CWP-24769-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jaibir and another State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. brothers, who are residents of Village 335, Village Anangpur, Tehsil Badhkal, District Faridabad, aggrieved by the fact that the State authorities, while executing the directions issued by Apex C 2013, Narinder Singh and others Vs. Divesh Bhutani and others, 21.07.2022, reported in due process of law, as directed by Apex Court, since without affording any opportunity of being heard, demolition is taking place. 2. Apex Court decision (supra) “100. orders issued under Se trappings of forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act and, therefore, the State Government or competent authority cannot permit its use for non activities without the prior approval of the Cent Government with effect from 25 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jaibir and another Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The present petition has been filed who are residents of Village 335, Village Anangpur, Tehsil Badhkal, District Faridabad, aggrieved by the fact that the State authorities, while executing the directions issued by Apex C Narinder Singh and others Vs. Divesh Bhutani and others, 21.07.2022, reported in (2023) 17 Supreme Court Cases 779 due process of law, as directed by Apex Court, since without affording any opportunity of being heard, demolition is taking place. For ready reference and convenience, conclusive paragraphs Apex Court decision (supra) are re-produced below : “100. Thus, we hold that the lands covered by the special orders issued under Section 4 of PLPA have all the trappings of forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act and, therefore, the State Government or competent authority cannot permit its use for non activities without the prior approval of the Cent Government with effect from 25 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24769-2025 Date of Decision : 26.08.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY for the petitioners. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ( Oral ) The present petition has been filed by two petitioners, both who are residents of Village 335, Village Anangpur, Tehsil Badhkal, District Faridabad, aggrieved by the fact that the State authorities, while executing the directions issued by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10294 of Narinder Singh and others Vs. Divesh Bhutani and others, decided on (2023) 17 Supreme Court Cases 779, did not follow due process of law, as directed by Apex Court, since without affording any opportunity of being heard, demolition is taking place. For ready reference and convenience, conclusive paragraphs produced below :- Thus, we hold that the lands covered by the special ction 4 of PLPA have all the trappings of forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act and, therefore, the State Government or competent authority cannot permit its use for non-forest activities without the prior approval of the Central Government with effect from 25-10-1980. Prior permission 2025 Date of Decision : 26.08.2025 …….Petitioners ...….Respondents both who are residents of Village 335, Village Anangpur, Tehsil Badhkal, District Faridabad, aggrieved by the fact that the State authorities, while ourt in Civil Appeal No. 10294 of decided on did not follow due process of law, as directed by Apex Court, since without affording any For ready reference and convenience, conclusive paragraphs of NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24769-2025 of the Central Government is the quintessence to allow any change of user of forest or so to say deemed forest land. We may add here that even during the subsistence of the special orders under S Central Government, the State or a competent authority can grant permission for non permitted in accordance with Section 2 of Act, orders under Section 4 of PLPA will not apply in view of the language used in the opening part of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. We also clarify that only because there is a notification issued un is subject become a forest land within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act. 101. dated 18 governed by the orders passed by this Court in the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals (Civil) Nos. 7220 Hence, all the authorities concerned shall take action to remove the remaining illegal structures standing on land cove activities on the said lands erected after 25 without prior approval of the Central Government, and further to restore status quo ante including to undertake reforestation/afforestation programmes far as the lands covered by special orders under Section 5 are concerned, we are not making any adjudication. Therefore, the authorities will have to decide the status of the lands covered by the said orders under Section 5 on case 102. direct that before the action of removal of the illegal structures and/or action of stopping non 2025 of the Central Government is the quintessence to allow any change of user of forest or so to say deemed forest land. We may add here that even during the subsistence of the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA, with Central Government, the State or a competent authority can grant permission for non-forest use. If such non permitted in accordance with Section 2 of Act, to that extent, the restrictions imposed by the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA will not apply in view of the language used in the opening part of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. We also clarify that only because there is a notification issued under Section 3 of PLPA, the land which is subject-matter of such notification, will not ipso facto become a forest land within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Act. 101. Therefore, the lands covered by the Special Orders dated 18-8-1992 issued under Section 4 governed by the orders passed by this Court in the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals (Civil) Nos. 7220 Hence, all the authorities concerned shall take action to remove the remaining illegal structures standing on land covered by the special orders and used for non activities on the said lands erected after 25 without prior approval of the Central Government, and further to restore status quo ante including to undertake reforestation/afforestation programmes far as the lands covered by special orders under Section 5 are concerned, we are not making any adjudication. Therefore, the authorities will have to decide the status of the lands covered by the said orders under Section 5 on case-to-case basis. 102. To avoid any prejudice to the affected persons, we direct that before the action of removal of the illegal structures and/or action of stopping non -2- of the Central Government is the quintessence to allow any change of user of forest or so to say deemed forest land. We may add here that even during the subsistence of the special ection 4 of PLPA, with the approval of the Central Government, the State or a competent authority can forest use. If such non-forest use is permitted in accordance with Section 2 of the 1980 Forest to that extent, the restrictions imposed by the special orders under Section 4 of PLPA will not apply in view of the language used in the opening part of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. We also clarify that only because there is a der Section 3 of PLPA, the land which matter of such notification, will not ipso facto become a forest land within the meaning of the 1980 Forest Therefore, the lands covered by the Special Orders 1992 issued under Section 4 of PLPA will be governed by the orders passed by this Court in the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals (Civil) Nos. 7220-21 of 2017. Hence, all the authorities concerned shall take action to remove the remaining illegal structures standing on land red by the special orders and used for non-forest activities on the said lands erected after 25-10-1980, without prior approval of the Central Government, and further to restore status quo ante including to undertake reforestation/afforestation programmes in right earnest. As far as the lands covered by special orders under Section 5 are concerned, we are not making any adjudication. Therefore, the authorities will have to decide the status of the lands covered by the said orders under Section 5 on To avoid any prejudice to the affected persons, we direct that before the action of removal of the illegal structures and/or action of stopping non-forest activities is NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24769-2025 taken in respect of the lands covered by the Special Orders dated 18 competent authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the affected persons and conclude such proceedings finally not later than three months from today and submit compliance report in that reg same time. 103. stand disposed of in the above terms. Civil Appeals Nos. 10294 of 2013, 8454 of 2014, 8173 of 2016 and 11000 of 2013 also stand disposed of in the above terms and the orders accordingly. 104. the same will be governed by the directions issued in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals (Civil) Nos. 7220 of 2017 for rehabilitation of the el petitioners can always move the authority concerned for that purpose. Writ Petition (C) No. 1320 of 2021 be disposed of accordingly. 105. 2.1 of the matter, directed removal of all illegal structures covered by the prior approval of the Central Government, status quo ante right earnest. an opportunity of being hea proceedings judgment/order, i.e. 21.07.2022, within the same time. 2025 taken in respect of the lands covered by the Special Orders dated 18-8-1992 issued under Section 4 of PLPA, the competent authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the affected persons and conclude such proceedings finally not later than three months from today and submit compliance report in that reg same time. 103. Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1008 and 1031 of 2021 stand disposed of in the above terms. Civil Appeals Nos. 10294 of 2013, 8454 of 2014, 8173 of 2016 and 11000 of 2013 also stand disposed of in the above terms and the orders impugned passed by NGT sand modified accordingly. 104. As regards Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1320 of 2021, the same will be governed by the directions issued in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals (Civil) Nos. 7220 of 2017 for rehabilitation of the el petitioners can always move the authority concerned for that purpose. Writ Petition (C) No. 1320 of 2021 be disposed of accordingly. 105. There will be no order as to costs.” From the aforesaid, it is obvious that Apex Court, whi of the matter, directed removal of all illegal structures covered by the special orders, which were prior approval of the Central Government, status quo ante, and to undertake reforestation/afforestation programmes in right earnest. Apex Court, however, directed the competent authority to afford an opportunity of being heard to affected persons and conclude such proceedings (execution) finally not later than t order, i.e. 21.07.2022, and submit compliance report in that regard within the same time. -3- taken in respect of the lands covered by the Special Orders 1992 issued under Section 4 of PLPA, the competent authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the affected persons and conclude such proceedings finally not later than three months from today and submit compliance report in that regard within the Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1008 and 1031 of 2021 stand disposed of in the above terms. Civil Appeals Nos. 10294 of 2013, 8454 of 2014, 8173 of 2016 and 11000 of 2013 also stand disposed of in the above terms and the impugned passed by NGT sand modified As regards Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1320 of 2021, the same will be governed by the directions issued in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals (Civil) Nos. 7220-21 of 2017 for rehabilitation of the eligible occupants. The petitioners can always move the authority concerned for that purpose. Writ Petition (C) No. 1320 of 2021 be There will be no order as to costs.” From the aforesaid, it is obvious that Apex Court, while disposing of the matter, directed removal of all illegal structures, standing on land which were erected after 25-10-1980, without prior approval of the Central Government, with further direction to restore to undertake reforestation/afforestation programmes in Apex Court, however, directed the competent authority to afford rd to affected persons and conclude such finally not later than three months from the date of and submit compliance report in that regard le disposing standing on land 1980, without to restore to undertake reforestation/afforestation programmes in Apex Court, however, directed the competent authority to afford rd to affected persons and conclude such the date of and submit compliance report in that regard NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24769-2025 2.2 time for execution of aforesaid order of Apex Court i where the State of Haryana has filed compliance report fixed for 08.09.2025, affording opportunity (CEC) to examine Haryana. 3. house of the petitioners was subjected to demolition. 4. the decision of refrains from entering into merits of the matter, since it relates more to the element of possession and title, which exercising writ jurisdiction. 4.1 for any damages, if petitioners are also free to approach the Apex Court, pending for compliance. 5. August 26, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 It is not disputed at the Bar that the matter regarding extension of time for execution of aforesaid order of Apex Court i where the State of Haryana has filed compliance report fixed for 08.09.2025, affording opportunity to examine the veracity of the compliance report submitted by State of Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that residential house of the petitioners was erected much prior to 25.10.1980, and yet is being subjected to demolition. Once the Apex Court has considered the matter in its entirety, in the decision of Narinder Singh Vs. Divesh Bhutani refrains from entering into merits of the matter, since it relates more to the element of possession and title, which exercising writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioners are always free to claim compensation for any damages, if due by any unlawful act of the petitioners are also free to approach the Apex Court, pending for compliance. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of. August 26, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- It is not disputed at the Bar that the matter regarding extension of time for execution of aforesaid order of Apex Court is pending consideration, where the State of Haryana has filed compliance report, and the matter is now fixed for 08.09.2025, affording opportunity to Central Empowered Committee compliance report submitted by State of Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that residential rected much prior to 25.10.1980, and yet is being Once the Apex Court has considered the matter in its entirety, in Narinder Singh Vs. Divesh Bhutani (supra), this Court refrains from entering into merits of the matter, since it relates more to the element of possession and title, which ought not to be gone into, while However, the petitioners are always free to claim compensation any unlawful act of the State authorities. The petitioners are also free to approach the Apex Court, where the matter is With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No It is not disputed at the Bar that the matter regarding extension of s pending consideration, and the matter is now Central Empowered Committee compliance report submitted by State of Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that residential rected much prior to 25.10.1980, and yet is being Once the Apex Court has considered the matter in its entirety, in (supra), this Court refrains from entering into merits of the matter, since it relates more to the , while However, the petitioners are always free to claim compensation State authorities. The where the matter is NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment