Expressing concern over the State of Punjab’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s 2014 directions on identification of forest land in the ecologically fragile Shivalik foothills near Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has restrained all construction and development activities in 16 villages and prohibited any further transfer or alienation of land there. The Bench also directed that no further mutation entries would be made for six weeks or till completion of the exercise, and ordered the Punjab Chief Secretary to constitute a team to determine the extent of forest land as it existed on the date of enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor also directed that the entire revenue record of the villages be kept in the safe custody of two senior officers heading the exercise and ordered photocopies of the records to be deposited with the Registrar-General of the High Court within one week. Mohali Deputy Commissioner was also directed to remain personally present with the records on the next date of hearing. The Court warned that violation of its directions prohibiting land transfers would be treated as contempt.Hearing a bunch of public interest litigations and a writ petition, the Bench at the onset observed that the matters raised “serious concerns regarding the environment and ecology in the vicinity of Chandigarh.”The Bench was assisted in the matter by senior advocates Anand Chibbar and D. S. Patwalia, along with other counsels, including Gauravjit S. Patwalia and Munish Jolly.The Bench traced the genesis of the litigation to a January 22, 2004, newspaper report alleging that a club in Karoran village, then in Ropar district (now Mohali), had been established on forest land in violation of law.Taking suo motu cognisance in 2004, the High Court then examined the nature of the land, referred to the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLP Act), noted that the entire village land measuring about 3,700 acres was shown in the records as forest land, and directed its preservation as forest land.The Bench noted that the judgment was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in “B.S. Sandhu versus Government of India” case, which held that “the mere inclusion of the area within the limits of the PLP Act, 1900, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the land is ‘forest land’.” The apex court held that the nature of the land as on the date of enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, had first to be determined and directed the State of Punjab to undertake that exercise.Referring to the petitions now before the Bench, the court observed grievance raised was “to the effect that, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the demarcation of forest land has not been carried out.The petitioners alleged that while some restaurants had been shut down, “a large number of other commercial activities were allowed to flourish, with massive constructions being permitted in the area.” They further alleged collusion by State officials, contending that many senior officers had secured prime farmland in the area situated close to Chandigarh.The Bench recorded that the State had, till date, not filed any affidavit reporting compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. While an affidavit had been filed by Forest Department officials, the court observed that it did not satisfy the Supreme Court’s specific direction requiring the State itself to carry out the exercise.Rejecting the State’s reliance on affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary, the Bench observed: “Mere filing of affidavits without actually undertaking the requisite exercise for demarcation of ‘forest land’ would neither have the approval of this Court, nor can it have any sanctity in the eyes of law.”Describing the area as environmentally sensitive, the court observed that Karoran village, now in Mohali district, “is situated in the foothills of the Shivalik Hills and is an environmentally fragile area. Its preservation is of utmost importance for the protection of the environment and ecology. The manner in which such an area is being allowed to be commercialized, without effective steps being taken for the preservation of the forests, not only violates the mandate of the PLP Act, 1900 but also reflects the failure on the part of the State to preserve the environment.”Holding that it “cannot shut its eyes to the grievances raised in the present cases,” the court observed that revenue records as well as other State records prima facie showed lands in Karoran, Nada, Parch, Jattvibek, Majrian, Choti Bari Nagal, Parol, Siswan, Pallanpur, Saini Majra, Dulwan, Burana, Gochar, Mirzapur, Tarapur and Sultanpur as forest land, although demarcation had still not been undertaken despite the Supreme Court’s directions issued in 2014.The Bench, therefore, restrained all construction and development activities in these villages and directed the State and Mohali Deputy Commissioner to ensure that appropriate demarcation of forest land was carried out in the villages in the manner directed by the Supreme Court.The court further directed that “no further transfer or alienation of land by any mode, including GPA/POA, etc., shall be permitted” in these villages, observing that it had “serious doubts regarding the credibility of the revenue entries in view of the serious allegations of manipulation of such entries, whereby parts of such land have been declared to be private land.” It warned that “any violation of this direction shall be treated as an act of contempt,” for which appropriate proceedings would be initiated against those responsible.The Bench directed the Chief Secretary to immediately constitute an appropriate team of Forest and Revenue officers to examine old revenue records and determine the area of forest land as it existed on the date of enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, within six weeks. Clarifying the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court, the court observed: “Mere inclusion of an area within the controlled area under the PLP Act, 1900 shall not ipso facto be the sole criterion for determining whether the land is ‘forest land’.”