CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 20.06.2025

Vijay Bansal

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana and others

....Respondents

CORAM:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE  

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:  Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, 

Mr. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, Advocate and 

Mr. Raywant Kaushish, Advocate for the petitioner. 

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with 

Ms. V. Tyagi, Secretary (Forest), Haryana, (through V.C.)

Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for the applicant 

in CM-11760-CWP-2024.

*****

SUMEET GOEL   

, JUDGE        

1. The   petition in hand has been preferred, styled as a Public

Interest Litigation, seeking, in  essence, grant of a writ mandating  the

respondents to conduct the settlement, in terms of Punjab Land Revenue Act

1887 & Punjab Settlement Manual, of Morni Hills area and incidental

directions. 

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual milieu of the

lis in the petition in hand is adumbrated, thus:

(i) The petitioner, espousing the cause of public at large especially

people living in the Morni Hills area, has urged that though the residents of

Morning Hills area comes within the definition of traditional forest dwellers

for all intents and purposes, but no efforts have been made to treat them as

such. 

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

2

(ii) Reference  has  been  made  to  notification  dated  18.12.1987

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘18.12.1987 notification’)   bearing

No.S.O.149/C.A.16/27/S.4/87   whereby   the   Government  had   decided   to

constitute the land specified in the Schedule in this notification as reserved

forest, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(1) of Indian Forest

Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1927 Act’). 

(iii) Initially,   the   SDM   of   Kalka   was   appointed   as   a  Forest

Settlement Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘FSO’) and thereafter one Shri

M.P. Sharma (a retired Indian Forest Services Officer) was appointed by the

Government as an ‘FSO’. 

(iv) During   the   course   of   proceedings,   a   Civil   Miscellaneous

Application (hereinafter referred to as :MveeSm,v:Acvr,rg) was filed by

one Shri. M.P. Sharma, seeking his impleadment as respondent-intervener,

primarily on the ground that he may be permitted to continue as FSO till

completion   of   settlement   process   and   publication   of  requisite   final

notification. 

It is in this factual backdrop, that the present writ petition came

up for receiving consideration at the hands of this Court.    

Rival Submissions

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the

forest area(s) in the Morni Block in the State of Haryana has been ignored,

from   the   view   point   of   the   dwellers   of   the   said   area   as   also

forest/environmental issues.  It has been urged that the State is bestowed

with   statutory   and   Constitutional   duty   to   upkeep   the   forest   area,   for

protecting the environment as also the rights of the dwellers residing therein.

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

3

Learned counsel has further iterated that the various demand notices/legal

notices have been issued to the State but to no avail.

3.1. Notice   of   motion   was   issued   whereinafter   the

respondent(s)/State of Haryana and its functionaries have filed various

affidavit(s) in response to the petition. The most relevant therein is an

affidavit dated 04.03.2025 filed by Sh. Atul J. Sirsikar, Secretary to Govt. Of

Haryana, Forest & Wildlife Department, Chandigarh, relevant whereof reads

thus:

“6. That reference may be made to section 4 of the Indian Forest Act

wherein it has been stated that when it is decided to constitute any land a

reserved forest, a Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) is to be appointed to

inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any

rights claimed by any person in or over any land comprised within limits

yfBPFHnBuiPiu)ilBfyuiPjCByuBa ByuBy)iuBs kBfyuiPjvVroduce. The appointed

forest settlement officer then decides whether to admit or reject those

claims, ensuring the continued exercise of legitimate rights while

maintaining the integrity of the reserved forest area. Previously, SDM

Kalka was appointed as the Forest Settlement Officer. However, later Sh.

M.P. Sharma, IFS (Retd.) was appointed by Government as the

new Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) w.e.f. 01.08.2018 after CWP No.

469 of 2017 titled as Vijay Bansal vs. State of Haryana was filed in

Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to address the issues of

ownership and encroachments in 14 Bhoj area.

7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the Forest Settlement

Officercan begin his work of settlement of forest rights in the area as per

provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, once the demarcation of forests

s lB y vfyuiPjB.s lBaPBly iBGkBjniBIi)i FiB2iVsujDint based on mapping

and the existing revenue records. Clearly, the Forest Settlement Officer

has no role in carrying out demarcation of forest a nd

 y vfyuiPjB.s lPo

8. That it is further submitted that due to complexity of issue, the task

yf B liDsuHsjay  B yf B hyuiPj B s l B 8y vhyuiPj B Ns lP B FPa 0 GIS

basedtechnology was assigned to the Survey of India (Sol), which has

completed the survey using LiDAR based data in 14 Bhoj area. The

detailed information and maps have already been provided by Survey of

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

4

India to Revenue Department, Haryana for 152 Baas in this area for

carrying out ground verification.

9. That a Committee of the Revenue Department, Haryana is also

coordinating this exercise with Survey of India in association with Forest

Department. Accordingly, the ground verification of maps prepared by

Survey of India shall be done jointly by Revenue and Forest Departments.

This exercise for two Bhoj areas namely Bhoj Koti and Bhoj Nagal shall

be completed by end of March 2025, after which the work will be

replicated in remaining Bhoj areas also.

10. That the job of Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) is to settle forest

rights after the demarcation between forest and nonJN4oW P 9 7061 

alongwith ground verification is completed by the Government authorities.

So, at this stage, there seems to be no necessity oN9Co4:-1-6,9P2W9f06J

powerfrom Forest and Revenue Departments and the scientific personnel

related to GIS etc. to the Forest Settlement Officer as demanded by him.

The Survey of India, Revenue Department and Forest Department have

07oW01d9n W19P2W9oWLn-oW19f06JC4sWo9v4-6P7d9P490TT4mplish the task of

mapping and demarcation, for which now ground verification shall be

done by them. After the demarcation and ground verification work is over,

the existing staff of Forest and Revenue Departments can facilitate the

Forest Settlement Officer to complete the task related to settlement of

forest rights at that time as per provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927.

11. That it is further submitted that sincere efforts are being made to

T0ood 94nP 9 1Wf0oT0P-469 4N 9 N4oW P 9061 9646JN4oW P 9 7061 in Morni Hills,

as expeditiously as possible. The digitization of masavis (mapping sheets)

and Geo Referencing of 168 (villages dhanis) has been completed in the

14 Bhoj by the Survey of India and Revenue authorities of district

Panchkula. After receiving digital maps from the Survey of India, the task

of ground delineation is being carried out by the Revenue authorities by

going on the spot/ ground level. The work of Geo Referencing is being

continuously done by the Revenue officials in association with the Survey

of India.

12. That to summarize the progress so far, the mapping of Forest

areas of14 Bhoj in Morni Hills has been completed by Survey of India

using LiDAR technologies. Joint survey work of ground verification of

forest land by the Forest Department, Revenue Department and Survey of

India will be initiated from two bhojs i.e. Bhoj Kothi and BhojJabyal shall

be completed before end of March 2025 and then shall be taken up in the

remaining areas also as expeditiously as possible, subject to the

technological constraints.

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

5

13. That therefore, it is requested to provide at least 6 months' time to

complete the ground verification of the demarcation carried out by Survey

of India (Sol) in 172 Baas, 14 Bhoj area in the Morni Hills jointly by

Revenue and Forest Departments before the settlement of forest rights is

taken up by the Forest Settlement Officer.

14. That as mentioned above, the demarcation of 2 Bhojs i.e. Bhoj

Kothi and Bhoj Jabyal would be complete by end of March 2025 and

therefore2 Kanungo and 2 Patwaris would be provided to the FSO to

undertakethe settlement work in above said two Bhojs and rest of the

manpower/infrastructure will be provided to the FSO in gradual manner

as the work progress continues in rest of the Bhojs of Morni Hills. Hence,

meeting the complete demand of manpower by FSO would not be justified

to start the settlement work into 2 Bhojs.”

Learned State counsel, while raising submission in tandem with

the   pleadings   filed   by   the   State   especially   the   above   affidavit   dated

04.03.2025,   has   argued   that   the   State   has   already   issued  18.12.1987

notification  thereby making clear its intent to declare the land scheduled

therein to be a Reserved Forest and all requisite efforts are being made to

carry out the said exercise at the earliest. Learned counsel has urged that the

mapping of the forest areas of Morni hills has been completed in part and

strenuous efforts are being undertaken to complete the ground verification

and other incidental steps, of the remaining areas at the earliest. Learned

State counsel has further urged that the  FSO has been provided with

sufficient infrastructure/man-power, as per his current requirement, and

further infrastructure etc. shall be provided to the FSO as and when the need

arises and requisition is made in that behalf. 

3.2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant in  :MveeSm,v

:Acvr,rg has urged that the applicant-Sh. M.P. Sharma has served as an

Indian Forest Service Officer for more than three decades in the State of

Haryana out of which he has worked in the Morni hills area for multiple

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

6

years. It has been urged that, since the applicant, is well versed with the

topography and other issues pertaining to Morni hills area, it would be

expedient to allow him work as  FSO after being provided with requisite

infrastructure.  

4. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the record. 

Prime Issue

5. The prime issue that arises for cogitation in the petition in hand

is as to whether the settlement of the Morning Hills area, including the

process of demarcation, is required to be carried out entirely by the Forest

Settlement Officer alone, and expeditiously or not? 

Analysis 

6. The  1927 Act remains a pivotal legislative instrument within the

corpus of Indian environmental jurisprudence, notwithstanding its historical

antecedents in the pre-independence era.  Enacted primarily to amalgamate

and modify extent statutes pertaining to forests and arboreal produce, it has,

for   nearly   a   century,   furnished   the   quintessential  legal   framework

underpinning forest administration across the subcontinent.

An analytical perusal of the statutory frame-work of the 1927

Act clearly enunciates, whenever the State Government intends to designate

any land as a Reserved Forest, it is mandatorily incumbent upon it to issue a

formal notification published in the official gazette under Section 4 of 1927

Act to the following extent:

Section 4 of the 1927 Act, reads as under:-

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

7

“4. Notification by State Government. (1) Whenever it has been decided

to constitute any land a reserved forest, the [State Government] shall issue

a notification in the [Official Gazette] ––

(a)

declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a

reserved forest;

(b)specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such

land; and

(c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called the Forest Settlement

Officer) to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of

any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land

comprised within such limits, or in or over any for.b M41oa:J.Tictai oia.cn

with the same as provided in this Chapter.”

 Chapter II of 1927 Act is a complete code qua the subject of

Reserved Forest. This chapter provides for constitution of reserved forest,

the cessation of rights in the reserved forest, appointment of & proclamation

by Forest Settlement Officer, powers & functions of Forest Settlement

Officer, settlement by adjudication or by extinction of rights of persons who

fail   to   prefer   objections,   including   creation   of   Appellate   Forum   for

adjudicating grievances against orders passed by FSO under Sections 11, 12,

15 & 16 of 1927 Act. After the due process prescribed in Sections 4 to 18 of

1927 Act is completed the final notification under Section 20, notifying the

area concerned to be Reserved Forest is issued and published in the official

gazette. 

Since the State has raised the objection, that  FSO  has no

jurisdiction to conduct demarcation & survey of the area proposed to be

proclaimed as Reserved Forest, and the said power lies within the exclusive

domain of the Revenue Authorities, it would be apt to deal with this

objection. 

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

8

Section 8 of 1927 Act provides for the powers of FSO, which

for ready reference & convenience is reproduced below:-

wtoBcy(iuPByfBhyuiPjBRijj.iDi jBpffaHiu–vBhyuBjniBVurpose of such

inquiry the Forest Settlement Officer may exercise the following

Vy(iuPCBjnsjBaPBjyBPsk–v

(a) power to enter, by himself or any officer authorized by him for

the purpose, upon any land, and to survey, demarcate and make a

map of the same; and

(b) the powers of a Civil Court in the trial of suits”

Bare perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that the statute

vests power with the FSO to inter alia conduct survey, demarcation, making

maps and act as a Civil Court. 

As per the averment in para 7 of Affidavit of Atul. J. Sirsikar,

Secretary Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of Haryana dated

04.03.2025, the State of Haryana seems to be under a misconception that the

function & power of carrying out demarcation is out of the jurisdictional

purview of FSO. In fact the contrary is spelt out from Section 8 of 1927 Act.

This provision in no uncertain terms statutorily empowers the  FSO  to

conduct demarcation and survey in areas decided under Section 4 to be

constituted as Reserved Forest. 

The State of Haryana seems to be labouring under a further

misconception that the exercise of demarcation in area proposed under

Section 4 as Reserved Forest, is to be undertaken by the Revenue Authorities

under   the   Punjab   Land   Revenue   Act   1887   read   with   Punjab   Land

Preservation Act 1900. Needless to emphasize that on issuance of Section 4

notification, inter alia the FSO is appointed. The FSO is vested with powers

to inter alia  conduct survey and demarcation.

Once a special law i.e. Indian Forest Act 1927 is enacted

covering the entire subject matter of Reserved Forest, the  FSO  assumes

exclusive jurisdiction for performing all substantive and ancillary functions

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

9

including demarcation & survey. The general law i.e. Punjab Land Revenue

Act 1887 & Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900 stand excluded qua the

subject matters covered by the Indian Forest Act 1927. It is well-settled

under the principle of statutory interpretation viz.,  Generalia Specialibus

Non Derogant, that the general law (1887 Act & 1900 Act) stands excluded

in its application to the extent provided for by subsequent special law.

Profitable reference can be made herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court titled as Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina

Pereira & anr., 2019(20) SCC 85, relevant whereof reads thus:

“29. It is a well settled principle of statutory interpretation that when there

is a conflict between the general law and the special law then the special

law shall prevail. This principle will apply with greater force to special

law which is also additionally a local law. This judicial principle is based

on the latin maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, i.e., general law

yields to special law should they operate in the same field on the same

subject. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in R.S.

Ragunath vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 335, Commercial

Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements Ltd. & Ors, (2014) 8 SCC 319

and Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

(2018) 2 SCC 27.”

Consequently, once  FSO  has been appointed (as is the case

herein) the function & power of conducting all tasks provided in Chapter II

of 1927 Act including power to conduct survey & demarcation is exclusively

vested in FSO to the exclusion of Revenue Authorities. However the FSO

can very well take the assistance of functionaries of forest or/and Revenue

Department. 

Therefore the entire exercise of survey & demarcation being

done by Revenue Authorities is required to be handed over to the  FSO

already appointed, who shall henceforth conduct & conclude the survey,

demarcation,   preparation   of   maps   and   discharging   all   functions   under

Chapter II of 1927 Act.   

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

10

7. A   further   examination   of   the   provisions   of   the  1927 Act

unequivocally reveals that the designation of an FSO, coupled with vesting

of such officer with all necessary and requisite resources, constitutes an

essential and non-derogable element of the entire process.   The  FSO  is

tasked   with   a   pivotal   and   exigent   role   in   this   intricate   legal   and

administrative  journey,  undertaking  meticulous  inquiries into  claims  of

rights &adjudicating upon the same.  The FSO’s function, therefore, is not

merely ancillary but fundamentally integral to the legitimate establishment

of a Reserved Forest. The entire process of declaring a land as a Reserved

Forest ultimately attains finality upon the comprehensive fulfillment of the

requirement prescribed in Chapter II of 1927 Act & culminating in issuance

and publication of notification under Section 20 thereof.

8. The factual milieu of the case in hand reflects that notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued by the State Government way-back

on 18.12.1987.   The pleadings filed by the State Government, especially

affidavit dated 04.03.2025, reflects a sordid state of affairs, insomuch as,

since the year 1987 no concrete steps appear to have been taken.

9. Articles   48-A   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   though   not

justiciable in a Court of law, but binds the State to treat it as fundamental in

the governance of the nation and while making laws.  It imposes a positive

and peremptory imperative upon the State to strive for the improvement of

the environment and the vigilant protection and safeguarding of forests and

wildlife. The supine inaction of the State in adhering to the dictates of this

foundational Article constitutes not merely a perfunctory disavowal of a

directive principle of state policy, but stands as an outrageous affront to the

capacious ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. The latter, by virtue of

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

11

judicial pronouncements, unequivocally subsumes within its protective ken

the indefeasible right to a salubrious and unpolluted environment, thereby

encompassing the imperative for the preservation of natural flora and fauna,

including, inter alia, the forests. Such dereliction, therefore, transmutes from

a procedural lapse into a direct infringement upon a fundamental human

right.

9.1. In the year 1854, precisely one hundred and seventy one year

antecedent to the current juncture, a formal overture was extended by the

‘Great White Chief in Washington’  to the ‘Wise Indian Chief of Seattle’

concerning the acquisition of their ancestral territories.   The subsequent

rejoinder from the latter, is, by universal acclaim, a document of profound

sagacity, endowed with an inherent aesthetic grace, and imbued with an

enduring relevance that defies the passage of epochs; which met with

approval   by   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   a   case   titled   as  Shri

Sachidanand Pandey and another vs. The State of W.B. and others,

1987(2) SCC 295; relevant whereof reads, thus:

“How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is

strange to us.

“If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water,

how can you buy them?

“Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle,

every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and

humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The

Sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man.

"The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to

walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is

the mother of thered man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The

perfumed flowers are our sisters; the horse, the great eagle, these are our

brothers. The rockly crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the

4ot(Tictai9ctMcnni).notHi oi f.ibc9.imc9Nn(e

xxx xxx xxx xxx

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

12

xxx xxx xxx xxx

The air is precious to the red man, for all things bfc1.i f.ibc9.i)1.c fMM

the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man

does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many

days, he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must

remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with

all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath

also receives the last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it

apart and sacred as a place where even the white man can go to taste the

wind that is sweetened by the meadows flowers.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

“This we know: The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the

.c1 fei0fNbi5.iOto5Iisnni fNtHbic1.iJott.J .aMnNO.ithe blood which unites

ot.imc9Nn(eisnni fNtHbic1.iJotMit.J .ae

"Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not

weave to web of life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the

web he does to himself.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

“But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the

God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you

dominion over this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to

us, for we do not understand when the wild buffalo are all slaughtered, the

wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of

many men and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is

the thicket?

Gone. Where is the eagle?

Gone. The end of living and the beginning of survival.”

9.2. Further,  the  Hon’ble Supreme  Court  in  Shri Sachidanand

Pandey case (supra), enunciated thus:

“Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is

bound to bear in mind 

Art. 48A of the Constitution. The Directive

Principle which enjoins that "The State shall endeavour to protect and

improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the

country," and Art. 51A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of

every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment

including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for

living creatures." When the Court is called upon to give effect to the

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

13

Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its

shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a

9c  .1imo1i f.i4onNJ(M9cONtHic: fo1N (ei0f.in.cb i hat the Court may do is

to examine whether appropriate consideration are borne in mind and

irrelevancies excluded. ”

9.3. Furthermore, in a case titled as Virender Gaur and others vs.

State of Haryana and others, 1995(2) SCC 577,  it was observed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:

“The State, in particular has duty in that behalf and to shed its

extravagant unbridled sovereign power and to forge in its policy to

maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. 

Article 21 protects

right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment

including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its

ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance

free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot

be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental

pollution. Environmental ecological, air, water, pollution, etc. should be

regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21. Therefore, hygienic

environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be

impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy

environment. Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a

matter of grave concern for human existence, Promoting environmental

protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising

 f. i 9ctM9ca. i cta i  f. i tc :1cn i .tdN1ot9.t  i 0f.1.mo1.T there is a

constitutional imperative on the State Government and the municipalities,

to  i otn( i  o i .tb:1. i cta i bcm.MH:c1a i 41o4.1 i .tdN1ot9.tt but also an

imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and

N941od.i)o fi f.i9ctM9ca.ictai f.itc :1cni.tdN1ot9.nt.”

9.4. More recently, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, in a case titled as M.K. Ranjitsinh &Ors. Vs. Union of India &Ors.

2024 SCC Online SC 570, has observed thus:

“20. Article 48A

 of the Constitution provides that the State shall

endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the

forests and wild life of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates

that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the

natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

14

have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable

provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution

recognises the importance of the natural world. The importance of the

environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other

parts of the Constitution. Article 21

 recognises the right to life and

personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have

equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These articles are

important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against

the adverse effects of climate change.”

10.  The   procrastination   exercised   by   the   State   Government

subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1927 Act, in

1987 i.e. the 18.12.1987 notification, presents a lamentable illustration of

classic administrative lethargy. To permit nearly four decades to elapse

without   any   discernible,   substantive   action   flowing  from   a   statutory

declaration is, to put it mildly, an affront to the principles of effective

governance and a manifest failure at the end of concerned officers, both

statutory and Constitutional. Such inaction on the part of such officers,

particularly in a matter of such profound public importance, merits the

unequivocal condemnation of this Court. The State, as the ultimate custodian

and protector of its citizens' rights, is endowed with a solemn responsibility

to act with dispatch and diligence, especially when confronted with issues of

pressing   environmental   concern.   The   prolonged   failure   to   finalize   the

process initiated by the 18.12.1987 notification, undermines the very spirit

of the  1927 Act  and betrays a shocking lack of urgency. The proverb,

“Action is the proper fruit of knowledge,”  stands in stark contrast to the

State's current posture. This Court, therefore, finds itself compelled to

deprecate, in the strongest possible terms, the protracted official lethargy and

its discernible unwillingness to discharge its solemn responsibilities in a

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

15

timely  and  conscientious  manner.  The time for resolute action is not

tomorrow, but now.

10.1.  In light of the foregoing exposition, concerning the slumber on

the   part   of   the   official   machinery,   this   Court   deems   it   not   merely

appropriate, but indeed a solemn duty, to issue a writ in the nature of

mandamus.   This   extraordinary   remedy   is   necessitated   to   compel   the

concerned   official(s)   authorities   to   undertake,   with   immediate   and

unwavering resolve, all consequential steps in furtherance of the 18.12.1987

notification –   for   to   permit   such   inordinate   inaction   and   pervasive

sluggishness to persist would be to allow the very object and purpose of the

1927 Act, to be utterly defeated, rendering a vital piece of legislation a mere

dead letter on the statute book. It would be germane to refer herein to an

observation made by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a

case titled as The Comptroller and Auditor General of India and another

Vs. K.S. Jagannathan and another, 1987 AIR Supreme Court 537, relevant

whereof reads thus:

“20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their

jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus

or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary

directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to

exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a

statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised

such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring

the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to

frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for

implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases

and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of

its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in

the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the

performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred

upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

16

to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself

pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public

authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully

exercised its discretion.”

The Morni Hills, are serving as the prime green cover acting as

lungs for tri-city of Chandigarh – Panchkula – Mohali. Indubitably, the

authorities are required to take a decision, one way or the other, regarding

completion of the process which begins with issuance of notification under

Section 4(1) of the 1927 Act and culminates upon a notification issued under

Section 20 of the 1927 Act. 

Decision

11. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the petition in hand is

disposed of in the following terms:

(i) The   FSO is mandated to, forthwith, take requisite steps to

ensure expeditious submission of his report with a further direction to State

of Haryana to thereafter issue notification under Section 20 of 1927 Act of

the scheduled land as a Reserved Forest latest by 31.12.2025.

 (ii) The  FSO shall   be   handed   over   all   the   documents   qua

demarcation & survey which are presently in possession of the Revenue

Authorities, Forest Authorities & Survey of India & the  FSO shall be

provided, forthwith, with all requisite facilities/infrastructure to enable him

to discharge his duties contemplated in Chapter II of  1927 Act  including

making inquiry, entry, survey, demarcation, preparing map, acquiring land

and exercising powers of a Civil Court, etc. 

(iii) The interim order passed by this Court restraining all non-forest

activities in the Morni Hills area shown in notification dated 18.12.1987,

shall continue till issuance of Section 20 of 1927 Act notification.

CWP-469-2017 (O&M)

17

(iv) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. 

(v) No order as to costs. 

12. The Forest Secretary, Haryana is directed to file acompliance-

affidavit, in terms of the directions made hereinabove, within seven months

from today, failure wherein may invite punitive consequences (as per law)

for the officer concerned as also other concerned functionaries. Be put up in

the  2

nd

  week  of  January,   2026  for  consideration  of   such  compliance-

affidavit.

(SUMEET GOEL) (SHEEL NAGU)

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

June 20, 2025

Ajay/Jatin

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No