Forest, PLPA clearances separate: Legal opinion on Sukhvilas row

Rajmeet Singh

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 13

Opinion given by the Legal Remembrancer (LR) on the applicability of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900, in areas where diversion of forestland has been granted under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, has put the state Forest Department in a quandary.

The LR has clarified that these are two separate laws — one being a Central Act and the other a state Act. According to sources in the department, this implies that the cases in which the diversion of forestland has been permitted under the FCA by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF), do not automatically get clearance under the PLPA.

Legal opinion was sought by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests after the Chief Conservator of Forests (Hills), Harsh Kumar, had ordered fresh examination of suspected violations under the two Acts at Sukhvilas, a luxury resort owned by SAD chief Sukhbir Badal at Palanpur village in New Chandigarh.

The department has thus far taken no initiative to inspect the site, as suggested by Harsh Kumar. Rather, senior officers while contesting the stand of the CCF (Hills), had contended that the FCA being an overarching law, approval under it automatically implied clearance under the PLPA too — a view the Legal Remembrancer seems to have contradicted.

Representatives of Metro Eco-Green Resorts — promoter company of Sukhvilas — have already denied any violation of environment laws. They claim all necessary permissions under the FCA had been taken after meeting the requirements, including the handing over of alternative land for afforestation and compensatory planting of trees.

On the condition of anonymity, a senior officer told The Tribune that while no action was being initiated against Sukhvilas or in similar other cases, the state government was “framing a policy” on the basis of the legal opinion. It would address all cases in which clearances had been granted under the FCA but the land continued to be closed under the PLPA. However, this policy would likely not be applied with retrospective effect.