M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of LPA No. 197 of 2009 and CWP No. 4399 of 2010 as the issue involved in both the cases is similar. However, the facts are being referred from LPA No. 197 of 2009.
(2.) LPA No. 197 of 2009 has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.2.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 18596 of 2008, dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition relatable to the aforementioned appeal the petitioner -appellant has challenged orders dated 11.4.2008 and 15.10.2008 whereby the consent/No Objection Certificate earlier granted to him for installation of a Rice Mill was withdrawn. The principal ground of withdrawal was that the site where the rice mill was to be installed, was merely 7.5 meters away from the area of the notified Bir Bhadson, Wild Life Sanctuary. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that Bir Bhadson is a notified Wild Life Sanctuary and no industrial activities could be permitted within the prohibited sitting parameters even if there is negligence on the part of the State. Learned Single Judge also brought forward the environmental issues and called for atmospheric balance and due protection of such Wild Life Sanctuary. In the concluding para of the order dated 13.2.2009, the following observations have been made: - However, keeping in view the gravity of the issue and importance of sustenance of the Wild Life Sanctuary and the larger public interest involved, there shall be a direction to the official respondents to conduct a survey and find out as to whether there exist any other industrial unit in the vicinity of the Wild Life Sanctuary in violation of the sitting parameters laid down by the State Government and in case there is any such industrial unit or activity which is prohibited by the State Government, appropriate action against them shall also be taken in a time bound manner and a compliance report shall be submitted to this Court. 2. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner -appellant has purchased the land in question in January 2007 and the 'No Objection Certificate' for establishing a Rice Sheller was given on 29.3.2007 by respondent No. 4. The basic reason for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' was based on a report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Bhadson -respondent No. 6, certifying that the land of the petitioner -appellant was not within the prohibited parameters of 500 meters of a Wild Life Sanctuary apart from other things (P -1). However, the 'No Objection Certificate' was withdrawn later on in 2008 because the revenue record underwent change at the instance of the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life, Patiala, on a complaint made by Shri Ashwani Kumar Sood son of Shri Sat Parkash Sood -respondent No. 7. The earlier entry in the revenue record showing the land to be agricultural Banjar Qadim was changed to Wild Life Sanctuary by referring to notification dated 28.2.1952 (P -13). On the one hand the petitioner -appellant with a bona fide belief has purchased the land and then he was given 'No Objection Certificate'. It was thereafter that he proceeded to establish his Rice Sheller along with machinery. Thus, the revenue entry was changed after establishing the industry. It resulted into cancellation of 'No Objection Certificate', which was earlier issued by the department.
(3.) ON 22.7.2009, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant before the Letters Patent Bench that the ground reality is that there is no Wild Life Sanctuary available in the area, which is highlighted by the communication dated 20.3.2008 (R -1) sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Patiala to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. The communication shows that the Wild Life Sanctuary under Bir Bhadson, Patiala is unfenced. Similar is the position with regard to all other Sanctuaries. It does not require much imagination to conclude that there cannot be any Wild Life Sanctuary without fencing.;