Chandigarh: Haryana Bill for diverting deemed forest on the anvil; experts call it death blow

CHANDIGARH: A Bill having far-reaching consequences on the ecology and adverse impact on the deemed forests is likely to be introduced in the Haryana Assembly shortly for facilitating change of land use of the area notified at present under sections -3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation (PLP) Act , 1900.
Experts said that this bill is going to be the final death blow to the conservation of forests and wildlife in Aravallis and Shivaliks in Haryana as the bill aims to open up these ecologically fragile hills for un-restricted development and colonization for the benefit of real estate sector especially the builders.
Activists advocating conservation of forest in Aravallies and Shivaliks feel that the Haryana government is taking the Supreme Court head on by continuing with deliberate and willful violation of their orders.
According to Chetan Agarwal, forest policy analyst, the government of Haryana has published a bill titled as "The Punjab Land Preservation (Haryana Amendment) Bill, 2019" to amend Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 in the Official Gazette before introducing the same in Haryana Assembly. This bill appears to have been brought out to scuttle the order of Supreme Court dated December 12, 1996 and another on July 6, 2011 in the matter properly known as Lafarge case.
This bill also appears to be a striking defiance of the apex court dated 11.09.2018 in Kant Enclave matter and also subvert the apex court order in M.C. Mehta Case. It is well known that SC vide the aforesaid orders castigated Haryana government for commissions and omissions amounting to willful and deliberate violations of PLP Act, 1900 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980 by changing the land use of deemed forests for the benefit developers and builders.
It is also pertinent to mention that in a contemptuous manner, the Haryana government has not yet identified deemed forests in the areas notified under PLP Act, 1900 as per the dictionary sense in accordance with orders of SC in 1996 and 2011. Now, the proposed bill is being brought out apparently to circumvent the aforesaid orders of apex court especially that in Kant Enclave matter by amending PLP Act. A perusal of the bill shows that the same is sinister design aimed at not only diluting but also nullifying PLP Act in Haryana.
The Bill substituted section-3 of the Principal (original or general) Act and restricts the validity of the notification issued under this section to a maximum 30 years whereas the earlier notifications under this section do not prescribe any such limit. It is significant to note that the notifications under section-3 simply declare the intension of the government to impose regulations, restrictions and prohibitions under sections 4, 5 and 5A later on and as such section-3 notifications ipso facto do not impose any restrictions. Accordingly, the notifications to be issued under the amended sections- 4, 4A, 5 and 5A will also be valid for less than 30 years.
For further diluting the principal act, a new section-3A has been inserted according to which the provisions of the Act will not apply to the lands included in the development Plans, Town Improvement Plans under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922; the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963; the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971; the Haryana development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975; the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994; the Gurugram; the Faridabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2018 and any other Act, Statute or Order that the State Government may notify from time. As per the amendment, PLP Act will also not be applicable to agriculture land and also the land forming part of any public infrastructure in the past as well as future.
A new section 6A has been inserted for amending or rescinding any notification or order made under the Act. Another new section 18A has also been inserted to exempt any class of persons or areas or land from all or any provisions of the Act. Yet another new section 23 has also been inserted to effect deemed amendments in the notifications issued earlier to exclude various categories of land covered under section 3A as detailed above.
The bill miserably failed to address the conservation concerns of the Supreme Court expressed in various orders as detailed above. The statement of objects and reasons has clearly stated about the orders of Supreme Court for treating the areas notified under PLP Act as forests and also treat the areas as forests even after the expiry of the notifications which make the proposed amendment literally inconsequential in respect of the deemed forest. Thus, even though Haryana government identified the problem correctly, it failed to come up with an appropriate solution and rather addressed the problem with a wrong solution.
The contents of the bill are not supported by any scientific inquiry or study by any expert agencies regarding whether it is desirable to remove the protection of PLP Act from the areas already notified under the Act. In stark contradiction, no opportunity of hearing has been provided before the bill was published in the gazette even though the bill proposes to provide advance opportunity of hearing under section 3 (3) before issuing notification.
Some of the objects and reasons as detailed in the statement are far from the facts on record. It may not be correct to state that the primary objective of the notifications of PLP Act is to regulate tree felling because the regulations, restrictions and prohibitions under section 4 include clearing, breaking and cultivation of the land, quarrying of stones, burning of lime, cutting of trees or timber, construction etc.
The Haryana government appears to have not weighed all the options available in a proper manner and exhausted the remedies available to them. In compliance of the orders of Supreme Court, deemed forest should have been identified. The forest areas as on 25 October 1980 when the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into force, which were subsequently diverted un-authorized for non-forest purposes such as colonies, roads etc. should have been got regularized from the Central Government who is the Competent Authority. Even the forest areas which were converted into agriculture land could have been got delisted from the list of forests in Haryana by obtaining the permission of the Supreme Court at first and the Central government subsequently.
Punjab Forest Department had got the areas under habitation and cultivation within the areas notified under PLP Act delisted from the list of forests by following the similar process. Haryana government can also obtain approvals under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for any non-forest use of deemed forest area. Merely amending PLP Act as proposed in the bill is not going to solve the problems as detailed in the statement of objects and reasons of the bill because approvals of Central Government under FCA, 1980 will still be required to change the land use of the deemed forests within the areas notified under PLP Act as per the order of Supreme Court dated December 12 , 1996 and July 6 2011.
Experts negating the statement of Objects and Reasons given in the bill-
Sale and purchase of deemed forests and immovable properties closed under PLP Act is not illegal as such but diversion of deemed forests for non-forest purposes is illegal. It is incorrect to state that PLP Act does not have any provision to rectify, amend or de-notify the notifications as the State Government is fully competent to issue corrigenda for any bonafide rectification. It is also incorrect to state that PLP Act does not have any provision for re-notification or extending the period as the State Government can always conduct proper inquiry as per section 6 of PLP Act and issue fresh notification temporarily for a specific period. It is also incorrect to state that PLP Act does not provide for reasonable opportunity of being heard as section 6 provides for compulsory enquiry which includes consultation of all the stake holders and detailed scientific expert studies. There is no provision in the Principal Act to make certain provisions applicable with retrospective effect as proposed in the bill.
They opine that Haryana Government may better conserve deemed forest and protect PLP areas, Gair Mumkin Pahar for environmental stability, mitigating pollution and for the well being of the posterity.
1. The indian state of Haryana has the lowest percentage of forest cover in the country – 3.59% ( as per FSI assessments).
2. PLPA area are 30,000 ha, or a full 33% of the effective forest land in Haryana. ( Reserve forest and compact Protected Forests are just about 60,000 ha, while the rest of the protected forests are basically strips forests along roads, canals and rail lines. The move to amend the PLPA act will therefore reduce 33% of the forest land of Haryana.

Key Provisions of the Bill
1. Blanket exclusion of Urban areas. The Provisions of the PLP Act will not apply to all urban areas in the state including master plan areas and municipal areas ( Para 4, amending 3A. of act, and Para 10, adding sec 23 to the act). It will also not apply to future urban areas as they are notified under different urban statutes.
2. Blanket power to exclude. The state government may notify by any act, order or statute, that the PLPA shall not apply on the specified area. ( Para 4 (a) (viii))
3. Blanket power to rescind. Any notification under this act can be rescinded by the state ( Para 8)
4. Blanket power to excempt. Any area can be exempted by the state government ( Para 9)
5. Retrospective effect. In case there are any provisions left in the PLPA, the bill comes into force from Nov 1 1966, the date of formation of Haryana, thus nullifying all actions under the act since the formation of the state (Para 1(2)).
6. Limit notifications to 30 years. All notifications will be limited to 30 years, and after expiry the regulations, restrictions or prohibitions will cease to exist.
1-Any area that has been notified in the past, present or even the future can be exempted and excluded from the provisions of this act.
2- Thus through this amendment the entire aravallis and many parts of shiwaliks can be open to mining and urbanization. All that is required is to get the area included in a village development plan, cattle mandi, urban master plan.
3-After this amendment the PLP act will become totally redundant in Haryana
4-The effect of this mischievous piece of environmental legislation could be felt thoughout the country as such environmental laws can be amended by every state of the country.