ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the condition No.5 mentioned in Annexure P-2 dated 11.5.2011. Pursuant to an application submitted by the petitioner for providing him the land for use for establishment of a petrol pump, Ministry of Environment and forest (for brevity ‘Ministry’) issued the order dated 25.4.2011, whereby a conditional approval was given for establishment of petroleum outlet on the land in question. In clause 5 of the letter of the said Ministry, Annexure P-1, it is mentioned that the State Government may impose any other condition on petitioner. In turn, by Annexure P-2 dated 11.5.2011 the State Government directed the petitioner to pay permium and lease rent before transfer of the revenue forest land. This condition of Annexure P-2 is under challenge in this petition. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :- The petitioner, a handicapped person, submitted an application for allotment of forest land at Survey No.1 Village Dongarpur, District Gwalior on 22.4.2006. The stand of the petitioner is that the said land is a forest land in the revenue record since Samvat 1997. The respondent No.8 by communication dated 6.5.2006 intimated that the above land is a Nazul forest land and petitioner was asked to submit proposal on specific format under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for brevity ‘Act of 1980’). The petitioner, in turn, submitted the proposal (Annexure P-8) and deposited the registration and processing fees. The registration was done under the Act of 1980 for diversion of 0.720 hectares of land and Registration no.25/06 was given to the petitioner. In turn, the petitioner’s proposal was sent to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Land Management) by Forest Conservation (respondent No.8) on 28.3.2007. The Collector, Gwalior issued a certificate of non-availability of revenue land elsewhere vide Annexure P-12. The petitioner’s proposal was sent by Chief Forest Conservator (respondent No.6) to the Ministry for approval vide Annexure P-13. The Ministry, in turn, declined the proposal for the reasons stated in Annexure P-14. Subsequently, the petitioner’s proposal was approved as Site Specific and sent again to respondent No.1 by Upper Chief Forest Conservator (Land Management) by communication dated 8-6-2010. The proposal met first stage sanction of Ministry by communication dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure P-16). It was made clear that the nature of forest land shall remain unaltered. Subsequently, the petitioner’s proposal was approved as Site Specific and sent again to respondent No.1 by Upper Chief Forest Conservator (Land Management) by communication dated 8-6-2010. The proposal met first stage sanction of Ministry by communication dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure P-16). It was made clear that the nature of forest land shall remain unaltered. Thereafter, a letter dated 7.10.2010 was issued by Upper Chief Conservator of Forest to CCFm Gwalior to get diverted land evaluated on market rates from Collector, Gwalior and to take consent of petitioner to deposit the whole amount. The petitioner submits that this is a fresh condition which was totally impermissible. It is the case of the petitioner that he obtained certain information through his counsel under the RTI Act, which shows that the land in question is a forest land not a revenue land and, therefore, the condition imposed in Annexure P-17 dated 7-10-2010 is contrary to law. By placing reliance on Annexures P/21, P/22 and P/23 to P/26, it is stated that in similar cases no such condition has been imposed by the respondents. The petitioner submitted his objection to the aforesaid new condition imposed vide Annexure P-28. The petitioner was required to transfer the land situated at village Singhpur for compensatory afforestation in obedience of approval letter of respondent No.1. Subsequently, a land admeasuring 0.720 Hect. at village Aron, Survey No.2035/3/2 was demarcated and handed over to Forest Department for compensatory afforestation by the petitioner on 27.11.2010 and ‘Panchaama’ spot map and demarcation panchnama were prepared and signed by both the parties (Annexure P-30). The aforesaid land of Aron was transferred to Forest Department by registered transfer deed dated 2.12.2010 (Annexure P-31) and it was handed over to respondent No.8 on 10.12.2010 (Annexure P-32). A demand note was issued by respondent No.8 in terms of Ministry. In compliance of demand note, the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 19,51,830/- on 21.2.2011 as Project Cost (compensatory afforestation etc), Rs.4,50,720/- on 21.2.2011 as Net Present Value (NPV) and Rs. 1,44,580/- on 21.2.2011 as Inspection Fees. The petitioner gave limited consent for depositing the amount by keeping his legal rights reserved. The Forest Conservator by communication dated 9.2.2011 demanded the consent letter to deposit the amount evaluated by Collector vide Annexure P-35. The petitioner again gave an undertaking to a limited extent by Annexure P-36. 1,44,580/- on 21.2.2011 as Inspection Fees. The petitioner gave limited consent for depositing the amount by keeping his legal rights reserved. The Forest Conservator by communication dated 9.2.2011 demanded the consent letter to deposit the amount evaluated by Collector vide Annexure P-35. The petitioner again gave an undertaking to a limited extent by Annexure P-36. In turn, the Ministry issued the order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) and gave final approval for diversion and allotment of forest land to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred representation against the condition mentined in the order, Annexure P-1, whereby liberty was given to the State to impose some condition. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) whereby respondent No.5 directed the petitioner to pay the lease rent and premium before transfer. The petitioner preferred applications against that but the same could not fetch any result. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has challenged condition No.5 of order dated 11.5.2011 (Ann. P/2). 3. Shri K.S. Tomar, learned senior counsel has raised following points to attack the aforesaid condition :- (i) As per section 1(2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 (for brevity ‘MPLRC’), the State Government is not the owner of the forest land and MPLRC has no application on land in question. (ii) Central Government is the owner of the forest land and as per section 264 of MPLRC, nothing in the Code shall apply to a person who holds lands from the Central Government. (iii) Section 2 of the Act of 1980 begins with a non-obstante clause and minute reading of section 2 makes it clear that Central Government is the owner of the forest land and only requirement to establish a petrol pump is the prior approval of the Central Government. (vi)The Act of 1980 is a Special Act whereas MPLRC is a General Act and, therefore, Special Act will prevail over general. (v) There is no provision in the Forest Act or in MPLRC to demand any type of premium or lease rent. (vi) The land in question is a forest land and not revenue land, therefore, MPLRC has no applicantion. (vii) The petitioner is a handicapped person and he is harassed by the respondents. (viii) The petitioner is subjected to discrimination in the matter of imposing premium and lease rent whereas in similar cases no such condition is imposed. 4. (vi) The land in question is a forest land and not revenue land, therefore, MPLRC has no applicantion. (vii) The petitioner is a handicapped person and he is harassed by the respondents. (viii) The petitioner is subjected to discrimination in the matter of imposing premium and lease rent whereas in similar cases no such condition is imposed. 4. The petitioner has relied on following judgments of Supreme Court :- T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228 . Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504. A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd. vs. Goa Foundation & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 646 . T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India, (2008) 7 SCC 126 . T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India, (2006) 1 SCC 1 . Bansiram Modi & ors. vs. State of Bihar, (1985) 3 SCC 643 . Nature Lovers Movement vs. State of Kerla & ors., (2009) 5 SCC 373 . K. Balakrishnan Nambiar vs. State of Karnataka & ors., (2011) 5 SCC 353 . Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corportion and others, (2000) 5 SCC 287 . Narbada Bachao Andolan, vs. State of M.P. and another, (2011)7 SCC 639 . State of Karnataka & others vs. Karnataka State Patels Sangha and others, AIR 2007 SC 1188 . National Building Construction Corporation vs. S. Raghunathan and others, (1998)7 SCC 66 . Kamal Kishore vs. State of MP, AIR 2006 MP 167 . Tarun Bharat Sangh vs. Union of India, 1993 SCC Supl (3) 115. Raheja Universal Limited vs. NRC Limited & others, 2012 (4) SCC 148 . 5. Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, has supported the order Annexure P-2 and submits that the condition is in accordance with the provisions of MPLRC. She submits that even forest land falls within the ambit of MPLRC and, therefore, no fault can be found in the condition imposed. By placing reliance on Annexure P-35 dated 9.2.2011 learned counsel submits that the land in question is in “Nazul janglat”. The petitioner has not challenged the order, Annexure P-1 in the present petition in which the Ministry has authorised the State Government to impose any other condition. The other condition No.5 was imposed vide Annexure P-2 is in consonance with the MPLRC. 6. The petitioner has not challenged the order, Annexure P-1 in the present petition in which the Ministry has authorised the State Government to impose any other condition. The other condition No.5 was imposed vide Annexure P-2 is in consonance with the MPLRC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after closure of the arguments has filed his written submissions whereas learned Deputy Government Advocate has produced the original record for the perusal of this Court. 7. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. As to Points No. (i), (ii), (v) and (vi): 8. The basic contention of petitioner is that the land in question belongs to Central Government and State Government has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to impose condition no.5. It is profitable to quote section 1(2) of MPLRC, which reads as under :- “1(2). It extends to the whole of Madhya Pradesh but nothing contained in this Code except the provisions relating to liability of land for payment of land revenue the assessment of land revenue with reference to the use of land, realisation of land revenue and all provisions ancillary thereto shall apply to such areas as may, trom time to time, be constituted as reserved or protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927): Provided that the aforesaid provision of the Code shall apply with reference to the use of land such areas for one or more of the purposes specified in section59.” Section 2(g) of MPLRC defines “ Government forest”, which reads as under :- “2(g). “Government forest” means a forest constituted a reserved forest or protected forest in accordance with the provision of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927),” Section 57(1) reads as under:- “57. State ownership in all lands.-(1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government.” A conjoint reading of section 1(2), definition of “Government Forest” and section 57(1) aforesaid makes it crystal clear that all land belongs to the State Government including Government forest and forest land. Section 1(2) in no uncertain words makes it clear that even reserved and protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 falls within the sweep and ambit of MPLRC for payment of land revenue, the assessment of land revenue, realisation of land revenue and all provisions ancillary thereto. The aforesaid conjoint reading makes it clear like noon day that even if the land in question is a forest land (Nazul Janglat), the provisions of MPLRC have application on it. Thus, the aforesaid points are decided against the petitioner. So far the argument that there is no provision in MPLRC which permits the State to impose premium or lease rent is concerned, it is profitable to refer to section 2(t) of MPLRC, which defines “rents”, which reads as under:- “2(t). “rents” means whatever is paid or is payable in money or in kind- 1. by an occupancy tenant to his Bhumiswami according to the provision of section 188 or by a lessee to his Bhumiswami on account of the use or occupation of land held by him from such Bhumiswami; or 2. by a Government lessee to the Government on account of the use or occupation of land leased out to him by the Government.” Similarly, section 59(5) of MPLRC reads as under:- “59. Variation of land revenue according to purpose for which land is used:- (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) XXX XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX (4) XXX XXX XXX (5) Where land for use for any one purpose is diverted to any other purpose and land revenue is assessed thereon under the provisions of this section, the [Sub-Divisional Officer] shall have power to impose a premium on the diversion in accordance with rules made under this Code: Provided that no premium shall be imposed for the diversion of any land for charitable purpose.” A conjoint reading of definition of “rents” and enabling provision of section 59(5) makes it crystal clear that there exists a provision of imposition of rent in the MPLRC. The rent can be levied on a Governmentlessee or can be recovered from a tenant. Similarly, section 59(5) shows that premium can be imposed by the Government. Thus, in the teeth of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the State Government is equipped with the power to impose lease rent and premium. Section 181 of MPLRC reads as under:- “181. The rent can be levied on a Governmentlessee or can be recovered from a tenant. Similarly, section 59(5) shows that premium can be imposed by the Government. Thus, in the teeth of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the State Government is equipped with the power to impose lease rent and premium. Section 181 of MPLRC reads as under:- “181. Government lessees and Service Land-State Government or to whom a right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or to Collector and who is not entitled to hold land as a Bhumiswami shall be called a Governmentlessee in respect of such land.” A bare perusal of this provision clearly shows that the petitioner, at best, is a Government lessee and by no stretch of imagination he can be said to be a Bhumiswami of the land in question. Once he is a Government lessee, under section 2(t) of the MPLRC rent can be imposed on him. Under sub-section (5) of section 59 premium can be imposed on him. Thus, these points are decided against the petitioner. Apart from this, section 58 of MPLRC is also relevnat in the matter which reads as under:- “58. Liability of land to payment of land revenue:- (1) All land, to whatever purpose applied and wherever situate, is liable to the payment of revenue to the State Government, except such land as has been wholly exempted from such liability by special grant of or contract with the State Government or under the provisions of any law or rule for the time being in force: Provided that the abadi land, subject to the provisions of Section 245, and the land which is situated in non-urban areas and used for agricultural purposes and not exempted from such liability, is liable to payment of revenue to the Gram Sabha. (2) Such revneue is called “land revenue,” and that term includes all moneys payable to the State Government for land, notwithstanding that such moneys may be described as premium, rent lease money, quit-rent or in any other manner, in any enactment, rule, contract or deed.” A bare perusal of this provision shows that the term “land revenue” includes all moneys payable to the State Government for lands, which includes premium, lease rent, quit-rent or any other money arising out of any enactment, rule, contract or deed. This section is very wide and sub-section (1) of section 59 covers all lands to whatever purpose applied and wherever situated for the purpose of imposition of revenue except such land is exempted by law or contract. The words used are “any law or rule”, which means that such exemption should be in consonance with the provisions of any law or rule. The petitioner has not shown any such exemption. Thus, by application of section 58 also it is clear that the State Government is well within its powers while imposing condition No.5 in Annexure P-2. As to Points No. (iii) and (iv) : 9. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on Section 264 of MPLRC. This section will apply provided it is established that the land in question belongs to Central Government. There is no material on record to show that this land belong to Central Government. By placing reliance on section 2 of 1980 Act, it is submitted that the said provision begins with a non-obstante clause and, therefore, this entire Act will have an overriding effect over any other Act including MPLRC. To elaborate, petitioner’s case is that once prior approval is given by the Central Government, no further restriction or condition can be imposed. 10. In the considered opinion of the Court, a microscopic reading of section 2 of 1980 Act shows that the said section deals with prior approval of the Central Government for the purpose of giving forest land for various purposes mentioned in the 1980 Act. However, I am unable to read section 2 in the manner suggested by the petitioner. Reading of section 2 does not lead to a conclusion that the forest land becomes Central Government land or provision of MPLRC or any other State Act stood excluded for all purposes. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that section 2 of 1980 Act has a limited role to play, i.e., for the purpose of approval of the Central Government. Said approval, by no stretch of imagination, deprives the State Government to impose the conditions, more so when in Annexure P-1 the Central Government itself gave such permission to the State Government to impose the conditions. This portion of impugned order, whereby permission is given by the Central Government to the State Government, is not called in question in the present writ petition. This portion of impugned order, whereby permission is given by the Central Government to the State Government, is not called in question in the present writ petition. Thus, these points are also decided against the petitioner. Since there is no conflict between 1980 Act and MPLRC, therefore the argument that Special Act will prevail over general, has no application. As to Points No.(vii) and (viii): 11. The petitioner may be a handicapped person but no provision has been shown by the petitioner to establish that any immunity is given to such persons under the law for payment of lease rent and premium. In other words, there is no exemption for handicapped person from payment of lease rent and premium under the provision of MPLRC and, therefore, on that ground the petitioner is not entitiled to succeed. So far the question that in similar allotments the State Government has not imposed those conditions is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the full facts of those cases are not before the Court. Even assuming that in such cases lease rent and premium is not imposed, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner from persons. This will amount to claim negative equality, which is not permissible as per Article 14 of the Constitution. If some illegal concession or benefit is granted somebody, it cannot become an example to be followed by the Courts of law. lllegality cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. The paramount consideration in bringing relevant provisions in MPLRC was to ensure that the forest land is not misused and when it also falls within the ambit of MPLRC, State can impose permissible premium and lease rent on such lands. 12. So far the judgments cited by the petitioner are concerned, it is true that in T.N. Godavarman (2006) 1 SCC 1 (supra) the Apex Court opined that the State is trustee of all natural resources meant for public use and enjoyment. However, the said observation of Supreme Court was given in a different context and cannot be read to mean that State is not owner of the forest or the State laws stood excluded on the reserve forest. Thus, the judgments of T.N. Godavarman have no application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner has also cited judgment of Raheja Universal Limited (supra) on the proposition that the special law prevails over the general. Thus, the judgments of T.N. Godavarman have no application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner has also cited judgment of Raheja Universal Limited (supra) on the proposition that the special law prevails over the general. As discussed above, there is no confilict between 1980 Act and MPLRC and both operate in different situation, different context, different eventualities and for different purposes.Thus, the reliance on said eventualities and for different purpose. Thus, the reliance on said judgment is misconceived. The other judgment cited by the petitioner has no application in the present matter. 13. Before parting with the matter, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner has filed written submissions, wherein he has quoted section 1(2) of MPLRC in bold letters and in inverted comas. The said provision reproduced by the petitioner is typed below in juxtaposition with the provision which is there in the Statute Book:- Reproduced in the written From M.P. Land Revenue submission Code,1959 “(2) It extends to the whole of M.P., “1(2). It extends to the whole of M.P. but nothing in this Code shall apply to but nothing contained in this Code such areas as made, from time to time, except the provisions relating to be constituted as reserved or protec- liability of land for payment of land ted forests under the Indian Forest revenue the assessment of land revenue Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927)” with reference to the use of land, realisation of land revenue and all provisions ancillary thereto shall apply to such areas as may, from time to time, be constituted as reserved or protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927). The aforesaid provision read in juxtaposition will show that the petitioner has not correctly reproduced the provision and misrepresented the provision, This practice cannot be appreciated and is strongly deprecated. Since this Court has dealt with the matter on merits in explicit, I do not propose to deal with this aspect any further. 14. On the basis of analysis made herein above, I find no legal error in the condition No.5 of Annexure P-2. Petition is bereft of merits and substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs. 15. Registry is directed to keep the “submission of written arguments” along with the record of this matter.