JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of Civil Misc. Nos.3800, 3801, 13290, 17814 of 2010 in CWP No.20134 of 2004 (Vijay Bansal and others v. State of Haryana and others); as well as CWP Nos.19590, 19666, 20425 & 20609 of 2009; 663, 3609, 3450, 3454, & 3453 of 2010 as common issues are involved in these matters. 2. The applicants in the captioned Civil Misc. applications seek clarification of the main judgement dated 15.05.2009 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP N o.20134 of 2004 (Vijay Bansal and others v. State of Haryana & Ors.) purportedly filed in public interest and of the subsequent order dated 04.09.2009 passed in CM No.12170 of 2009 whereby the main judgement dated 15.05.2009 was modified and some further directions were issued. 3. Similarly, the writ-petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities in the Forest Department, Haryana to release their lands said to have been ‘reserved’ by issuing Notifications under Section 3 read with Sections 4&5 of the Punjab Land (Preservation) Act, 1900 (in short, ‘the PLPA’). The writ-petitioners inter alia claim that the Notifications were operative for 20 years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette which period has since expired and their lands can no longer be subjected to prohibitory measures contained in various provisions of the PLPA for the reasons spelt out by them in the writ-petitions. 4. It may be mentioned here, to appreciate the nature and scope of controversy raised in these matters, that petitioners in CWP No.20134 of 2004 (Vijay Bansal and others v. State of Haryana & Ors.) sought a direction for investigation into the ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘callous’ mining operations in the lower Shivalik Hills, while in CWP No.4758 of 2008 (M/s Chandi Mandir Stone Crushers Consumers Company v. State of Haryana & Ors.) the terms and conditions contained in the auction notice requiring ‘Prior Environmental Clearance’ from Government of India as per the Notification dated 14.09.2006 for extraction of ‘miner minerals’, was impugned. Both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together for determining the following questions :- “(i) What is the legal impact of the notifications issued under sections 3, 4 or 5 of the PLPA 1900? (ii) Whether the ongoing mining operations need to be regulated and monitored, and by whom, to protect the fragile ecology of Shivalik range of hills? Both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together for determining the following questions :- “(i) What is the legal impact of the notifications issued under sections 3, 4 or 5 of the PLPA 1900? (ii) Whether the ongoing mining operations need to be regulated and monitored, and by whom, to protect the fragile ecology of Shivalik range of hills? (iii) Whether the mining activities in the area of Shivalik range of Himalayas fall within the ambit of notification dated 14.9.2006 (Annexure P-2)? (iv) If so, whether these mining activities should be banned or allowed to continue till the ‘prior environmental clearance’ is granted by the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Environment and Forests on the recommendations of the Environment Appraisal Committee? (v) Whether the ‘prior environmental clearance’ if so required, is to be obtain4ed by the State of Haryana or by the project proponent/contractor/ lessee? (vi) Whether the practice and procedure being followed while granting short-term permits for mining is legally sustainable?” 5. While deciding issue/question No.1, namely, “the legal impact of the Notifications issued under Sections 3,4 or 5 of the PLPA, 1900,” the Division Bench ruled that :- “[36]. The restrictions against cutting of trees etc. issued by the Forest Department under Section 4 of the PLPA, give rise to yet another ancillary question “as to whether such notified areas constitute “forest land”?” In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Others, (1997)2 SCC 267, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the expression “forest land” occurring in section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (in short the 1980 Act) 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. In fact, the lands notified under section 4 or 5 of the PLPA are treated as “forest land” by the Forest Department, Haryana, as has been noticed by the Supreme Court in the following passages of its decision in IA No.1758 of 2001 in Writ Petition (Civil) no.4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, JT 2004 SC 214)……” 6. It was further held that “….The only inescapable conclusion would be that if directions against cutting of trees or timber etc. It was further held that “….The only inescapable conclusion would be that if directions against cutting of trees or timber etc. have been issued under Section 4 in respect of an area or a part thereof notified for the purpose of ‘conservation of subsoil water’ or ‘prevention of erosion’ under section 3 of the PLPA, such an area being ‘forest land’ for the purposes of 1927 and 1980 Acts, cannot be used for ‘non forest purposes’ save as permitted by the Central Govt. We, however, hasten to add that the aforestated prohibition against use for “non forest purposes” does not ipso-facto apply to the entire area forming part of the notification under section 3 of the PLPA.”. 7. The Division Bench summed up its conclusions in para 57 and issued several directions including the followings :- “(i) the lands/areas forming part of the notification under section 3 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and in respect of which restrictions have been imposed under Section 4 of the said Act are declared to be “forest lands” for the purposes of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is, accordingly, directed that these areas shall not be used for ‘non forest purposes’ including the mining of ‘major’ or ‘minor’ minerals; (ii) Notification dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Central Govt. in exercise of its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 governs all the ‘mining activities’ irrespective of the fact that the ‘minerals’ are ‘major’ or ‘minor’ and is, thus, fully applicable in respect of the ‘mining areas’ in the Shivalik ranges of Himalayas, including those falling in District Panchkula. No mining activity shall be carried out in these areas without the ‘prior environmental clearance’, save beyond the maximum period granted hereinafter for obtaining such ‘prior environmental clearance’. xxxx xxxx xxxx (xii) we clarify that the State of Haryana shall not stand absolved of its legal obligation on mere successful accomplishment of the Fourth Stage enumerated in the Central Govt. notification dated 14.9.2006 and it shall continue to enforce the measures contained in the Forest Department’s notifications dated 27.11.1997 and 28.11.1997 (Annexures P-2 & P- 3) issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1990, respectively.” 8. notification dated 14.9.2006 and it shall continue to enforce the measures contained in the Forest Department’s notifications dated 27.11.1997 and 28.11.1997 (Annexures P-2 & P- 3) issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1990, respectively.” 8. State of Haryana through its Forest Department thereafter moved CM No.12170 of 2009 seeking clarification of the order dated 15.05.2009 on issue No.1, namely, “Legal Impact of Notifications issued under Sections 3, 4&5 of PLPA”, explaining that the total “Forest Area” of the State at that time was 1,54,706 hectares which included 12,527.94 hectares of land notified under Sections 4&5 of the PLPA which was also duly recorded as “Forest Land” in the records of the Forest Department. It was further explained that only those lands where clearing, breaking-up or cultivation were prohibited by means of Notifications issued under Sections 4&5 of PLPA are treated as “Forest Lands”. 9. The Division Bench after going through all the Notifications referable to Sections 3, 4 or 5 of PLPA, issued the following supplementary directions vide order dated 04.09.2009:- “[i] copies of all the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA [Annexure A-1(Colly)] along with compilation of the total covered area [Annexure A-2] shall, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be sent to all the Divisional Forest Officers and Range Forest Officers of the Forest Department as well as to the State and District Mining Officers of the Mines and Geology Department of the State of Haryana. A compliance report shall also be placed before this Court; [ii] all the Divisional Forest Officers within whose jurisdiction the land covered by the above-stated notifications under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA is located, shall within two months from the date of receipt of the copies of the notifications, get the ‘forest lands’ demarcated by the revenue authorities and in the presence of the District Mining Officer concerned. The Tehsildars of the concerned areas and other revenue authorities shall comply with this order forthwith. The Tehsildars of the concerned areas and other revenue authorities shall comply with this order forthwith. The demarcation reports shall be jointly signed by the Divisional Forest Officer, the State/District Mining Officer as well as the Tehsildar of the concerned area; [iii] every Divisional Forest Officer and the District Mining Officer shall be personally responsible to ensure that no mining activity or any other nonforest activity is allowed to be carried out in the ‘forest lands’ covered under the notifications [Annexure A-1(Colly)]. The Director, Mines and Geology as well as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana shall ensure meticulous compliance of these directions; [iv] till copies of the notifications are made available to the Divisional Forest Officers/Range Forest Officers and State/District Mining Officers, as directed above, and until the demarcation of the area is completed in association with the revenue authorities as per direction No. [ii] above, no mining or other non-forest activity shall be allowed even over the lands abutting the ‘forest lands’ covered by the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA [Annexure A-1(Colly)]. We make it clear that the mining activities in the adjoining permissible areas shall be allowed only after the demarcation of the ‘forest lands’ is complete; [v] as regards the lands located in Kalka and Panchkula Tehsils reserved for common grazing or recorded as Ghasnis, Charand, Shamlat-deh, which were ordinarily under cultivation prior to the issuance of the notification dated 29th January, 1993 [Annexure P-23] and are stated to have been vested with the Gram Panchayats under the Punjab Village Common Lands & Regulation Act, 1961, we direct that no mining activities or any other nonforest activity shall be allowed over the said lands until such lands or any part thereof is taken out of the purview of the afore-stated notification by the Competent Authority on an application/consent of the right-holders. In case the Competent Authority declines the permission, the lands covered by the notification dated 29th January, 1993 shall also be treated as ‘forest lands’ for all intent and purposes; [vi] the State Government through its Forest and Mines and Geology Departments shall immediately evolve a scheme for videographing the entire forest area of the State, especially the private forest lands which shall be periodically updated to assess the actual forest cover at the spot; [vii] all the notifications issued under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PLPA, including the notifications other than the notifications [Annexure A1 (Colly)] as well as the notification dated 29th January, 1993 [Annexure P-23], are directed to be uploaded on the website of the Forest Department, Haryana within a period of three months to facilitate public access to these notifications.” 10. The short grievance of the applicants and/or the writpetitioners is that their ‘private lands’ though at one point of time were included within the purview of PLPA by way of one or the other Notification issued under Section 3 read with Sections 4 or 5 thereof but in the absence of bar against clearing, breaking-up or cultivation, their lands cannot be treated as “Forest Lands”. Some of the applicants/petitioners alternatively claim that the Notifications under Sections 4 or 5 issued qua their lands were for a specific period which has since expired and thus restrictions contained in PLPA are no longer applicable. Yet another set of applicants/petitioners contend that their lands are actually ‘agricultural’ in nature and under cultivation since long but have been erroneously recorded as “Forest Lands” by the Forest Department. 11. The respondents in their reply/affidavit while disputing the applicants/petitioners’ claim have maintained that only those lands are treated as “Forest Lands” wherein clearing, breaking-up or cultivation etc. has been expressly prohibited by a Notification issued under Section 3 read with Sections 4 or 5 of the PLPA. It is claimed that validity period of the previous notification(s) wherever expired is insignificant as the Competent Authority has issued fresh notifications continuing the prohibition(s) already imposed due to which the subject land(s) cannot be used for ‘non-forestry purposes’. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants, writ petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the voluminous records. 13. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants, writ petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the voluminous records. 13. There can indeed be no deviation from the unequivocal and firm conclusion drawn in para 36 of the Division Bench order dated 15.05.2009 holding that the lands notified under Section 3 read with Sections 4 or 5 of the PLPA, irrespective of ownership of such lands, are to be treated as “Forest Lands” save as clarified vide subsequent order dated 04.09.2009 passed on an application moved by the Forest Department, Haryana. Similarly, the directions contained in the subsequent order dated 04.09.2009 regarding demarcation of “Forest Lands” and prohibition of ‘mining activity’ or any other ‘non-forestry activity’ in such “Forest Lands” will have to be given effect without any exception whatsoever may be the consequences. These directions, however, are applicable only qua those lands/areas forming part of the Notification issued under Section 3 of PLPA in respect of which restrictions against clearing, breaking-up or cultivation have been imposed under Section 4(a) or 5(a) of the said Act and have been declared and treated as “Forest Lands” for the purpose of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Ref : Para 15 of order dated 04.09.2009). 14. It is also explicit in these directions that the land under private ownership can also be “Forest Land” if the restrictions against clearing, breaking-up or cultivation under Section 3 read with Sections 4 or 5 of the PLPA have been imposed on such land and if in the records of the Forest Department also it is shown as “Forest Land”. 15. The questions – (i) whether the land owned by applicants/petitioners are free from the restrictions against clearing, breaking-up or cultivation? (ii) whether their lands also fall within the ambit of “Forest Lands” by virtue of such restrictions? (iii) whether the Forest Department has undertaken the exercise and identified the nature of land claimed by the applicants/petitioners under their private ownership? (iv) whether the records maintained by Forest Department show such land as ‘Forest Lands’? and (v) whether or not any demarcation of the subject land at the spot has taken place? are, however, pure questions of facts. The PIL jurisdiction was exercised by this Court to lay down the general principles to be followed for determining the “Forest Lands”. (iv) whether the records maintained by Forest Department show such land as ‘Forest Lands’? and (v) whether or not any demarcation of the subject land at the spot has taken place? are, however, pure questions of facts. The PIL jurisdiction was exercised by this Court to lay down the general principles to be followed for determining the “Forest Lands”. Whether a particular piece of land falls or is excluded from the ambit of “Forest Land” is a question of fact to be decided by Forest Department being the custodian of “Forest Lands” and this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution need not travel beyond the legal issues. 16. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to dispose of these applications and writ petitions with liberty to each applicant(s)/petitioner(s) to lodge his/their claim in writing with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana along with supporting documents for exclusion of his/their land(s) from the purview of “Forest Land(s)”. Such claim may be lodged within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana is directed to constitute a Committee comprising three senior officers of the Forest Department and to be headed by an Officer not below the rank of Additional PCCF or Chief Conservator of Forests, who shall consider each claim in consonance with principles of natural justice and dispose of them with reference to the question whether or not the land(s) in dispute form part of “Forest Land(s)”? 18. The afore-stated exercise shall be undertaken as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of claims by the applicant(s)/petitioners(s). The consequential action(s) shall depend upon the outcome of fact finding exercise directed hereinabove. 19. Till the entire exercise is undertaken, no mining or nonforestry activity shall be carried out on the subject lands. 20. Ordered accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------