JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Birendra Singh seeking directions in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1, Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change, and respondent No. 2 State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Forest and Environment to permanently restrain respondent Nos. 3 and 4, or their agents, employees or men in going ahead with the project activities being carried out by “Devanya’ in Guni Gaon Gram Sabha in District Nainital. A further direction is being sought to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to ensure that no commercial project of any size be commenced in the State of Uttarakhand without the requisite permission under law, and after comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for such projects. 2. On 20.03.2020, when this case was taken up, this Court had referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 11.02.2020, whereby it was indicated that the survey and demarcation has to be done jointly by the revenue and the forest department within a period of eight weeks. An undertaking was also placed on record that no trees will be cut without permission from the competent authority. Thereafter a direction was given to the respondents to file their report. A perusal of the order dated 23.11.2022 further shows that pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court on 11.02.2020, in Civil Appeal No. 8560 of 2018, survey and demarcation has to be conducted within eight weeks with respect to area falling in three patches of the Jilling Estate, wherein the density of forest appears to be 40% or more. The Court Commissioner has found that about 8.5 Hectares out of the entire Estate, i.e. 36 Hectares-constituting Jilling Estate, appears to have a high density of forest cover in the range of 40% or more. 3. The State filed a compliance affidavit of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO, Nainital). As per the report, the only exercise carried out was to identify the different kinds of trees found in different Khasra Numbers, and it has not complied with the Supreme Court’s order. One more opportunity was granted to strictly comply with the order passed by the Supreme Court, as well as by this Court on 20.03.2020. As per the report, the only exercise carried out was to identify the different kinds of trees found in different Khasra Numbers, and it has not complied with the Supreme Court’s order. One more opportunity was granted to strictly comply with the order passed by the Supreme Court, as well as by this Court on 20.03.2020. After notice, the petitioner placed on record along with IA No. 4401 of 2022, the pictures of the Google map of the area concerned. The three pictures of 2015, 2018 and 2022 produced by the petitioner showed that even in the dense tree cover area, development activities are bring undertaken. The Court proceeded to appoint Shri Bikram Singh Sajwan as Court Commissioner, since he had conducted the earlier inspection as a Court Commissioner, and he has first-hand knowledge of the topography and the characteristics of the area. Since Shri Sajwan was not in a position to compete the task early, the Court proceeded to appoint Dr. Dvijendra Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd.) as the Court Commissioner to carry out the local physical on-the-spot inspection and furnish a report before the Court as to whether respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have carried out any activity in the area admeasuring 8.5 hectares or thereabout, which may eventually be declared as a Deemed Forest. The Court Commissioner was to inspect the development activities carried out by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the area falling outside the 8.5 hectares, but within 36 hectares constituting Jilling Estate, and to report whether these developmental activities have been carried out in violation of any of the norms / rules / regulations, or without any permission, which they were obliged to obtain. The responsible officer, nominated by the District Magistrate, Nainital; a nominee of the Conservator of Forest, and the DFO, Nainital were also directed to remain present when the inspection is carried out. The fee of the Court Commissioner was fixed at rupees two lacs to be shared equally by the petitioner on one hand, and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the other. On 03.01.2023, the report was furnished by the Court Commissioner, and copy was given to the petitioner. 4. On 06.04.2023, the petitioner sought time to file rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavits filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On 09.05.2023, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the other. On 03.01.2023, the report was furnished by the Court Commissioner, and copy was given to the petitioner. 4. On 06.04.2023, the petitioner sought time to file rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavits filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On 09.05.2023, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were directed to file a detailed affidavit disclosing the complete position with regard to the ownership and the status of ownership / transaction in respect of each and every parcel comprising 36 hectares of land in question. On 10.05.2023, direction was given to the State to produce the original record showing the consideration of the aspects before issuance of the impugned Office Order dated 19.02.2020, bearing No. 485/x-2-2020-15(59)2014, issued by the Forest Section-2 of the Uttarakhand Government. On 12.06.2023, the State counsel tendered in Court the file of the original record showing consideration of the aspects before issuance of the impugned Office Order dated 19.02.2020. On 20.06.2023, Mr. P.K. Patro, Chief Conservator of Forests, Kumaon Division appeared and gave his explanation with respect to Categories B.1 and B.2 contained in the classification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change to all the States and Union Territories on 18.09.2014 for the purpose of suggesting parameters for classifying of an area as ‘forest’ by dictionary meaning. As per him, the State of Uttarakhand fell in Category B.1. 5. Category B.1 reads as under : “B.1: States and Union Territories having forest cover less than the National Target (i.e. one third of the geographical area) and hill districts having forest cover less than 60% of their geographical area (a) Areas having more than 10% crown density and scrub forests as per the successive State of Forest Reports (SFRs) published by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) after 25th October 1980, which are contiguous to recorded forest areas, unless it is proved with credible evidence that more than 30% of vegetation available in such area is other than the forestry species of natural origin; (b) All isolated patches of minimum 5 hectare area having more than 10% crown density as per the successive SFRs published by the FSI after 25th October 1980, unless it is proved with credible evidence that more than 30% of vegetation available in such patch is other than the forestry species of natural origin. (Explanation: In case two adjoining patches having more than 10% crown density are separated by not more than 200 meter wide strip of scrub forest, such patches having more than 10% crown density and strip of scrub forest located between them (upto a maximum width of 200 meters) shall be amalgamated and such amalgamated patch shall be considered for the purpose of this paragraph; and (c) Mangroves, sacred groves and habitats of rare and endangered species irrespective of the patch size.” 6. Mr. Patro was directed to file an affidavit on his interpretation of Categories B.1 and B.2, and thereafter, he filed an affidavit. On 26.07.2023, a direction was given to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhari to examine the plan, which has been tendered in Court by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and to send a report, whether khasra numbers tabulated therein, and the area of the said khasra numbers, corresponds with the khasra numbers in the area, which are demarcated in red in the said plan. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhari filed his affidavit, and affidavits were also filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. On 24.08.2023, the Court directed the other co-owners, namely Aarti, Gauri Atul, Deepika and Rakesh Sharma to file their respective affidavits in support of their compliance affidavit dated 07.08.2023. Thereafter, on 05.09.2023, the affidavits were filed by Arti Atul Kirloskar, Gauri Atul Kirloskar, Deepika Sharma, Rakesh Sharma, Ashish Dhawan and Renu Dhawan, along with affidavit of Seemit Sinha, the Director of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They all stated that they have perused the affidavit dated 07.08.2023 filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and they further stated that they were bona fide transferees and owners, who have purchased land in Village Jilling Estate, Patti Sarana, Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital, Uttarakhand. It was further stated that as per para 8(a) of Notification No. S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14.09.2006 as amended by Notification No. S.O. 3252 (E) dated 22.08.2014, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, they will ensure that the total built-up area will not exceed the prescribed limit of 20,000 Sq. m., and thereafter permission was granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to carry out further development / construction activities in Jilling Estate strictly in terms of the compliance affidavit filed by Seemit Sinha, Director of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 dated 07.08.2023. m., and thereafter permission was granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to carry out further development / construction activities in Jilling Estate strictly in terms of the compliance affidavit filed by Seemit Sinha, Director of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 dated 07.08.2023. Further directions were given to the respondent authorities to ensure that the undertaking given by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are strictly complied with. In case, there is any breach or violation of the same, it shall be the responsibility of the authorities to bring the same to the notice of this Court. 7. On 28.02.2024, when this case was taken up, on the request made by Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, the case was adjourned to enable him to produce the plan, to show the location of both the parties, i.e. the petitioners as well as the private respondents, and the criteria for setting up a deemed forest. Learned counsel for the State was directed to assist the Court with respect to similar kind of notifications describing deemed forests in other States. Thereafter on 21.03.2024, when this case was taken up, the State produced a plan prepared after carrying out the inspection on 19.03.2024 in presence of both the parties. 8. Petitioner Birendra Singh had gone in SLP (C) No. 26936 of 2023, in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2024. The Supreme Court vacated the interim order dated 23.11.2022 vide order dated 02.01.2024. The Supreme Court allowed the SLP, and quashed & set aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2022, whereby the High Court had modified said interim order and granted permission to the private respondents for construction. This Court was also directed to decide the present petition on its own merits, within a period of three months. 9. This Court proceeds to consider the whole case on merits. 10. As per the joint inspection report, on 19.03.2024, joint inspection of land was conducted in Jilling Estate pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2024, passed by this Court. Deputy District Magistrate, Dhari, District Nainital; Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Nainital; Tehsildar, Dhari; Forest Range Officer, Bhowali; Surveyor, Nainital Forest Division; Deputy Revenue Inspector; Revenue Inspector, Dhari; representatives of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Samit Sinha and Mr. Vikas Srivastava, shareholders of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Samit Sinha, representative of the respondent party, Mr. Birendra Singh, the petitioner, and Ms. 3 and 4, Mr. Samit Sinha and Mr. Vikas Srivastava, shareholders of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Samit Sinha, representative of the respondent party, Mr. Birendra Singh, the petitioner, and Ms. Saroj Arya, Village Head of Guni Village were present. The petitioner informed that his name is not registered in the land records of the disputed land, and on account of lack of clear possession and monitoring case No. 20/2022-23 Ramesh Chandra etc. Vs. Sarita Kumar etc. were pending in the Revenue Council, Dehradun. With respect to another building, Birendra Singh, the petitioner revealed that the present building is constructed in khasra No. 238/272 and had been rebuilt / renovated in place of the previously constructed building, and said surveillance case no. 20/2022-23 is pending in the court of Revenue Council, and in this backdrop, the possession / demarcation of the petitioner’s land could not be done. With regard to respondent No. 3 Devanya Private Limited, the observation made in the joint inspection report, is as under : “Defendant No. 3 Devanya Pvt. Ltd. There is no land recorded in the name of Hall Khata Khatauni (Feb 1430-1435) village Jeeling Estate Ramgarh, Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital in the records. Whereas respondent No. 4 Devanya Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Hall account in the name of village Guni Village, Tehsil Dhari District Naintial, Khatauni (Feb. 1430-1435) account number of village Jeeling Estate, Ramgarh, Tehsil Dhari, District Naintial. 9 is 0.243. Land residuals are recorded and account No. 10. Devanya Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Reg. (Vikas Srivastava), the residue in the name of which is Rs.3,760, thus respondent No. 4 Devanya Resorts Pvt. Ltd. A total of 4.003 hectares of land records are registered in his name. In the above account number 10, the survey report prepared by the joint survey team on 02.12.2022 of the forest covered area / patch comprising 1.2 ha, 2.9 ha and 4.4 ha, totaling 8.5 ha, is as per Hon. It has already been presented in the Court, which is attached for easy reference. Map of current joint survey / demarcation report attached.” 11. The report further states that with regard to permission in relation to the construction work the construction work in Jilling Estate is not covered under the area of District Development Authority, Nainital, and no permission is required from them. In principle approval has been granted through single window number 02-8-CAFIP-82022 dated 26.05.2018. The report further states that with regard to permission in relation to the construction work the construction work in Jilling Estate is not covered under the area of District Development Authority, Nainital, and no permission is required from them. In principle approval has been granted through single window number 02-8-CAFIP-82022 dated 26.05.2018. It was further informed by respondent No. 4 that no construction work was done without the said approval. It was also informed that Bhoomi Devanya Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. registered in the name of District / State Nodal Agency, Uttarakhand Government has given in principle approval through single window vide CAFID-35713 dated 17.02.2022 regarding the construction of hotel etc., which evidence was provided by the respondent’s representative Mr. Samit Sinha. A total of 9.446 hectares of land in khatauni Khata No. 9, 10 and 15 in Village Jeeling Estate was owned by Devanya Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Accounts statement of khatauni No. 9, 10 and 15 were attached with the report. As per the map, the total area in question is 33.9 hectares of land under consideration, and as per the records, 4.003 hectares of land is recorded in the name of respondent No. 4 Devanya Resorts Pvt. Ltd., and remaining land is in the name of other units of the promoters and vendors of ‘agreement to sale’. As per the site plan, a total of 9.446 hectares of land in khatauni Khata No. 9, 10 and 15 in Village Jeeling Estate is owned by Devanya Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for which permission has been granted on 17.02.2022. 12. Once the permission has been granted to the respondents, i.e., Devanya Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2022, the next question which requires consideration is - whether after such permission is granted, the respondents are required to take environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006? 13. As per the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, environmental clearance is required only if construction being carried out exceeds the prescribed limit as set out in Paras 8(a) and 8(b) of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. In the facts of the present case, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are bound by their undertaking given before the NGT, the Supreme Court and this Court that they will not exceed the prescribed limit as given in the relevant EIA Notification. In the facts of the present case, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are bound by their undertaking given before the NGT, the Supreme Court and this Court that they will not exceed the prescribed limit as given in the relevant EIA Notification. In any case, if there is a violation of the prescribed limit then it is the official respondents who are to monitor the construction of the respondents and they have the remedy to take steps immediately when respondents exceeds the prescribed limit as set out in Paras 8(a) and 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. In this backdrop, this Public Interest Litigation does not require to be kept pending to monitor the entire construction of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as per the permission granted to them on 17.02.2022. 14. Earlier, one more Public Interest Litigation, being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 141 of 2023, titled ‘Shivani Roy Vs. District Magistrate, Naintial & others’, has been filed by the petitioner Shivani Roy. In this PIL, the petitioner was seeking direction restraining the respondent Devanya Hotel and Resort Private Ltd. from making any construction, including building roads. A further direction to the District Magistrate, Nainital is sought to stop further constriction in Van Panchayat forest area. However, on account of a joint inspection conducted by the Forest Department with the Revenue Department, it was found that no trees were cut down on the said land and there was no forest land, or the land of the van panchayat involved in the case. Also, no public nuisance on the public way was found in the said joint inspection. This report further state that the land of this hotel was not part of any reserved forest notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the land was not part of the Van Panchayat, Sarna, managed under Uttaranchal Panchayati Van Niyamawali, 2005. The above mentioned PIL was disposed of by this Court on 23.04.2024, Keeping in view the joint inspection report. Since the land of respondents even as per the recent inspection report was not found part of the forest area reference can now be made to another order of the Supreme Court dated 02.02.2024, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s.) 1394 of 2023, titled as ‘Vanashakti Vs. Union of India’. Since the land of respondents even as per the recent inspection report was not found part of the forest area reference can now be made to another order of the Supreme Court dated 02.02.2024, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s.) 1394 of 2023, titled as ‘Vanashakti Vs. Union of India’. The Supreme Court in this case had examined the Notifications issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change dated 07.07.2021 and 28.01.2022. As per the order dated 02.02.2024, the Supreme Court has clarified that if any project had acquired environmental clearances prior to Office Memoranda dated 07.07.2021, and only some modifications / alterations are required, such applications for modifications / alternations could be made to the appropriate authorities and such applications would be considered as per law prevalent before 07.07.2021. In the present case, the permission has been granted through open window on 17.02.2022, and as per inspection reports which are part of Writ Petition (PIL) No. 141 of 2023, and this petition also, no part of land of the respondents falls in the forest area, and, hence, they are bound to carry out constructions as per the permission granted on 17.02.2022, and if the construction is carried out beyond 20,000 sq. ft., the competent authority will have the jurisdiction to initiate appropriate steps in accordance with law against the private respondents. 15. As regards the private land of respondents whether it is categorized as ‘deemed forest’, reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 . As per the above said judgment the criteria is to be fixed by the respective State Government for the purpose of ‘deemed forest’. In the year 2019, the State of Uttarakhand has come out with such criteria whereby only an area having forest like vegetation on a compact patch of 10 Hec. or more was categorized as ‘deemed forest’. This Notification was stayed by this Court in December 2019. Thereafter, in February 2020, the State of Uttarakhand again came up with fresh criteria reducing the minimum area limit for deemed forest from 10 Hec. to 5 Hec. This Notification had also been stayed by this Court in February 2020. 16. In the case of the respondents before the NGT, a retired Member (Technical) of NGT was appointed as the Court Commissioner. to 5 Hec. This Notification had also been stayed by this Court in February 2020. 16. In the case of the respondents before the NGT, a retired Member (Technical) of NGT was appointed as the Court Commissioner. In his report, he identified three independent patches having forest like vegetation measuring 1.2 Hec., 2.9 Hec. and 4.4 Hec. These patches were demarcated by the Revenue and Forest Department as per directions of the Supreme Court, and each of the three identified patches is less than 5 Hec. Hence, as per the report of the Court Commissioner, appointed by the NGT, the land of the petitioner meets the minimum criteria of 5 Hec., and is not part of the deemed forest. The land in Khata Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 15 is not part of any ‘Van Panchayat’ land, and this fact has been clarified by the District Magistrate’s affidavit and RTI reply dated 18.08.2023 of S.D.M., Dhari, District Nainital. 17. Finally, the petitioner, in the present case, had filed a partition suit on 31.10.2017 in the court of Assistant Collector, Dhari, where the subject land of the respondents was also a subject matter. This partition suit was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2018 on the ground of concealment of material fact that the land, in respect of which partition was claimed, had already been sold 16.11.1992, much prior to filing of the suit. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have further stated that petitioner is not a public spirited person and has not filed the single complaint before the local authorities before filing the PIL. Details of FIRs lodged against the petitioner has been given in pages 1885 to 1925. 18. Consequently, this Writ Petition (PIL) is being disposed of by observing that as per the criteria set out the three patches of land of the petitioner is less than 5 Hec. from the forest area, and, hence, the permission granted vide the open window on 17.02.2022 does not require further examination. Since the land is not part of the Van Panchayat and is not located in any municipal area or within 200 meters of any specified State Highway, no building plan approval is required for construction. from the forest area, and, hence, the permission granted vide the open window on 17.02.2022 does not require further examination. Since the land is not part of the Van Panchayat and is not located in any municipal area or within 200 meters of any specified State Highway, no building plan approval is required for construction. Furthermore, as per the District Magistrate’s affidavit, the land of the respondents is not part of the Van Panchayat and the construction as per the permission dated 17.02.2022, is to be monitored by the official respondents, and they can take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if any of the conditions is violated and the respondents carry out any construction against their undertaking given before the NGT, Supreme Court and this Court. 19. In view of the above, the writ petition (PIL) stands disposed of. No order as to costs.