ORDER Jaiswal, J. -- 1. This order shall govern disposal of Writ Petitions (PIL) No.2259, 2684 and 3322 of 2015. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Petition (PIL) No.2259/2015. 2. The petitioners are being aggrieved by order dated 14.2.2015 (Annexure P-1) by which the reserved Charnoi Land situated at Gram Panchayat Nataram, Tahsil Sitamau, District Mandsaur (MP) has been allotted to respondent No.6 for establishment of a Solar Energy Plant, without following the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The act of respondent No.3 – Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Sitamau, District Mandsaur is in violation of fundamental rights of public at large and pray for quashment of the order dated 14.2.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Mandsaur. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.9.2014, New and Renewable Energy Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh wrote a letter (Annexure R-1) to respondent No.2 and informed that respondent No.6 for establishment of 20 MW Solar Power Plant has identified 49.46 hectares of land situated at Village Nataram, Tahsil Sitamau, District Mandsaur; survey numbers are, as under: - 1. Survey No.1357/4, area 8.463 hectare 2. Survey No.1358/1, area 8.044 hectare 3. Survey No.1359/1, area 4.180 hectare, out of total 16.492 of hectare 4. Survey No.1359/2, area 0.064 hectare 5. Survey No.1537, area 0.513 hectare and 6. Survey No.1548, area 10.534 hectare, out of total 15.887 of hectare. 4. Respondent No.6 demanded the aforesaid land under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Solar Energy Rules, 2012 and circular dated 4.3.2014. The New and Renewable Energy Department sought allotment of the said land so that it can give permission to respondent No.6 to use the said land. Respondent No.4 registered the matter as Case No.3/B-121/2014-15 and ordered to publish a notice inviting objections from the general public, called for Patwari Report and also invited opinion/objections from other concerned departments. Publications were made on 20.10.2014 by pasting/affixing the advertisement at Notice Boards of the Court, Gram Panchayat and Gram Choupal. The notice was also published in two local daily news papers viz. “Dashpur Darshan” and “Guru Express” on 24.11.2011 and 23.11.2014 respectively. Forest Department has objected the aforesaid allotment on the ground that Survey No.1548 is surrounded by the forest area vide letter dated 26.12.2014 (Annexure R-4). The notice was also published in two local daily news papers viz. “Dashpur Darshan” and “Guru Express” on 24.11.2011 and 23.11.2014 respectively. Forest Department has objected the aforesaid allotment on the ground that Survey No.1548 is surrounded by the forest area vide letter dated 26.12.2014 (Annexure R-4). As per the Forest Department letter, 4.453 hectare land of Survey No.1548 is a part of protected forest land of Forest Compartment No.7 of Mandsaur Range out of total land of 15.887 hectare; out of rest of 11.434 hectare of land, 04.000 hectare of land is towards west boundary of protected forest land of Forest Compartment No.7 and 7.434 hectare of land is towards east boundary of protected forest land of Forest Compartment No.7. The concerned Patwari also submitted his report on 27.12.2014 in respect of total area of 49.46 hectare of land of village Nataram, Tahsil Sitamau, District Mandsaur. As per the Patwari report, 8.463 hectare of land of Survey No.1357/4 is recorded as Gair Mumkin Padat Land; total 8.044 hectare of land of Survey No.1358/1 is recorded as Gair Mumkin Padat Land of village Nataram, out of which 6.544 hectare of land can be allotted for the purpose of establishment of plant whereas 1.500 hectare of land is a road of Chikli-Mamadev and well. Similarly, total 16.492 hectare of land of Survey No.1359/1 is recorded as grazing land, out of which 839.670 hectare of land is 2% reserved grazing land of village Nataram and the Patwari also suggested that if leaving 1.000 hectare of land earlier proposed for Aabadi out of packy area of 5.180 hectare of Gair Mumkin Land of Survey No.615 of village, rest 4.180 hectare of Gair Mumkin land, which may be declared for grazing purpose and Gair Mumkin land of Survey No.1359/1, can be allotted to respondent No.6. Patwari also suggested that an area of 0.064 hectare of Gair Mumkin land of Survey No.1359/2 can be allotted to respondent No.6. Similarly, the Patwari also recommended for allotment of an area of 0.513 hectare of Buffer (Bardi) land of Survey No.1537 in between agriculture and forest lands, to respondent No.6. Patwari also suggested that an area of 0.064 hectare of Gair Mumkin land of Survey No.1359/2 can be allotted to respondent No.6. Similarly, the Patwari also recommended for allotment of an area of 0.513 hectare of Buffer (Bardi) land of Survey No.1537 in between agriculture and forest lands, to respondent No.6. In respect of Survey No.1548, total area 15.887 hectare including 4.453 hectare of forest land and 11.434 hectare of Bardi land (Buffer land); out of which, 0.500 hectare of land is recorded as road from village Nataram to Chikli Mamadev and 0.500 hectare of land is recorded as Talai. Thus, the Patwari recommended rest 10.434 hectare of land of Survey No.1548 for allotment to respondent No.6. Relevant part of Patwari report (Annexure R-4) reads, as under : - ^^¼1½ losZ uacj 1357@4 jdck 8-463 xSj eqefdu gksdj fn;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA ¼2½ losZ uacj 1358@1 jdck 8-044 xSj eqefdu gksdj xzke ukVkjke ls fpdyk] ekeknso dk jkLrk o dqvksa ij tkus dk 1&500 gsDVj gS 'ks"k Hkwfe 6-544 gsDVj fn;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA ¼3½ losZ uacj 1359@1 jdck 16-492 pjkxkg gS tks xk¡o ds [kkrs ds jdck 839-670 gSDVj ds 2 % lqjf{kr pjkxkg gS ftl ij xk¡o ds i'kq pjrs gSaA fdUrq ;fn xzke gh fLFkr Hkwfe losZ uacj 615 isdh jdck 5180 xSj eqefdu Hkwfe esa ls 1-00 gsDVj Hkwfe iwoZ esa izLrkfor vkcknh Hkwfe dks NksM+dj 'ks"k 4-18 gS- xSj eqefdu Hkwfe dks pjkxkg djus ij losZ uacj 1359@1 isdh jdck 4-180 xSj eqefdu ?kksf"kr gksus ds i'pkr vkosnd dks fn;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA ¼4½ losZ uacj 1359@2 jdck 0-064 gsDVj Hkqfe xSj eqefdu gksdj fn;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA ¼5½ losZ uacj 1537 jdck 0-513 cMhZ Hkwfe gksdj ou foHkkx ,oa d`"kdksa ds [kkrs dh Hkwfe ds chp esa gksdj izLrkfor losZ uacjku ls nwj fLFkr gSa fn;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA ¼6½ losZ uacj 1548 jdck 15-887 esa ls jdck 4-453 QkjsLV ¼ou foHkkx½ ,oa 11&434 cjnh Hkwfe gSaA ftlesa ls 0-500 gsDVj xzke ukVkjke ls fpdyk] ekeknso dk jkLrk ,oa 0-500 gsDVj ij rykbZ gS] dks NksM+dj 'ks"k jdck 10-434 gsDVj vkcafVr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA** 5. On 29.12.2014, Naib Tahsildar forwarded the aforesaid report along with his recommendation to respondent No.2. On 29.12.2014, Naib Tahsildar forwarded the aforesaid report along with his recommendation to respondent No.2. The Collector, District Mandsaur by order dated 14.1.2015 (Annexure R-8) allowed the following land to respondent No.6 : - xzke ukVkjke rglhy lhrkekm Ø- losZ ua- jdck en fLFkfr fookfnr Hkwfe vuq'kaflr Hkwfe gs- esa 1- 1357@4 8-463 xSj eqefdu EkkSds ij iM+r gksdj vfrØe.k eqDr 0-000 8-463 2- 1358@1 8-044 xSj eqefdu xzke fpdyk ekeknso dk jkLrk fudyrk gS ftldk jdck 1-500 gs- gS] dks NksM+dj 1-500 6-544 3- 1359@1 4-180 xSj eqefdu dqy jdck 16-492 gs- esa 12-312 gs- pjuksbZ en dh gS] dks NksM+dj 12-312 4-180 4- 1359@2 0-064 xSj eqefdu EkkSds ij iM+r gksdj vfrØe.k eqDr 0-000 0-064 5- 1537 0-513 cMhZ ekSds ij iM+r gksdj vfrØe.k eqDr 0-000 0-513 6- 1548 11-434 4-453 cMhZ taxy] xSj eqefdu dqy jdck 15-887 eas ls 4-453 gs- en cMhZ jktLo foHkkx ds varxZr gS ftlesa ls jdck 0-500 gs- ij rykbZ fLFkr gS] bl izdkj dqy jdck 5-453 gs- dks NksM+dj 5-453 10-434 ;ksx 49-463 19-265 30-198 6. According to the petitioners, allotment of land to respondent No.6 by respondents No.1 to 5 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, provisions of the Code and Revenue Book Circulars. 7. The respondents No.1 to 5 in collusion with respondent No.6 allotted forest land of Survey No.1548 to respondent No.6, without following the procedure prescribed under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 nor any No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been taken from the Divisional Forest Officer of Mandsaur Division. There is no demarcation of allotted land. Respondent No.6 has cut the green trees and occupied the land earmarked for tree plantation. Respondent No.6 is constructing the boundary wall over the allotted land and blocking public path and way in Survey No.1358/1 and forest land of survey No.1548. It is also alleged that as per Patwari report out of total area of 16.492 hectare of land of Survey No.1359/1, an area of 839.670 hectare of land which is 2% of total area of that survey, is reserved as grazing land of village Nataram. 8. It is also alleged that as per Patwari report out of total area of 16.492 hectare of land of Survey No.1359/1, an area of 839.670 hectare of land which is 2% of total area of that survey, is reserved as grazing land of village Nataram. 8. As per Policy of Implementation of Solar Power Based Projects in Madhya Pradesh, 2012 and Part-Four-2, Clause-5 of the Revenue Book Circular, as amended vide circular dated 04.03.2014, on the following terms:- ^^1- izLrkfor ifj;kstuk vUrxZr tks Hkwfe fLFkr gS] mlds fuokfl;ksa ,oa eosf'k;ksa dks mDr Hkwfe ds fuLrkjh ,oa vU; iz;kstu varxZr vke mi;ksx ij dksbZ jksd ugh yxk;h tk,xh] ijUrq jksd ml lhek rd okftc gksxh tgk¡ rd og izLrkfor ifj;kstuk ds midj.kksa ds midj.kksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, vko';d gksxhA izLrkfor ifj;kstuk esa fo|qr la;= ,oa flfoy fuekZ.k tSls fd ikWoj gkml] midj.k ds 'ksM igq¡p ekxZ vkfn dh lqj{kk ds fy;s pkjks vksj Qsaflax dj ldrs gS] 'ks"k Hkwfe fcYdqy [kqyh j[kh tk,xh rkfd xzkeh.k ,oa muds eosf'k;ksa ds fuLrkj esa fdlh izdkj dh ckèkk mRiUu ugha gksA 2- izLrkfor Hkwfe ij fLFkr dksbZ Hkh o`{k bl U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds cxSj ugha dkVk tk,xk] o`{k ,oa mldk dCtk 'kkldh; gh jgsxkA 3- Hkwfe dk mi;ksx izLrkfor iz;kstuk ,oa mlds lh/ks vuq"kkafxd iz;kstu ds vykok vU; fdlh iz;kstu ds fy;s ugha fd;k tk,xkA 4- Hkwfe dk of.kZr iz;kstu ds fy;s mi;ksx u gksus vU;Fkk vU; iz;kstu gksus ;k iz;kstu can gks tkus dh fLFkfr esa Hkwfe o ml ij fufeZr ifjlaifÙk;k¡ Loesao gha 'kklu ¼jktLo foHkkx½ esa fufgr gks tk,xhA 5- Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ml ij fufeZr fdlh Hkh Hkkx dks of.kZr izLrkfor ifj;kstuk ds vykok vU; fdlh Hkh iz;kstu ds fy;s mi;ksx esa ugh yk;k tk,xkA 6- 'kklu ds izfrfuf/k ,oa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu;qDr izfrfuf/k Hkwfe ds lgh mi;ksx rFkk yxk;h xbZ 'krk± ds ikyu dh n`f"V ls Hkwfe dk ;k ml ij fufeZr fdlh Hkh laifÙk dk dHkh Hkh ckà; vFkok vkarfjr fujh{k.k dj ldsxkA** 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allotment has been made without following mandatory provisions of sections 234 and 237 of the Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allotment has been made without following mandatory provisions of sections 234 and 237 of the Code. He has also drawn our attention to Article 51A of the Constitution of India and submitted that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures and prays for quashment of the impugned order. 10. Per contra, Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri S. C. Bagadiya, learned senior counsel have submitted that no part of Protected Forest area of Compartment No.7 in Survey No.1548 has been allotted to respondent No.6 and total agriculture land of village Nataram is 839.70 hectare, out of which 16.492 hectare i.e. 2% of the area has been reserved for grazing purpose. Allotment has been made after following due procedure, as required under the Code and there is no violation of provisions of section 237 of the Code while making allotment for the purpose of establishment of Solar Energy Plant. 11. Under section 236 of the Code, powers have been given to the Collector to make provisions for free grazing of the cattle used for agriculture and once the provision has been made and land is reserved for free grazing of cattle, the land use cannot be changed easily and that too, merely for the personal use of the individuals. 12. As per record, the Collector exercising the powers under section 237(2) of the Code had granted permission to respondent No.7 to use the land recorded as Charnoi land for setting up of Solar Energy Plant. 13. A Division Bench in Amar Singh v. Raghuvir Singh [1980 RN 6 (DB)], held that under sub-section (2) of section 237 of the code, the Collector is authorized to divert land for purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 237 inter se, but did not have powers to divert the unoccupied land for non-agricultural purposes under agricultural purpose. 13. A Division Bench in Amar Singh v. Raghuvir Singh [1980 RN 6 (DB)], held that under sub-section (2) of section 237 of the code, the Collector is authorized to divert land for purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 237 inter se, but did not have powers to divert the unoccupied land for non-agricultural purposes under agricultural purpose. Division Bench also took note of the fact that by the Amendment Act No.24 of 1961, the legislature intended that in spite of Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer must exercise powers, power of modification of any entry in the Nistar Patrak, and accordingly vested such powers on the Sub-Divisional Officer in sub-section (3) of section 234 of the Code and held that this amendment act brought about material change in the powers of the Collector, restoring the powers in the Sub-Divisional Officer to change the classification of the land. 14. In the case of Dayaram and another v. State of M.P. and others, reported as 2003(4) MPHT 435 (DB), the Division Bench held that no land specified and set the part under section 237 (1) of the Code shall be tempered for the purpose of meeting exigency specified in the circular. 15. The apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others v. Pakur Jagran Manch and others, reported as 2011(2) SCC 591 , held that no de-reservation of any Government land reserved as gochar, should only be in exceptional circumstances and for valid reasons, having regard to the importance of gochar in every village. Any attempt by either the villagers or others to encroach upon or illegally convert the gochar to house plots or other non-grazing use should be resisted and firmly dealt with. Any requirement of land for any public purpose should be met from available waste or un-utilized land in the village and not gochar. Whenever it becomes inevitable or necessary to de-reserve any gochar for any public purpose, the procedure prescribed under the Act and rules has to be followed strictly. 16. Any requirement of land for any public purpose should be met from available waste or un-utilized land in the village and not gochar. Whenever it becomes inevitable or necessary to de-reserve any gochar for any public purpose, the procedure prescribed under the Act and rules has to be followed strictly. 16. As per provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no State Government or other authority shall make any order, directing that any reserved forest or any portion thereof, or any forest land, or any portion thereof, may be used for any non-forest purpose and may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government; any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation, except with the prior approval of the Central Government. 17. Under the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, Advisory Committee has been constituted to recommend the case for grant of approval under section 2 of the Act and procedure has been prescribed for referring the matter to the Central Government. Under the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, Officer not below the rank of Conservator of Forest was authorized by the State Government to deal with the case relating to forest conservation. 18. As per the forest compartment map of protected Compartment No.7, a part of the forest area of Survey No.1548 of village Nataram, Tahsil Sitamau, District Mandsaur is under the aforesaid forest compartment and rest of the area between the revenue and forest land, which is known as Bardi (buffer) land and the same cannot be granted to anyone. In the case in hand, respondent No.2, without taking No Objection Certificate from the Conservator of Forest and the Divisional Forest Officer of Mandsaur Forest Division, on the basis of the report of Forest Ranger, granted the area in violation to the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and law laid down by the apex Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, reported in (1997)2 SCC 267 . 19. 19. The land included in the Nistar Patrak for use of the villager community cannot be diverted to any other use contrary to the provisions of section 237(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which is prohibited by the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, cannot be allowed to be done, indirectly done by resort to inherent jurisdiction of the revenue Court. The power of diversion of use of land is to be exercised, in accordance with the provisions under section 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the power in that behalf rests with the Sub-Divisional Officer. 20. It is well settled law that carrying on any non-forest activities in a forest area can only be performed with the prior approval of the Central Government under section 2 of the Indian Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In the present case, an area of 11.434 hectares in Survey No.1548 is adjoining to the protected forest area of 4.453 hectares. The Government of Madhya Pradesh, Ministry of Environment and Forest has issued a circular that no nonforest activities shall be permitted within 250-500 metres of the forest area or an area, which was declared forest under section 4/20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Collector, without examining the aforesaid provisions of law, allotted the area of 10.434 hectares in Survey No.1548 to the private respondents for non-forest activities, that too, without obtaining NOC from the Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The villagers have also objections for grant of such an area, which was reserved for Nistar rights of the villagers. 21. In Writ Petition No.2684/2015, water shed pond and Talai, 11 KVA Chikla Feeder line, public road and water sheds are in existence and thus, the area cannot be granted to the private respondents for establishing solar energy plant. As per order dated 5.12.2014, they destroyed the tank and also constructed a boundary and restrained the villagers to use the aforesaid land, which was reserved for their Nistar use. 22. In Writ Petition No.3322/2015, the respondent/State Government granted Nistar area to the private respondents; pond and road have been destroyed by them. It has also come on record that the Government has incurred a huge amount for construction of pond. 23. 22. In Writ Petition No.3322/2015, the respondent/State Government granted Nistar area to the private respondents; pond and road have been destroyed by them. It has also come on record that the Government has incurred a huge amount for construction of pond. 23. Considering the aforesaid, we set aside the orders [order dated 14.2.2015 (Annexure P-1) in Writ Petition (PIL) No.2259/2015; order dated 5.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) in Writ Petition (PIL) No.2684/2015 and order dated 5.12.2015 (Annexure P-1 and P-1/A) in Writ Petition (PIL) No.3322/2015] of grants of land in favour of the private respondents for setting up solar energy plant and direct the Collector to inspect the whole area along with the Divisional Forest Officer; in presence of the villagers, consider their objections, revenue and forest records and thereafter, grant the area, if it is found that there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, nor by granting such permission there would be non-forest activities over the adjoining protected forest area, strictly as per the provisions of law on the issue within a period of four months from today. Violation of any statutory provisions of law will make personally liable to them. 24. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, (1) Writ Petition (PIL) No.2259/2015 (Ram Singh s/o Jare Singh and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others), (2) Writ Petition (PIL) No.2684/2015 (Kishore Chandravanshi s/o Daluram Chandravanshi and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and (3) Writ Petition (PIL) No.3322/2015 (Kishore Chandravanshi s/o Daluram Chandravanshi and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) are allowed. No costs.