No action over Aravalli constructions in Faridabad

Gurugram The Faridabad forest department has submitted an affidavit before the Supreme Court, stating certain “administrative and legal reasons” for the delay in

Gurugram The Faridabad forest department has submitted an affidavit before the Supreme Court, stating certain “administrative and legal reasons” for the delay in demolishing illegal encroachments on Aravalli forest land.

HT Image

The affidavit also refutes allegations that demolitions have been purposely delayed on account of upcoming state elections. Activists, on the other hand, have raised questions over why the clampdown on illegal constructions in the Aravallis has lost steam after the demolition of Kant Enclave earlier this year.

Following its verdict in the Kant Enclave matter in September last year, the apex court had ordered the demolition of all illegal structures in the Aravallis, particularly those built on land notified under sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (PLPA). According to multiple Supreme Court orders, lands notified under the PLPA are to be treated and protected as forests, under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

In its verdict on Kant Enclave in September last year, which was found to be built illegally on protected land, the court had ordered the demolition of the housing complex. It also called for similar action against other such encroachments in the Aravalli forests, following which the then municipal commissioner of Faridabad ordered an inventory of about 140 illegal structures.

“However, the demolition drive did not materialise and seems to have completely lost steam after the commissioner, Mohammed Shayin, was transferred,” said Jeetendra Bhadana, an environment activist from Faridabad.

More recently, however, the forest department has prepared a list of 66 such structures and served them show-cause notices. However, demolition of these structures has not yet taken place as the respondents “have offered various reasons/justifications in their defence”, wrote Suresh Punia, district forest officer (DFO), Faridabad, in his response to the Supreme Court on September 20. The court, last month, asked officials concerned to provide an explanation for the delay.

“Many persons in their replies have stated that they have got relief to continue their business or stay orders from various courts including this Hon’ble Court... the replies received from these persons required critical examination from legal point of view which requires reasonable time,” states Punia’s affidavit (a copy of which is with HT).

Thus, the forest department requested the duty magistrate to postpone the demolition drive, which was scheduled for August 20, 2019, “to avoid a miscarriage of natural justice.”

Activists, on the other hand, have criticised the DFO’s affidavit, calling it ambiguous. “There’s no information on how many people exactly have stay orders, from which courts, and on what the contents of these orders are. None of the replies have been presented before the court,” Bhadana said.

Sunil Harsana, a field ecologist and activist from Faridabad, said, “What the forest department and the MCF also have not answered is why the number of identified violations were reduced from 140 to just 66? Moreover, the Supreme Court was clear in its Kant Enclave verdict that PLPA lands are forests. The forest department should be abiding by the judgement, instead of giving violators wiggle room on the basis of orders from lesser courts.”

Sonal Goyal, present municipal commissioner, Faridabad, could not be reached for comment, despite multiple attempts. Deputy commissioner, Atul Kumar, said, “This is a departmental issue, which needs to be addressed, not by me, but by the forest department.”

Punia, on Thursday, said, “A lot of the people who we served show-cause notices have stay orders from various courts, including some from the Supreme Court. The veracity of these stays needs to be checked before action can be taken against the structures. It will take some time.”