Bharthu and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification dated July 29, 1988 issued u/s 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 1972 Act'') and order of the Collector, Guhla, dated July 28, 1998 vide which he rejected the objections filed by the petitioners u/s 21-B of the 1972 Act.

The case of the petitioners is that they are residents of villages Machherheri and Kakrala, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal in the State of Haryana. They are the owners in possession of land as mentioned in para No. 2 of the writ petition. They have been left with small agricultural land because large tract of their land was covered under the reserved forest long back for which they have not been paid compensation as they were not aware of their rights. They have averred that respondents No. 1 i.e., State of Haryana, through its Secretary to Government, Department of Wild Life Preservation, issued notification dated July 29, 1988 u/s 18 of the 1972 Act declaring the area to be a sanctuary for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wild life and its environment. The total area acquired is 120 acres with boundaries as stated in the notification, Annexure P-1 including their agricultural land,

The petitioners have challenged that notification dated July 29, 1988 by contending that by virtue of the State Government notification, they have been deprived of their property without payment of compensation and, therefore, the same is liable to be declared as unconstitutional. They have also challenged the order passed by the Collector by describing it as patently erroneous.

In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 through its Chief Wild Life Warden, Haryana, a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised on the ground of non-joinder of the Forest Department as party-respondent. On the merits of the case, it has been averred that the proclamation issued u/s 21 of the 1972 Act is only for the land reserved for forest which is an exclusive property of the government and there has been now change in the revenue record of the existing land. According to respondent No. 1, the Wild Life Sanctuary has been declared by the Wild Life Preservation Department only for the welfare of the general public regarding the land of reserved forest and land of the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of notification, Annexure P-1. Still further, it has been averred that these proclamation had been made as per orders dated August 22, 1997 of the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in IA No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1995. Annexure R-2 declaring the reserved forest as Wild Life Sanctuary. The directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court were clear that within two months, the State Government was to issue proclamation u/s 21 in respect of Wild Life Sanctuary/National Parks and the process of determination of rights and acquisition of land as contemplated by the Act was to be completed within a period of one year. Further, on January 16, 1998, Hon''ble Supreme Court passed order in I.A. No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1995, Annexure R-3, that proclamation was not required to be issued in respect of the Wild Life Sanctuaries which were situated in the reserved forest. The respondents have justified the rejection of the objections filed by the petitioners by contending that the impugned notification was issued by the State Government in compliance of the direction given by the Supreme Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Jaswant Singh and perused the record.

A perusal of the record shows that the land in dispute had been declared as reserved forest much before the issuance of the notification dated July 29, 1988 u/s 18 of the 1972 Act. What has been done by the said notification is to declare the reserved forest area as sanctuaries for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wild life and its environment. The petitioners have not challenged the notification by which the area in question had been declared as reserved forest area as sanctuaries can not be nullified more so, because the impugned notification has been issued by the State Government in compliance of the directions given by the Supreme Court on August 22, 1997 in I.A. No. 2 in Writ Petition (C) No. 337/1195 Centre for Environmental Lal, WWF-I v. Union of India and Ors. The challenge to the notification dated July 29, 1988 deserves to be repelled on the additional ground of delay and laches. The petitioners have not explained the delay of almost more than 10 years in the filing of the writ petition for quashing of the said notification and in the absence of such explanation we have no hesitation to hold that they are guilty of laches.

The order dated July 28, 1998 passed by the Collector, Guhla also does not suffer from any error of law warranting interference by the High Court. A perusal of that order shows that the petitioners had already been paid compensation in lieu of acquisition of their land. We, therefore, do not find any justification to invalidate the notification dated July 29, 1988 and the order dated July 28, 1998 passed by the Collector Guhla.