Driving Naari Programme launched in Chandigarh
Chandigarh, November 9
Sukhvilas, the luxury resort owned by former Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Badal at Palanpur in New Chandigarh, may be in for fresh examination over suspected violation of environment laws.
Pointing out that part of the land of the resort was still ‘locked’ under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900, the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF), Hills, Harsh Kumar, has demanded a report on any violation of the law on the property.
In an official communication to the District Forest Officer (DFO), Mohali, Guraman Singh, dated October 31, the CCF has asked what action has been initiated against the promoter of the resort in the past with regard to violations, if any, of the provisions of the PLPA found on the ground. In the same letter, he has also mentioned the case of Janta Land Promoters, Mohali.
Citing Section II of the Punjab Forest Manual, Kumar has directed the DFO to ‘compound’ any offence found if the violator agrees to it.
When contacted by The Tribune, Kumar said diversion of forestland under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, had been granted approval for the Sukhvilas project by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF), but that did not automatically imply clearance under the PLPA. These are two separate laws, and part of the resort land was covered by both. The DFO, Guraman Singh, confirmed that such a communication had been received from the CCF, but said he was yet to submit a report.
Under the ‘Schedule of Compensation Rates’ of the Punjab Forest Manual, there is a provision to compound cases (imposing fine) of tree felling in areas ‘closed’ under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA. But other kinds of violation cannot be compounded, and the authorities are required to initiate prosecution. Part of the resort has construction on it, but it was cleared only under the FCA.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Jitendra Sharma — to whom Harsh Kumar reports — told The Tribune that though the CCF had intimated him about the letter, he was yet to go through its contents.
On being asked whether permission for diversion of forestland use under the FCA also implied clearance under the PLPA, Sharma said he had requested the state government for a legal opinion on the matter.
Forest Minister Sadhu Singh Dharamsot said he had asked for the details of the case from the department.
Officials in the department pointed out that under the approvals granted to Sukhvilas under the FCA, 1980, the promoters were given the permission to develop the resort, but they were not supposed to cut trees in the project area.
However, the promoters submitted to the authorities in January this year that their contractor had cut 229 trees without their knowledge. This was a violation of both the PLPA and the FCA.
For the violation under the PLPA, the state Forest Department initiated action under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, and the contractor was asked to deposit a compensation of Rs 6.22 lakh on account of the cutting of trees.
However, in the case of violation under the FCA, the competent authority is the MoEF.
And the case for regularisation/penalty was referred to the regional office of the ministry, which is yet to give a response on the matter.
The MoEF had granted one approval — only under the FCA — for construction of a resort on 7.27 hectare to promote eco-tourism, and one for construction of another resort on 1.20 hectare of forestland, with the condition that no trees will be cut.
While the CCF in his letter to the DFO has mentioned only Sukhvilas and JLPL, the issue is likely to escalate as there are many other cases also in which clearances have been granted under the FCA but land continues to be closed under the PLPA.
All clearances taken: Metro Eco-Green Resorts
Representatives of Metro Eco-Green Resorts — promoter company of Sukhvilas resort in New Chandigarh — when contacted by The Tribune said they had not received any communication from the Forest Department regarding inspection under the PLPA. Denying that there was violation of any environment law, the company representatives said all necessary permissions under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA ) had been taken after meeting all requirements, including handing over alternative land for afforestation and compensatory planting of trees. They claimed the MoEF had granted permission under the FCA after studying all aspects, including the applicability of the PLPA. They added the FCA being an overarching law, approval granted under it automatically implied clearance under the PLPA too. The huge investment had not been made without taking all necessary clearances.
