the government was not only in favour of one individual party but it was also contrary to the Regulations of 1996, which was the general law applicable at the relevant time. 55. On analysis of the material on record, we find that the action of the respondents in making allotment of the subject land to the respondent-company was preceded by deliberations in the government at different stages. The government satisfied itself about the fact that land was not part of the forest. 55. On analysis of the material on record, we find that the action of the respondents in making allotment of the subject land to the respondent-company was preceded by deliberations in the government at different stages. The government satisfied itself about the fact that land was not part of the forest. The matter was twice examined in the meeting of Pre-BIDI/SLEC headed by the Chief Secretary which included Secretaries of the concerned department as its Members. The allotment was then approved by the BIDI in the meeting headed by Chief Minister as its Chairman, Industry Minister as Vice Chairman and Ministers of the Departments of Finance, Energy and Urban Development and Housing as its members and Chief Secretary of the State as its Member-Secretary, which also took into consideration the dissent of the Industry Ministers who advised against such allotment. The purpose of allotment was to give boost to the development of the State in the field of tourism by providing an infrastructure project having number of such facilities as may cater to the need of both, domestic and foreign tourists. The BIDI keeping in view the fact that the project would involve investment of over Rs.400 crores and generate employment to the large number of people of the State, approved allotment in favour of the respondent-company as a customized package. The rate on which the land has been allotted is prescribed DLC rate for the land abutting main road, yet the entire land has been allotted such rate of Rs.10 lacs per bigha. The writ petitioner has though challenged the action of such allotment but has failed to discharge his initial burden of showing the prima-facie existence of violation of either the mandate of the Constitution of India or of any statutory provisions or otherwise show that the impugned action is actuated by any malice, either in law or of fact. He has also failed to substantiate the allegation that the allotment of land worth Rs.600 crores has been made to the respondent-company by the government and the JDA for an amount of only Rs.48 crores and this was a kind of scam, which , in our considered view, is nothing but figment of his own imagination and cannot be accepted on his mere ipse-dixit without there being any material foundation therefor. 56. 56. Section 54 of the JDA Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the land as defined in Section 103 of the said Act, excluding land referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of the said section and nazul land placed at the disposal of a local authority under section 102A of the said Act in Jaipur Region shall, immediately after establishment of the Authority under Section 3 of this Act, be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of and vested in the Authority, which shall take over such land for and on behalf of the State Government and may use the same, “for the purpose of this Act and may dispose of the same by way of allotment, regularization or auction subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Government may from time to time, laid down and in such manner, as it may, from time to time, prescribe.” Section 54 thus deals with lands which are government lands but which, by a deeming provision contained in Section 102A of the Land Revenue Act, are placed at the disposal of the JDA. Vesting of such lands in JDA is therefore is on an altogether different footing than the lands which according to Section 44 of the JDA Act can be purchased by the JDA on its own and which , according to Section 45 of the said Act, are acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the JDA. Such vesting is therefore not absolute and is qualified by terms & conditions laid down and the manner of disposal prescribed by the State Government. 57. No provision like the one contained in Section 54 of the JDA Act was considered by the Supreme Court in K.K. Bhalla supra. In the present case, vesting of the government land in JDA has taken place by virtue of a deeming fiction created under a statute. The government therefore cannot be denied a say in the matter of allotment, regularization or auction of such lands because such land, as the provision contained in Section 54 itself show, is vested in the JDA, “which shall take over such land for and on behalf of the State Government”. The government therefore cannot be denied a say in the matter of allotment, regularization or auction of such lands because such land, as the provision contained in Section 54 itself show, is vested in the JDA, “which shall take over such land for and on behalf of the State Government”. No doubt, provisions of Section 54 requires that allotment, regularization or auction by the JDA can be made subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Government may from time to time lay down and in such manner, as it may prescribe but this requirement has to be read along with Rule 15B of the Rules of 1974 where tourism unit has been included as one of the infrastructure projects for which purpose allotment of land has been made permissible. Tourism unit as referred to in Rule 15B has been defined under Rule 2(10B) of the Rules of 1974 which provides for inbuilt guidelines for allotment as to what would be meant by 'tourism unit'. This includes hotel, motel, restaurants, holiday resorts with facilities of sports, recretionary facilities, riding, water park, amusement park and other social amenities for boarding and lodging arrangements. Allotment of the land in dispute to the respondent- company cannot therefore be faulted even on this count. Though ofcourse, Rule 15B provides that allotment can be made with the prior approval of the State Government and in the present case, actual allotment has been made by the JDA as per the approval of the State Government but in the peculiar facts of the present case, where deliberations by BIDI for grant of customized package to the intending investors has to precede the actual allotment of the land because such package would obviously also include the rate at which the land has to be allotted to the intending investor, the contention of the petitioner therefore that there should have been prior approval of the State Government as envisaged by Section 54 of the JDA Act and Rule 15B, can not but be rejected in view of peculiarities attached to the allotment of land to an infrastructure project like the one in question. IS the auction only mode of disposal? 58. IS the auction only mode of disposal? 58. Distribution of State largess by inviting open tenders or by public auction though is always preferable mode of disposal of landed property by the State, there is however no absolute restriction on the powers of the State to distribute such largess by negotiation in appropriate and deserving cases. On the aspect, the Supreme Court in MP Oil Extraction supra in para 45 of the judgment, upon consideration of number of its previous judgments on the subject, observed as under:- “45. Although to ensure fair play and transparency in State action, distribution of largesse by inviting open tenders or by public auction is desirable, it cannot be held that in no case distribution of such largesse by negotiation is permissible. In the instant case, as a policy decision protective measure by entering into agreements with selected industrial units for assured supply of sal seeds at concessional rate gas been taken by the government. The rate of royalty has also been fixed on some accepted principle of pricing formula as will be indicated hereafter. Hence, distribution or allotment of sal seeds at the determined royalty to the respondents and other units covered by the agreements cannot be assailed. It is to be appreciated that in this case, distribution by public auction or by open tender may not achieve the purpose of the policy of protective measure by way of supply of sal seeds at concessional rate of royalty to the industr8al units covered by the agreements on being selected on valid and objective considerations.” 59. BIDI is a collective body headed by Chief Minister of the State, which is authorised under the Rules of Business to take decision on major infrastructure projects including the decision to give customized package to an interpreneour willing to invest in the State. This may also include the decision as to allotment of land and rate on which the land may be allotted. In the present day economic scenario, when different State Governments are vying with each other to offer attractive incentives to potential investors for ensuring infrastructural and industrial development of their State, such decision of BIDI cannot be so lightly interfered with unless the same is shown to be either lacking in authority or otherwise based on extraneous consideration. Wild Life Sanctuary :- 60. Wild Life Sanctuary :- 60. Adverting now to the argument that allotment of the land would infringe the provisions of Section 29 of the Wild Life Act. It should be noted that Section 29 mandates that no person shall destroy, exploit or remove any wild life including forest produce from a Sanctuary or destroy or damage or divert the habitat of any wild animal by any act whatsoever or divert, stop or enhance the flow of water into or outside the Sanctuary. Habitat as referred to in Section 29 is defined under Section 2(15) of the Wild Life Act, includes land, water or vegetation which is the natural home of any wild animal. It may be observed that the disputed land falls much outside the Sanctuary and in the present case, respondents have undertaken to provide a 500 meter wide eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary, so to say, 500 meters wide strip of land starting from the boundary of the Sanctuary would act as buffer zone for the protection of wild life. 61. Supreme Court in Essar Oil Ltd. supra while considering the provisions of Section 29 emphasized significance of maintaining a balance between economic development on the one hand and environmental protection, on the other. Supreme Court observed that though in a sense, all development is environmental threat, but objective of the laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two. Keeping this view in mind, Supreme Court interpreted Section 29 of the Wild Life Act and observed that the protection afforded to wild life is more rigorous, but in no case is the prohibition absolute and the prohibited activities can be allowed under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Chief Wild Life Warden. It was observed that Section 29 bars anyone from completely, irreparably and irreversibly putting an end to wild life or to the habitat in a Sanctuary. In the present case, contention of the petitioner therefore that this would deprive the wild animals and wild life of its habitat thereby violating Section 29 cannot be accepted because this provision is attracted to such deprivation within the Sanctuary but not outside. Letters of DCF and CCF relied on by the petitioner merely states that the area of plantation, part of which has been allotted to the respondent-company, has become natural habitat and visiting area of wild life animals. Letters of DCF and CCF relied on by the petitioner merely states that the area of plantation, part of which has been allotted to the respondent-company, has become natural habitat and visiting area of wild life animals. But then, such area cannot by mere reason of that fact become part of the notified Sanctuary itself. Creating buffer zone in the width of 500 meters all around the Sanctuary would act for the benefit and protection of the wild life in the Sanctuary. However, at the same time, the argument that flow of water of nullahs emanating from Sanctuary towards the subject land cannot be diverted or stopped, needs consideration because the later part of Section 29 provides that no person shall ‘divert, stop or enhance the flow of water into or outside the Sanctuary ’. This would obviously attract, area outside the Sanctuary in the sense that flow of water from Sanctuary outside the Sanctuary area cannot be stopped and to that extent, petitioner may be justified in his contention because Section 29 itself provides that change in the flow of water even outside the Sanctuary can be made only if it is necessary for improvement and in better management of wild life and that the State Government has to consult the Chief Wild Life Advisory Board therefor and no such consultation in the present case has taken place. We must therefore hold that flow of water from the nullahs, flowing from Sanctuary, outside the Sanctuary, even towards the land in dispute, cannot be stopped except in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. 62. Argument has also been raised that the demarcation of the boundaries of the Sanctuary and the reserve forest has not been made in a satisfactory manner. On this aspect, we may notice that respondents have decided to create and maintain 500 meters wide strip of land around the Sanctuary as eco-sensitive zone. This eco-sensitive zone has been created at the suggestion of the PCCF and its object, according to the respondents, is to create minimal disturbance to the wild life of the Sanctuary so that this area may work as a buffer zone for the wild animals visiting that area even outside the Sanctuary. This eco-sensitive zone has been created at the suggestion of the PCCF and its object, according to the respondents, is to create minimal disturbance to the wild life of the Sanctuary so that this area may work as a buffer zone for the wild animals visiting that area even outside the Sanctuary. 500 meters wide strip of land as eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary would obviously imply that width of 500 meters has to start from outer boundary of the Sanctuary. Respondents in order to ensure the implementation of the decision of creating 500 meters wide Sanctuary should therefore necessarily ensure proper demarcation of boundary of not only the Sanctuary but also the reserve forest and in the case of Sanctuary, they should also make further demarcation of the outer boundary of the eco-sensitive zone. Such demarcation, in both the cases, should be by mode of putting permanent marks and in the case of outer boundary of the eco-sensitive zone and/or reserve forest adjoining the allotted land, such demarcation should be made by putting up either a good quality of barbed wiring with pillars at the regular intervals or partly constructed wall with partly barbed wiring, whichever is considered appropriate by the Chief Wild Life Warden in the interest of the wild life. Cost of such wall and/or barbed wiring shall be borne by the respondent No.5. Creation of buffer zone and raising of boundary wall and/or barbed wiring along side the allotted land, which we have directed by this order, would work for the protection and safety of the wild life as also prevent the wild animals going stray into the civilian areas. Eco-Sensitive Zone : 63. Contention that allotment of the land in question to the respondent-company would have the effect of reducing the availability of green belt area of Jaipur city needs to be appreciated in the context of the fact that this land is part of the eco-sensitive zone and the use for which it has been allotted is consistent and compatible with those contained in Master Plan 2011 of Jaipur City and that the respondent-company has undertaken not to raise construction in 80% of the total land and grow double the number of fallen trees and restrict the construction to only 12% of the total land. And then, the State Pollution Control Board has also given its consent for the proposed project. And then, the State Pollution Control Board has also given its consent for the proposed project. Purpose for which the allotment of the land has been made to the respondents is setting up a mega tourism city wherein the respondent-company would have facilities of themed park, water park, amusement park, golf courses, resorts, retail outlets amusement, multimedia resorts etc. All these objects are pre-dominantly compatible with those permitted within the ecological zone even by the Master Plan 2011 which in Part I at its page 52 provides as under:- “Keeping in view all these aspects, besides the Urbanisable Area, Ecological Zone has been delineated in the Region. This zone including the hill ranges, forest covers water bodies, settlements etc. is ideally suited to be maintained as a predominant green zone to be utilized for Agriculture, forestry and allied activities besides compatible activities. The existing settlements and legally established urban and rural functions in this zone will be allowed to expand to the extent of natural growth. Functions and activities which are eco-friendly and occupy minimal built area for incidental use like recreational & health resorts, sports complexes, stud forms, golf courses etc. may come up in this zone subject to stringent control with respect to environmental and other planning aspects. The Ecological Zone shall by all means be protected against indiscriminate urbanisation and shall continue to be a predominant green area even beyond the horizon year as stipulated in this document. The boundaries of the ecological zone as delineated in the over all regional context may very slightly for planning considerations while working out details in the Zonal Development Plans and those plans may accommodate selective extractive industries in specific areas, designated for them, few eco-friendly urban functions as may be promoted by JDA/Govt. The area of the Ecological Zone delineated at this stage is approx 449 Sq.Kms.” Availability of Pasture Land :- 64. Contention that no grazing area may be available for the cattels of village Daulatpura and other adjoining villages, cannot be accepted because there is no restriction in law for the government to convert the nature of charagah land into the other which power is available with the government. Contention that no grazing area may be available for the cattels of village Daulatpura and other adjoining villages, cannot be accepted because there is no restriction in law for the government to convert the nature of charagah land into the other which power is available with the government. Section 93 of the of the Land Revenue Act provides for regulation of use of pasturage as per rules made by the State Government and Section 90A empowers the Government to change the use of agriculture land for any non agricultural purposes but Section 102 of the Land Revenue Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained, elsewhere in the Act, the State Government shall have power to allot land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as it deems fit. Even otherwise, as per the details furnished by the State Government, apart from the fact that 165.95 hectares of charagah land is available in Village Daulatpura itself, 556.33 hectares of land would still be available in adjoining revenue villages namely; Badagaon Jarkhya, Khora Shyamdas, Chonp, Kukas, Kherwadi, Rampura and Bagwada. Environment vis-a-vis Development :- 65. Supreme Court in Bombay Dyeing and Mfg.Co.Ltd. supra, while considering the scheme for development of sick and closed industrial undertakings involving change in user of large tracts of land owned by such undertakings, in para 251 observed as under:- “251. It is often felt that in the process of encouraging development the environment gets sidelined. However, with major threats to the environment, such as climate change, depletion of natural resources, the eutrophication of water systems and biodiversity and global warning, the need to protect the environment has become a priority. As the same time, it is also necessary to promote development. The harmonisation of the two needs has led to be concept of sustainable development, so much so that it has become the most significant and focal point of environmental legislation and judicial decisions relating to the same. Sustainable development, simply put, is a process in which development can be sustained over generations, Brundtland Report defines “sustainable development” as development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs.” 66. Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs.” 66. In view of the above referred to legal position and the discussion on different aspects of the matter, we do not find that permitting the respondent-company to set up mega tourism city in the land in question would in any manner compromise the ecological balance of the area. Catena of Supreme Court judgments on this aspect have laid down two widely acknowledged principles namely; precautionary principle and pollutor pay principle. Pollutor pay principles is applied to ensure that a process of development can be sustained for a long period of time. Precautionary principles requires the State Government and the statutory authorities to adhere to the environmental measures so as to enable them to prevent and protect environmental degradation with onus on the industrial developer to prove that his activities would not pose any threat to the environment. Pollutor pay principles holds a person interested in carrying out inherently hazardous and dangerous activities to make good the loss caused to the people irrespective of the reasonable care taken by him while doing so. Besides these two doctrines, the courts have propounded the doctrine of public trust, which provides that natural resources like air, water, river, forests, sea etc. should be within the reach of every one and should not be made subject to private ownership or commercial interest. All these principles have by now come to be judicially recognized for sustained development of an economy. 67. In the theory of sustained development, interference by this court, in so far as present matter is concerned, can be made within the defined parameters of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the government has required the JDA to make allotment and when it has done so by inviting investments involving more than 400 crores to generate employment for 1500 persons, this court cannot stop the implementation of such an ambitious project only on the premise that the land in question happens to be a plantation on a revenue waste land. When the government has required the JDA to make allotment and when it has done so by inviting investments involving more than 400 crores to generate employment for 1500 persons, this court cannot stop the implementation of such an ambitious project only on the premise that the land in question happens to be a plantation on a revenue waste land. Government and the JDA have already required the respondent No.5 to pay cost of trees which may be fallen and take precaution by maintaining 500 meters wide strip of land as eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary and the purpose for which the land has been allotted being compatible with eco-sensitive zone of the Master Plan of 2011 owing to which the respondent-company had undertaken not to raise constructions in atleast 80% of the allotted area, we hardly see any threat to the ecology and environment of the area, more particularly when respondent- company has undertaken to plant double the number of trees which may have to be uprooted. Conclusion : 68. In the light of the view that we have taken of the matter, we are not inclined to allow this writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation in the terms prayed for and uphold the allotment of the land as valid. Conclusion : 68. In the light of the view that we have taken of the matter, we are not inclined to allow this writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation in the terms prayed for and uphold the allotment of the land as valid. However, while disposing of the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents in the following terms:- (i) to undertake the exercise of demarcating the boundaries of the Sanctuary and/or reserve forest adjoining the land allotted to respondent No.5 by putting pillars and identification marks; (ii) to demarcate the boundaries of 500 meters wide strip of land of eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuary by putting pillars and other identification marks; (iii) to demarcate the boundaries, in so far as such eco-sensitive zone and/or reserve forest adjoins the land allotted to respondent No.5, by putting good quality of barbed wiring with pillars at the regular intervals or partly constructed wall with part barbed wiring, as may be decided by the Chief Wild Life Warden; at the cost of respondent No.5; (iv) to retain the allotted land as part of eco-sensitive zone because of its proximity with the Sanctuary and reserve forest and restrict the respondent No.5 not to raise construction in 80% of the allotted area as given out by it before this Court and (v) not to obstruct course and flow of water of the nullahs flowing from the Sanctuary into the eco-sensitive zone in any manner whatsoever and make appropriate arrangements for passage of the water of such nullahs through the subject land in accordance with Section 29 of the Wild Life Act. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions and without any order as to costs.