In 1900, the British had the foresight to realise that the survival of the hilly areas could be at risk without ecological safeguards. So, they introduced a land preservation act. The undivided Punjab state government continued the protection for the hills. However, after the formation of Haryana, the Aravalis have come under major threat with repeated attempts to dilute the legal cover, notwithstanding a few efforts in the 1970s and 1990s to notify some areas under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA)Sections of the vast Aravali ranges in Delhi and Rajasthan have been declared ‘reserved forests’ and turned into sanctuaries. But between these two states lies a large anomaly called Haryana, which has not even notified forest areas in the Aravalis.Consequently, most sections of the Aravalis in Haryana do not come under the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, even though no one disputes the need to protect the ranges.Courts have been much more proactive. In a landmark ruling (MC Mehta case), not only did the Supreme Court give protection to the Aravalis, it also clarified the definition of ‘forests’ (Samatha judgment, 1997) and gave ‘deemed forest’ protection to areas that are not notified or recorded as forests (Godavarman and Lafarge judgments). These court orders have been followed up through various directions from the ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC), and the NCR Planning Board.Yet, the Haryana government has been largely inert in throwing a legal cordon around the ranges. Environmentalists have, in fact, repeatedly accused it of trying to dilute existing laws to make way for revenue-earning realty projects. This has left a large tract of the ecologically fragile range at the risk and mercy of real-estate developers.When it comes to identifying and notifying forests, Haryana has been guiltier than most of indecisiveness, says Lt Col Sarvadaman Oberoi (retd), an environmental expert. “In a landmark judgment in the case of T N Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India (1996), the apex court said that the FCA 1980 must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of their ownership or classification. It was also held that the word ‘forest’ must be understood according to its ‘dictionary meaning’,” he says.“The court instructed all state governments to constitute an expert committee and identify forests in their respective states, including those areas which had yet to be notified but were, by their very nature, considered ‘forest’. Haryana, however, responded with a list of merely those areas that its forest department had been treating as forest,” he adds.Chetan Agarwal, an environmental analyst, says the lack of interest by successive state governments seems to be deliberately allowing developers to take full advantage. “In its initial forest identification exercise in 1997, the state of Haryana only included the Aravali Plantation and areas notified under PLPA section 4 and 5. It did not include areas recorded as forest in revenue books. Nor did it include areas not recorded or notified as ‘forest’, even though they fulfilled the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ as propounded by the Supreme Court,” he explains, adding the state’s forest policy has been “captured” by the town and country planning department and the real estate lobby.In 2011, in the ‘Lafarge’ judgment, the Supreme Court revisited the Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India case and again highlighted the importance of identifying forests, and bringing them under the purview of the FCA 1980. In the Lafarge judgment, the court also directed the state governments to complete the exercise of identification of forests. It further held that in case of any doubt, there should be a joint inspection of the site by a state’s forest department and the MoEFCC.In the 70s, the state government made changes to common land ownership norms. This led to massive privatisation of the Aravalis in Haryana, especially around Delhi where real estate interest was high. As a result, it’s the revenue department that currently has the largest jurisdiction over the Aravalis in Haryana.What happened was that unlike in other states where ‘forest common land’ belonging to a panchayat was transferred to the forest department, ‘forest common land’ in the Haryana Aravalis continued to be owned and managed by village communities. The Punjab Village Common Lands Act (applicable to Haryana) required that all common land be vested with the panchayat. But this was only done in some cases. Instead, during the 70s-80s, the revenue department allowed transfer of a share in the common land to village stakeholders, thus allowing private ownership in many villages, including Gwal Pahari, Bandhwari, Roj ka Gujjar, Mangar, Kot, Ankhir, Mewla-Maharajpur, Anangpur and Lakkarpur.“This move to privatise the common land, instead of vesting them with panchayats, led to real estate buying land from simple-minded villagers at low prices starting from Rs. 500 per acre,” says Oberoi.Meanwhile, because of a case in the Supreme Court in 1990 to protect Raiseena village from farmhouse development, the MoEFCC issued the 1992 Aravali Notification, clearly stating that land in each of the following categories — ‘gair mumkin pahar’ (uncultivable hill), ‘gair mumkin rada’ (foothills, pastures), ‘gair mumkin behed’ (ravine foothills), ‘banjar beed’ (cultivable grassy foothills) and ‘rundh’ (rocky areas between two hills) — should be categorised as Aravalis.The MoEFCC notification prohibited tree felling and any construction activity (including road work and laying of transmission lines) without its permission. The restriction was extended to all reserve forests or areas shown as ‘forests’ in government records, including the Aravali Notification classifications and areas covered under sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA. This was the principal legal protection given to the Aravalis in the 1990s in Gurugram (including Mewat), which is in force to this day.“For some reason, the notification was not made applicable to areas of Faridabad and other parts of Haryana,” says Vivek Kamboj of environmental NGO Haryali. “This was an irregularity that left large parts of the Aravalis in Haryana unprotected.” Kamboj has been fighting many legal battles to give protection to the Aravalis. “There is a need to understand that the Aravalis is not limited to Gurugram and Mangar Bani. The entire range in Faridabad and other districts needs to be protected as any disturbance leads to a lot of damage to the ecology and humankind.”The earliest legal protection to the Aravalis was provided by the British, who brought in PLPA in 1900. The Act restricts non-forest activity in Haryana. Of the total Aravali land in Gurugram and Faridabad, about 27,500 acres is notified under PLPA. “Through geological surveys, the British found that if the Aravalis weren’t cared for, water sources would dry up, and there would likely be massive soil erosion. They analysed the area will turn into a desert if the Aravalis is not given a legal shield, and it will also hit agriculture, which might lead to food insecurity,” says R P Balwan, former conservator of forests (south Haryana).However, on many occasions, the Haryana government has said PLPA should be revised. In 2017, chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar , while addressing a seminar at a private university in Gurugram, spoke of the need to amend the PLPA. He reasoned that change cannot be avoided since areas with ‘urban structures’ in the Aravalis should not fall under PLPA anymore. In 2013, the Congress government had moved the Supreme Court to free up nearly 20,345 hectares of the Aravalis, declared as ‘forest’ by the court in the MC Mehta mining-related case.“A list of PLPA notifications shows that there was a spate of notifications around 1970 and then again around 1990-92. There is a pressing need to renew these notifications. And notify the remaining Aravali areas under Section 4 and 5 of PLPA,” says Agarwal.Back in 2012, the MoEFCC directed Haryana to keep the draft Mangar Development plan in abeyance till ‘forests’, as per the dictionary meaning, were identified. In 2014, the NGT directed the state to identify whether a particular patch of hilly land in Mangar was a deemed forest. Haryana wrote a long letter refusing to do so. In September 2014, the MoEFCC again directed Haryana to identify deemed forests and shared guidelines for the same. The issue was also discussed in the meeting of the board of the NCRPB in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and directions were given in each year. But Haryana has not yet taken any steps to identify deemed forests or record the Aravalis as forest in the revenue record. Even the Mangar Bani sacred grove, arguably the best forest in the Gurugram-Faridabad area, is not identified or notified as a forest yet.In April 2014, Haryana issued a letter stating that it will keep all areas that fall in the Aravalis, but which are not notified under PLPA as ‘NCZ yet to be decided’.The stand taken by the state on ‘gair mumkin pahar’ and the natural conservation zones (NCZ) have been mostly unclear, and often controversial. “Many times, the state government has said ‘gair mumkin pahar’ doesn’t deserve any protection. The government’s non-cooperation in respecting the NCZ will be disastrous not only for Haryana, but also Delhi,” Kamboj warns.Meanwhile, another flashpoint between the state and environmentalists is brewing: the status of 12,800 hectares of Aravali land is ‘undecided’ following a ‘ground-truthing’ exercise to revise areas under NCZ (where construction is allowed only in a 0.5% area). There is fear that this whole chunk may soon lose protection.But the recent SC order (of September 11, 2018) says the area notified under PLPA in Haryana must be treated as ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’, as outlined in earlier orders, including the MC Mehta cases in 2002 and 2004. These areas have been treated as such for several decades by Haryana. The court added that there was no reason to change or alter the factual or legal position.Fortunately, the SC’s order clarified that the Sandhu judgment (in which it was mentioned that the status of land as forest should be assessed as on October 1980, when the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, had come into force) doesn’t apply to the PLPA in Haryana, as the state has made several attempts over the past three years to declare PLPA areas as non-forest land. This they have done by misinterpreting the Sandhu judgment and setting up committees to reopen the issue. Therefore, the 81-page judgment on construction in Haryana Aravalis holds serious implications on ongoing litigations, while providing hope that the Aravalis will finally receive the legal shield that is their due.

Stay updated with all the Latest Gurgaon headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.