The Punjab Forest Department has urged the Punjab and Haryana High Court to reconsider the need for examining old revenue records and forest-cover maps to identify forest land as it existed on October 25, 1980, contending that land specifically covered by special orders under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA), already carries the legal characteristics of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.The submission has been made in an application seeking to bring on record two subsequent Supreme Court judgments which, according to the Department, have a direct bearing on the methodology prescribed by the High Court in its July 22 order.The High Court had directed Punjab Chief Secretary to constitute a team of Forest and Revenue officers to examine old revenue records and determine the area of forest land as it existed on October 25, 1980, the date of enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, in terms of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in “B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India”.Expressing concern over the State’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 Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor had also restrained all construction and development activities in 16 villages and prohibited any further transfer or alienation of land there. The Bench was assisted in the matter by senior advocates Anand Chhibbar and D. S. Patwalia, along with other counsel including Gauravjit S. Patwalia and Munish Jolly.The Forest Department has now relied on “M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave Matters, In Re) v. Union of India” and “Narinder Singh and others v. Divesh Bhutani and others. It specifically placed reliance on the judgment in Narinder Singh’s case, contending that the verdict directly examined the earlier B.S. Sandhu judgment.The department contended that Supreme Court observed the Bench in B.S. Sandhu’s matter “has not gone into the scheme of the 1927 Forest Act and the object sought to be achieved by PLPA”. It further observed: “The decision in the case of B.S. Sandhu, with great respect, does not take note of these crucial legal and factual aspects.”The Department pointed out that the Supreme Court also noticed that B.S. Sandhu was concerned with a general notification under Section 3 of the PLPA covering an entire village and that it was not clear from the facts before that Bench whether a special order under Section 4 was involved.According to the application, the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh observed that “the specific land in respect of which a special order under Section 4 of PLPA has been issued will have all the trappings of a forest governed by clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act”.The Department said this subsequent and more elaborate consideration by a three-Judge Bench “directly addresses the very premise namely, that PLPA coverage ‘may or may not’ indicate forest land” which, according to it, underlies the methodology presently contemplated under paragraph 11 of the High Court’s July 22 order.The application further relied on the Supreme Court’s observations concerning Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. It stated that the Supreme Court discussed the provision as opening with a non-obstante clause and overriding State and Central legislation for the time being in force, so that no subsequent State enactment, executive order or administrative practice can dilute its operation once land bears forest character.The Department also submits, on the basis of Narinder Singh, that Section 2 did not divest a landholder of title, ownership or rights, but creates an embargo on diversion to non-forest use without prior Central Government approval.The Punjab Forest Department consequently argued that areas notified and closed under Section 4 of the PLPA, being recorded in the records of the Forest Department, answer this description “regardless of the individual revenue classification or ownership of the land in question”.On this basis, the Department urged the High Court to accept on-ground demarcation of areas presently falling under Section 4 of the PLPA, along with identification of areas validly delisted with due approval under Section 2 of the 1980 Act, as sufficient for identifying forest land in the villages concerned.The application states that such demarcation “would itself be sufficient and conclusive for the purpose of identification of ‘forest land’ in the said villages”. It further submits that “a further and separate exercise of examination of revenue records/forest cover maps as they existed on 25.10.1980, over and above the said demarcation, would not serve any additional purpose and may accordingly be dispensed with.”