ORDER : 301. I.A. Nos. 2902-2903 and 3208 & 3330, 2904-2905 and 3331, 2906-2907 and 3332, 2908-2909 and 3333, 2910-2911 and 3334, 2935-2936 and 3335 in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995: 1. These applications have been preferred seeking, primarily for a direction, from the Central Government to consider and grant clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in respect of the mines at Belpahar OC, Lakhanpur OC and Lilari OC. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants stated that the applications submitted by them for forest clearance are yet to be forwarded by the State Government to MoEF. State of Odisha in the affidavit stated that the diversion proposals submitted by the applicants are incomplete due to non-submission of Digital map (required as per order dated 6th July, 2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. 1868 of 2007 LAFARGE case) by the MCL and in view of the defects pointed out in the affidavit. Further it is also stated in the affidavit that the Conservator of Forest Mahanadi Coal Fields inform that the DGPS Map has been prepared and submitted to ORSAC on 14.11.2011 for authentication of the same which is pending. We may state that the State of Odisha would take for proper authentication of the map and would complete the formalities at their end. 3. We are therefore inclined to direct the State Government to forward the application submitted by the applicants for Section 2 clearance to MoEF provided all the defects pointed out by the State stand cured. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that in some of the proposal, there are no defects to be cured. If that be so, the State may forward the same without delay. 4. Applications are disposed of. 302. LA No. 2066 (@ Cont. Pet. (C) No. 133/ 2007 in W.P.(C) 202/1995: 5. The application has been preferred seeking a direction that the land in question be not diverted out of the sanctuary for an allotment to M/s. Boutique Hotels India Ltd.. Paragraph 22 of the application states that undue benefit has been extended to that Company. 6. When the matter came up for hearing the counsel appearing for the State Government made available the copy of the affidavit submitted before the CEC. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jaipur (Central), Jaipur (Raj.). Paragraph 22 of the application states that undue benefit has been extended to that Company. 6. When the matter came up for hearing the counsel appearing for the State Government made available the copy of the affidavit submitted before the CEC. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jaipur (Central), Jaipur (Raj.). The operative portion of the affidavit reads as follows: "On the last date of hearing the CEC had made four queries form the State of Rajasthan and the answer to them is as follows: S. No. Querry Answer/Response 1. Why permission is given to a private boutique through rescue centre/route of the sanctuary? No permission has been granted by the Forest Department. 2. Whether the State Government is inclined to grant permission for construction of hotels or tents in an area which is topographically surrounded by Sanctuary? There is no intention of the Forest department to grant permission for construction of hotels or tents in this area. 3. Whether the State Government had granted any permission for setting up of their hotel/motel in the area and what is the stand of the State Government with regard to the construction of hotel on the boarder of the sanctuary? No permission has been granted by the Forest Department to construct' any Hotel/Motel in this area. And Forest Department is of the view that upto 100 mtr. area From the Nahargarh Sanctuary shall be kept as Eco Sensitive Zone. In this regard State Government vide letter No. 23K (71) Forest/2002 dated 07.01.11 had sent a proposal to the Government of India. 4. The reason of difference in opinion between the earlier opinion given by DFO and the latest opinion which indicate that the area is not part of the forest land? In the map produced by the Boutique Hotel earlier Khasra No. 811/1 and Khasra No. 811/2 has been shown jointly, whereas only Khasra No. 811 /1 has been allotted to the Boutique Khasra, which is not a forest land. Khasra No. 811/2 forest land which is having area of 2 bigha 6 biswa and at present bearing Khasra no. 864. The difference had arisen because earlier only Khasra No. 811 was mentioned and it was not bifurcated. 7. Khasra No. 811/2 forest land which is having area of 2 bigha 6 biswa and at present bearing Khasra no. 864. The difference had arisen because earlier only Khasra No. 811 was mentioned and it was not bifurcated. 7. Further it was submitted that the Forest Department is of the view that the Boutique possession is in the form of "Nozle" as well as it being surrounded by Sanctuary from three sides and it is not desirable that it should continue since the land is necessary for preservation of Forest as well as Wildlife. Moreover, no permission has been granted by the Forest Department in this regard. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan submits that on the basis of the affidavit, further action would be taken by the State. Since the land is required for the Forest Department, the State Government, as desired would take further action in accordance with law within one month from today. State Government would also file a status report thereafter. 303. I.A. Nos. 3305 in 1157 with 1157, 2085, 2350 in W.P.(C) 202/1995 in IA. No. 1157: 9. Perused the report of the CEC dated 3rd April, 2004 as well as the affidavit filed by the State of Uttarakhand. Learned Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that except retaining of the Engineers Academy, rest of the recommendations made by the CEC are not being disputed by the State of Uttarakhand. However, Learned Counsel submits that many of the recommendations made by the CEC have to be complied with by the State of U.P. 10. Under such circumstance, we are inclined to give a direction to the State of U.P. to file an affidavit in response of the recommendations made by the CEC as well as the stand taken by the Uttarakhand in its affidavit. 11. Under such circumstance, we are inclined to give a direction to the State of U.P. to file an affidavit in response of the recommendations made by the CEC as well as the stand taken by the Uttarakhand in its affidavit. 11. Further in the affidavit dated 27.2.2012 in paragraph 'H' the State of Uttarakhand has taken the following stand: "(H) Till 22.07.2008, 474 buildings were handed over to Forest Department in Central colony and 129 in new colonies i.e. total 603 buildings were handed over to Forest Department till 22.07.2008 by the Irrigation Department of U.P. After 22.07.2008 total five more buildings have been handed over to Forest Department by the Irrigation Department of U.P. There are still as many as 197 buildings which are yet to be handed over to the Forest Department by the Irrigation Department of U.P. A status of the colony as on 15.02.2012 in a chart form is annexed herewith as Annexure-A for ready reference. The details of transfer of land, transfer of buildings and the status of cases pending before various courts as on 15.02.2012 is annexed in a chart Form as Annexure-B. It is submitted that the land received from the Irrigation Department by the Corbett Tiger Reserve was utilised in various phases. The vacant land after removing invasive weeds including lantana from the vacant land, grasses have been planted and new tree plantation has been done. Lantana and wild weeds have been removed from approximately 180 hectare of areas." 12. The State of U.P. will also file its response to the stand taken by the Uttarakhand within a period four weeks. 13. List after four weeks. 14. Rest of the applications be listed along with main matter. 304. I.A. Nos. 2421-2422 in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995: 15. List after two weeks. 305. I.A. Nos. 3317-18/2011 in I.A. No. 3108 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 16. These applications have been preferred seeking a direction for deleting the condition of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Since the prayer is for Strengthening of existing Orai Dam Irrigation Project, District Chittorgarh in BASSI Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, no further clearance under Section 2 is necessary. 17. The NBWL in its meeting held on 25.4.2011 has accorded sanction subject to the condition under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Since the prayer is for Strengthening of existing Orai Dam Irrigation Project, District Chittorgarh in BASSI Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, no further clearance under Section 2 is necessary. 17. The NBWL in its meeting held on 25.4.2011 has accorded sanction subject to the condition under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Going by judgment of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India and Ors., 2006 (3) SCC 643 ] no clearance under Section 2 is necessary for the strengthening work of the existing dam. 18. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the applicant is allowed. 306. I.A. Nos. 3311-3313 in W.C.(C) No. 202/1995: 19. List on 30.3.2012. 307. I.A. No. 3402 in I.A. No. 2378 in W.P.(C) 202/1995: 20. List on 30.3.2012. 308. I.A. Nos. 128-129 & 144 in W.P.(C) No. 337/1995: 21. Learned Counsel appearing for the state of Uttar Pradesh submits that the proposal has been forwarded on 28.7.2012 to NBWL. Let MoEF ascertain the said fact. If it has already been received the Standing Committee of NBWL will take appropriate decision on the proposal made by the State. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that he will also hand over a copy of the proposal to the counsel for MoEF, who will also forward the same to NBWL for appropriate decision which they may take within three months. 22. List after three months. PART-HEARD 309. I.A. No. 100 in W.P.(C) No. 337/ 1995: 23. List on 2.4.2012 as part-heard. 310. I.A. No. 2469 with I.A. Nos. 2782, 2939-2940 and I.A. Nos. 3023-3024 in I.A. 2782, 3030 and 3032 in W.P.(C) No. 202/ 1995 with W.P.(C) No. 130/2011: 24. Not taken up. 311. I.A. Nos. 1308, 1323, 1455, 1468, 1478 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995, SLP(C) 30622/2011: 25. Not taken up. 312. I.A. Nos. 2785, 3025 & 3390 in W.P.(C) 202/1995: 26. Not taken up. 313. S.L.P.(C) No....CC. 5161/2012: 27. List on 30.3.2012. 28. Counsel appearing for MoEF would get instructions in this matter.