BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Original Application No. 129/2013 (CZ)

Similar documents
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Original Application No. 16/2014 (CZ) (THC)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL. Original Application No. 27/2014 (CZ)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 411 Of Versus

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Original Application No. 264/2014 (THC) (CZ)

Original Application No. 88/2015 (CZ) Babulal Jajoo Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Misc. Application No. 535/2014, 333/2014 & 341/2014 and

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: WP(C) No. 416 of 2011 and CM Nos /2011. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on : November 05, 2008

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on:

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Misc. Application No. 557/2014 and Original Application No. 118/2014 (THC) (CZ)

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: Versus

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL. Original Application No. 114/2013 (CZ)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Reserved on: 7 th August, Pronounced on: 13 th August, # SAIL EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION...Petitioner

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. Original Application No. 113 of Monday, this the 17 th day of April, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR. WRIT PETITION Nos /2015 (T-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 6360/2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECRUITMENT MATTER. W.P.(C) No. 8347/2010. Date of Decision: Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE M.A. No. 111/2014 APPLICATION No. 12(THC)/2014 (WZ)

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 27 th January, ARB. P. No.373/2015. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO OF 2018] VERSUS

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. No. 41/Rules/DHC Dated : PRACTICE DIRECTIONS

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Co.Pet. 787/2015 BANDHU SYSTEMATIX PRIVATE LIMITED...PETITIONER. Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT. LPA No.658 of 2011 & CM No /2011 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

Sub: In the matter of representation in compliance to the directions of Hon ble High Court, Jabalpur in Writ Petition no.

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL M.C. NO.1412 OF 2004 Decided on : 2nd July, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL C.R.P. (CRP.ART.227) NO. 32 OF 2014

Through: Mr. Kartik Prasad with Ms. Reeja Varghese, Adv. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (L) No of 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos of 2012)

Cont.Cas(C). No. 18of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT. Date of decision: 8th March, 2013 EFA(OS) 34/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 511 of 2009

1. Writ Petition (C) No.3638 of 2015

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI. Application No. 91 of 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) Nos.

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF

BEFORE THE H.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT SHIMLA

M/S. SAIPEM TRIUNE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Plaintiff. - versus - INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 Date of decision: 15th February, 2012 W.P.(C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHANGE OF LAND USE MATTER Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 5180/2012

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. M.A. No of 2017 In re: O.A. No. Nil of 2017

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7093/2015. PAWAN KUMAR SEN... Petitioner Mr.Shanker Raju, Adv. with Mr.Nilansh Gaur, Adv.

Through: Versus. Through: 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgement delivered on: 12 th January, W.P.(C) 7068/2014

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insol.) No. 134 of 2017

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR,

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF FLAT. W.P.(C) No.5180/2011. Decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Date of decision: 2ndJuly, 2014 LPA No.390/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL. WRIT PETITION Nos /2010 (GM-RES),

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER WRIT PETITION NOS.913 TO 914/2015 (GM-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No of Judgment reserved on: August 30, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Judgment reserved on: Judgment pronounced on:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal Nos of 2005 Decided On: Narasamma and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. Hon'ble Judg

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam,Nagaland,Meghalaya,Manipur, Tripura,Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) MIZORAM BENCH

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Bar & Bench ( IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2018 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013

versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. 1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the challenge is made to

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: WP(C) 3845/2014

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

$~26, 27 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 3539/2016. versus

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1519/2003. versus. % Date of Decision: 14 th March, 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

Transcription:

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL Original Application No. 129/2013 (CZ) CORAM: Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh (Judicial Member) Hon ble Mr. P.S.Rao (Expert Member) BETWEEN: Chandra Singh @ Chandra Bhan S/o Shri Biri Singh R/o Abohara, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan...Applicant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajsthan 2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial & Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO), Govt. of Rajasthan, Udyog Bhawan Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Rajasthan, Van Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial & Investment Corporation Ltd.(RIICO) Government of Rajastha, Brij Industrial Area, Bharatpur, Rajasthan....Respondents Counsel for Applicant: Counsel for Forest Department: Counsel for State of Rajasthan: Shri S. Prasad, Advocate Shri Sambhav Sogani, Adv. for Mr. M.S.Kachhawa, Advocate Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate Page 1 of 8

Dated : February 25 th, 2014 Judgment delivered in the open Court by Hon ble Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member 1. The case in hand i.e. O.A. No. 129/2013 was registered before this Bench of National Green Tribunal after its transfer from the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan vide order in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 14695/2011 in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Union of India. Consequent upon transfer of the writ petition to this Tribunal and registration of the application, notices were issued to the Applicant as well as the Respondents. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent. 3. The principal grievance which has been raised in the writ petition, presently the application which was filed originally as a Public Interest Litigation, relates to non-observance of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in respect of the land situated in Bharatpur in Rajasthan which has been put to industrial use contrary to the provision of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 4. The Petitioner alleged that the land bearing Khasra No. 1134 to 1137, 1141 and 1142 and two Khasra No. 935 to 1006 of Bharatpur is a forest land and is registered in land revenue records. It was submitted that without following the procedure and contrary to the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1080, the forest land has been put to industrial use and Page 2 of 8

as such the orders passed by the Respondents for permitting such land use contrary to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, should be set aside. 5. The Respondents to whom notices were issued by the Hon ble High Court, submitted their replies before the Hon ble High Court and the Respondents have chosen to rely upon the same before this Tribunal as well. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have submitted in their reply that the land had been set apart for industrial use under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Notification to that effect had been issued on 12 th August, 1961 copy of which has been filed as Annexure R-2 with the reply. It has further been stated that on the constitution of the Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as RIICO ) it was assigned with the task of acting as a catalyst and developer of industrial activity in the State of Rajasthan. The old industrial area developed under the Notification of 1961 was transferred to RIICO under the order of the State Government dated 8 th September, 1979 and this process came to be completed in the year 1980. It was further stated by the Respondent that much prior to the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the land had been set apart for industrial development and setting up of industries in and around the city of Bharatpur and handed over to the RIICO vide order dated 8 th September, 1979 by the State Government; as such the provisions of the Forest (Conservation Act), 1980 have no application to the present case. 6. It has further been submitted that these facts regarding the land having been set apart in the year 1961 for industrial use by the then Collector, Bharatpur and specifically has been handed over along with other lands to RIICO in Page 3 of 8

the year 1979 by the Government, came to the knowledge of the incumbent Collector and the Collector vide his judgment(annexure R-3) dated 4 th May, 1994 passed in Case No. 46/1994 in State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s Rajasthan Udyog Ltd., Bharatpur through Shri Santoshilal, had taken note of the aforesaid facts and directed that consequential entries in pursuance of the order of 1961 be accordingly need to be made in the revenue record. 7. We may point out that against the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 4 th May, 1994 no grievance was raised either on behalf of the Petitioner or any other person. 8. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that with the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it was incumbent upon the State to have referred the matter to the Central Government as the Central Government alone was competent to allow forest land to be put for any nonforest use. 9. While we agree with the above proposition, however, the facts of the present case as have been highlighted in the judgment of the Collector, go to show that the land in question even prior to the independence of the country was given by the erstwhile ruler of Bharatpur State on 9 th March, 1946 to one, Seth Raghunath Prasad and since then the land changed several hands and was put to industrial use first under the name and style of Bharat Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Since the aforesaid Oil Mill had to change its name on account of the pre-existing company being run in the name of Bharat Oil Mills, it decided to change its name as Bharatpur Oil Mills. Thereafter Bharatpur Oil Mills went into liquidation and under the auction sale directed by the Hon ble Company Judge of the High Court, was purchased by Rajasthan Udyog Limited after the amount was so deposited. The Official Liquidator Page 4 of 8

under the orders of the Hon ble High Court handed over the plant and the machinery to M/s Rajasthan Udyog Ltd on 10 th May, 1996. It was further mentioned in the order of the Collector dated 4 th May, 1994 that the proceedings with regard to liquidation started in the year 1958 and culminated on 10 th May, 1966. During this period, the Collector, Bharatpur vide Notification dated 12 th August, 1961 had set apart the aforesaid land for industrial use in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1956. It appears that subsequently this land along with other portions of the land was converted by the State of Rajasthan vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 13 th March, 1973 for public purpose which inter-alia was for the development of the industrial area, Bharatpur. The aforesaid Notification came to be challenged by way of a writ petition filed before the Hon ble High Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the acquisition proceedings were set aside. The aforesaid contest was between the State Government and the M/s Hindustan Development Corporation and ultimately they reached to an agreement according to which compensation for 145 bighas of land was determined by the learned Arbitrator and the remaining land was to remain with Rajasthan Udyog Ltd. 10. From the above, it becomes clear that right from 1946, the land was given by the ruler of the erstwhile State of Bharatpur for industrial use and since then it has changed various hands and this disputed land as well as other portions became subject matter of being notified for and set apart for industrial use under the Notification of 12 th August, 1961 by the Collector. Thereafter, the industrial area in Bharatpur came to be developed and in the year 1980 it was developed and handed over by the Government to RIICO. Page 5 of 8

11. We are of the opinion that by the issuance of the Notification of 12 th August, 1961 and setting apart the land in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act of the land in dispute for industrial use by the Government, the character of the land is deemd to have been altered with issuance of the aforesaid Notification of 12 th August, 1961. Thus so far as the Judicial Act of considering whether the land would be put to use other than for which it was recorded with the passing of order on 12 th August, 1961 to be concluded much prior to the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1961 and industries were also set up on the same even prior to 1961 as we noticed above. No doubt so far as the corresponding entries made in the revenue records pursuant to the order dated 12 th August, 1961 are concerned, the same it appears was not carried out and therefore the Collector under his order dated 4 th May, 1994 passed the order for carrying out the necessary entries in the revenue records. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted post coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 alteration in the revenue record altering the character of the land from forest to any other classification, was not possible without prior concurrence of the Central Government. 13. As we have already discussed, the action in so far as the passing of the judicial order with regard to altering the character of the land from forest to industrial use, was done by setting apart the same in accordance with existing provisions of the land vide order dated 12 th August, 1961 much prior to coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. All that remains was the consequential ministerial act of recording and correcting the entries in the revenue records which is the Jamabandi. Page 6 of 8

14. In our view, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant that altering the use of the land from that of forest to industrial use post coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was impermissible and the State Government or its functionaries could not have done so without prior approval of the Central Government in the facts and circumstances of this case, has no relevance. Since the orders for altering the land use and setting it apart for industrial use has been passed as way back as in 1961 even though portion of the land has already been given for industrial use even prior to independence by the erstwhile rulers of the State of Bharatpur in the year 1946 for industrial use, cannot be lost sight of. The issuance of the notification after coming into force of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 on 12 th August, 1961 was enough in the circumstances of this case for changing the land use from forest to industrial and all that has been done post passing of the order of Collector dated 4 th May, 1994 with the ministerial act of carrying out the entries in consequence of the order dated 12 th August, 1961. 15. In the light of the above, we are inclined to hold that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and no exception can be taken to the orders passed in this behalf by the Collector in the year 1961 and the consequential ministerial act of not carrying out those orders in the records of the right after the order of 1994. 16. While disposing of this application, we grant liberty to the Applicant that in case the Applicant has any grievance with regard to any specific cases of violation of the environmental laws, rules, regulations or notifications by Page 7 of 8

any specific industry in the industrial are at Bharatpur, he can approach the concerned authorities or raise the same before this Tribunal. 17. The application stands dismissed subject to the aforementioned observations. There shall no order as to costs. (Mr. Justice Dalip Singh) Judicial Member Bhopal; February 25 th, 2014 (Mr. P.S.Rao) Expert Member Page 8 of 8