JUDGMENT : PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 1. The writ-petitioner before the Single Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) and the respondent to the writ petition, the State Government (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’), have assailed the order dated 11.11.2019 of the learned Single Bench by filing two separate appeals. 2. The writ court vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2019 partly allowed the writ petition of the appellant and passed the following order: “10. In light of the above discussion, this court directs as below: (i) The impugned order passed by the Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan and the Collector, Jaipur (Respondents 2 and 3 herein) whereby the Respondents revoked/cancelled the order dated 10.08.2001 vide which the land in dispute was set-apart for establishment of a hotel/tourism unit and the unilateral cancellation of Lease-Deed are here by quashed and set-aside. Further, the show-cause notices dated 23.04.2012, 10.05.2012 and29.06.2012 and all the proceedings initiated and conducted against the Petitioner by the Respondents in pursuance of the aforementioned notices are also hereby quashed and set-aside. However, the Respondents are given liberty to approach a competent court, for seeking cancellation of the Lease-Deed dated 06.11.2001 and the allotment letter dated 20.08.2001, if so advised. (ii) The Petitioner is hereby directed to not use the approach road to its hotel/resort since part of the same allegedly falls within Forest area. However, the Petitioner is given a liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of a competent court of law, to determine as to whether it has a right to use the road or not and whether or not, the road falls within forest area.” 3. In the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the second part of the order on the grounds that the pathway is already in existence and this fact is recorded in the order dated 10.08.2001 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur. The writ court did not consider the above document in the impugned order. It is also averred in the appeal that the condition of constructing 60 feet-wide road was impossible to execute as permission for building a road on the customary pathway was impermissible. The Tourism Department executed the lease deed under the tourism policy formulated by the State Government consciously omitted the condition of constructing a 60 feet wide road while executing the lease deed in favour of the appellant, and the doctrine of the blue pen is applicable. 4. The Tourism Department executed the lease deed under the tourism policy formulated by the State Government consciously omitted the condition of constructing a 60 feet wide road while executing the lease deed in favour of the appellant, and the doctrine of the blue pen is applicable. 4. In the cross-appeal [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 329/2020], the State Government (from now on referred to as ‘the Respondent’) has assailed the impugned Judgment on the grounds that the Writ Court failed to consider that the disputed land vests in Eco-Sensitive Zone and that the appellant did not seek permission from the forest department. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the revocation of setting-aside order was wrong. It is argued that right to way is admitted as the path way is being used and this fact has been mentioned in the order dated 21.08.1998 passed by District Collector, Jaipur. It is also argued that under the Rajasthan Forest Act and Wild Life Protection Act, the path ways have been protected and this fact also gets mentioned in order dated 21.08.1998 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that in the draft notification dated 12.09.2017, the Eco-tourism activity within the Eco Sensitive Zone is permissible. It is also argued that as per the draft notification dated 12.09.2017, establishment of hotel & resorts are regulated activities and bar contained in the said notification only limits the construction of new commercial hotels and resorts within one kilometer of boundary of protected area, thus, the establishment of appellant’s resort in the disputed land is not prohibited as the lease deed for establishing the resort was granted in 2011. It is also argued that condition of constructing 60 feet road has become inconsequential as in the lease deed, the conditions was not mentioned. It is also argued that without constructing 60 feet road, the appellant can continue operating his resort in the disputed land as path way is being continuously used and Collector vide order has clearly mentioned that all the path ways have been protected. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 428 (2) Jda Vs. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 428 (2) Jda Vs. Anukampa Avas (DBSAW No. 254/2012), decided by Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (3) M/s Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No. 1952/2006), Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench 7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the disputed land is surrounded by sanctuary from three sides and the land is necessary for preservation of forest as well as wild life. It is also contended that in response to the query from Central Empowered Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CEC’), a specific affidavit containing the fact that no permission was granted by the Forest Department for construction of hotels or tents in this area, was obtained by the appellant. It is also argued that on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Forest Department, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued an order dated 19.03.2012, directing the Forest Department and the State Government to take further action in accordance with the law and also directed the respondent to file its status report thereafter. 8. It is vehemently argued that pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2012, notices were issued to the appellant to explain his position and thereafter the CEC submitted its report vide letter dated 12.09.2013 before the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court on 11.04.2018, directed the State Government to file the status report. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent also argued that on the recommendation of the CEC, the District Collector, Jaipur, cancelled the set apart order dated 10.08.2001, vide order dated 10.05.2018 and Department of Revenue also cancelled the allotment order dated 20.08.2001, vide order dated 10.05.2018. Resultantly, the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant was also cancelled vide order dated 10.05.2018. It is also contended that the appellant also applied for diversion of Forest Land for approach to reach the hotel vide application dated 09.02.2007 but the Forest Department did not grant permission for diversion of the land as the same was part of the Sanctuary. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India, vide order dated 04.12.2006, directed the Ministry of Environment of Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MoEF’), to declare the Eco-Sensitive Zone vide letter dated 09.02.2011. The State of Rajasthan sent a proposal for treating area upto 100 meters around the notified boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary as Eco-Sensitive Zone vide letter dated 07.01.2011 and subsequently vide notification dated 11.09.2017, the Central Government has issued the Draft Notification. 11. It is also contended that the Collector, Jaipur and other Authorities acted arbitrary to the Forest, Wildlife and Environment Laws by setting apart the land for establishing the tourism unit. The writ court erred in directing the respondents to approach a Competent Court for seeking cancellation of lease deed dated 06.11.2001 and the allotment letter dated 20.07.2001 as the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. Hon’ble the Apex Court, on the recommendation of CEC directed the respondents to proceed with the action in accordance with law and in compliance to the order passed by the Apex Court, respondent-State has cancelled the setting apart order. 12. Heard and perused the record. 13. It is not in dispute that the disputed land was agricultural, and vide order dated 10.08.2001, the District Collector, Jaipur set apart the land under Section 92 the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and allotted it for establishing the tourism unit. Subsequently, the Tourism Department, vide its order dated 20.08.2001, executed a registered lease deed in favour of the appellant. 14. Before delineating the core issue about the legality of the order regarding cancelling the setting apart order by the respondent for establishing the resort on the disputed land, it is pertinent to mention the relevant orders and proceedings passed and drawn by the Honble Apex Court and CEC. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. in I.A. No. 2066 and Cont. Pet. (C) No. 133/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995, passed following order on 07.05.2012: “302. I.A. No. 2066 @ Cont. Pet. (C) No. 133/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. in I.A. No. 2066 and Cont. Pet. (C) No. 133/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995, passed following order on 07.05.2012: “302. I.A. No. 2066 @ Cont. Pet. (C) No. 133/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995. The application has been preferred seeking a direction that the land in question be not diverted out of the sanctuary for allotment to M/s. Boutique Hotels India Ltd. Paragraph 22 of the application states that undue benefit has been extended to that company. 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 from the State of Rajasthan and the answer to them is as follows: Query Answer/Response 1. Why permission is given to a private boutique through rescue centre/route of 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? 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. 011/1 and Khasra No. 811/2 has been shown jointly, whereas only Khasra No. 811/1 has been allotted to the Boutique Khasra, which is a forest land. In the map produced by the Boutique Hotel earlier Khasra No. 011/1 and Khasra No. 811/2 has been shown jointly, whereas only Khasra No. 811/1 has been allotted to the Boutique Khasra, which is 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. Further it is 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. 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. Government would also file a status report thereafter.” In the same matter, vide order dated 11.04.2018, the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed the following order: “This is an application filed by Mohan Lal Sharma. The prayer in this application is M/s Boutique Hotel is sought to be constructed in a Wildlife Sanctuary. It appears that conversion of land has since been withdrawn by the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 08.06.2012 under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 and proceedings have also been initiated for cancellation of lease but these proceedings are pending since 2012. Learned AAG for the State of Rajasthan says that he will give the latest status report. List the application on 11.05.2018.” 15. The order described above passed by the Apex Court unequivocally implies that the State Government was directed to comply with the directions. Under the above directions, the State Government, vide order dated 10.05.2018, cancelled the setting apart order, resulting in the cancellation of the lease deed. Indubitably, the execution of the lease deed is a subsequent proceeding arising from setting apart the disputed land order passed by the concerned Collector. 16. Under the above directions, the State Government, vide order dated 10.05.2018, cancelled the setting apart order, resulting in the cancellation of the lease deed. Indubitably, the execution of the lease deed is a subsequent proceeding arising from setting apart the disputed land order passed by the concerned Collector. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant's argument that the Apex Court directions for cancelling the proceedings of conversion under Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act pertain’s to Hari Narayan’s land is also against the record, as the operative order passed in the order unambiguously refers to the appellant's land. 17. Further, in its recommendation, the CEC recorded the viewpoint expressed by the Department of Forests, which clearly shows that permission from the Forest Department was not sought and that the disputed land falls in the precinct of the Eco-Sensitive Zone. 18. The CEC was constituted by the Apex Court by order dated 09.05.2002 to monitor the implementation of its orders and to present cases of non-compliance, including concerning encroachment removals, implementation of working plans, compensatory afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues. 19. The above order required that the reports and affidavits filed by states under Apex Court’s orders be placed before the CEC for its examination and recommendations. The recommendations of the CEC would be placed before the Apex Court for orders. Further, persons aggrieved by any steps taken by the government in purported compliance with the Apex Court’s orders could seek relief from the CEC, which must decide the applications in conformity with the Apex Court orders. 20. Further, the CEC was given the power to call for documents from any person or government, summon any person and receive evidence on oath, and seek assistance/presence of any person or official, including the power to co-opt persons as special invitees for dealing with specific issues. When an issue pertains to a particular state, the Chief Secretary and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of that state were to be co-opted as special invitees wherever feasible. 21. The first modification of the order dated 09.05.2002 came from the order dated 14.12.2007. The modified terms of reference, which superseded all previous orders, were as follows: The committee shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions: (i) to monitor the implementation of this Court's orders and place reports of non-compliance before the Court and the Central Government for appropriate action. The modified terms of reference, which superseded all previous orders, were as follows: The committee shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions: (i) to monitor the implementation of this Court's orders and place reports of non-compliance before the Court and the Central Government for appropriate action. (ii) to examine pending interlocutory applications in the said writ petitions (as may be referred to it by the Court) as well as the reports and affidavits filed by the States in response to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court and place its recommendations before the Court for orders. (iii) to deal with any applications made to it by any aggrieved person and, wherever necessary, to make a report to this Court on that behalf. (iv) For the purposes of effective discharge of powers conferred upon the Committee under this order, the Committee can: (a) call for any documents from any persons or the Government of the Union or the State or any other official. (b) undertake site inspection of the forest area involved. (c) seek assistance or presence of any person(s) or official(s) required by it about its work. (d) co-opt one or more persons as its members or as special invitees for dealing with specific issues. (e) co-opt, wherever feasible, the Chief Secretary or his representative and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State as special invitees while dealing with issues about a particular State. (f) to suggest measures generally to the State, as well as Central Government, for the more effective implementation of the Act and other orders of this Court. (v) to examine and advise/recommend any issue referred to the Committee.” 22. The Single Bench of this Court, while passing the impugned judgment, did not consider the Apex Court order and recommendation of the CEC. This court can not ignore that the State Government cancelled the setting apart order of the disputed land in compliance with the directions rendered by the Apex Court and on the recommendation of the CEC. The cancellation order contains that: 23. The appellant did not assert the fact before the Hon'ble Apex Court and instead challenged the cancellation order through the writ petition in the High Court questioning the order passed by the State Government. The writ court can not sit over the directions rendered explicitly by the Apex Court. 24. The cancellation order contains that: 23. The appellant did not assert the fact before the Hon'ble Apex Court and instead challenged the cancellation order through the writ petition in the High Court questioning the order passed by the State Government. The writ court can not sit over the directions rendered explicitly by the Apex Court. 24. The arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the disputed land does not fall in the Eco-Sensitive Zone and permission of the forest department was not necessary, the lease deed was cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the State Government was precluded from cancelling the lease deed without the intervention of the civil court and the pathway exists for approaching the disputed land has become academic as this Court cannot sit over the recommendation made by CEC and subsequently orders passed by the Apex Court. 25. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant-M/s Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed. The appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 is quashed & set-aside.