In Mangar ‘forest', two I-T dept attachment notices spring up
2
Gurgaon: Mangar's flora has seen two additions – signboards on which are scribbled land attachment notices from the income-tax department. The notices, which were originally issued in 2022 but were put up at the site only this month, proclaim that 430 acres of land in Mangar have been attached as benami property.
The notices underline both the peculiarity of Mangar – a protected pristine forest that is not legally recognised as one – and the oddity of the larger Aravalis that it is part of. Most of Aravali land is privately owned, making the revenue department, and not the forest department, its custodian. Private ownership has been the primary cause of degradation of the Aravalis over decades because of large-scale construction.
You Can Also Check:
Gurgaon AQI
|
Weather in Gurgaon
|
Bank Holidays in Gurgaon
|
Public Holidays in Gurgaon
The land in question is part of the Mangar Bani grove and its buffer zone, a 1,200-acre stretch along the Delhi-Haryana border that was notified as a 'no-construction zone' by Haryana govt in 2016.
"This property i.e. 430 acres in village Mangar, Faridabad, has been attached by Benami Prohibition Unit (Chandigarh) of Income Tax department under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, vice order dated 29.03.2022 passed by adjudicating authority," the boards put up on April 15 read.
The attachment notice of March 2022 adds that the 430 acres are held by "benamidars" (nominal owners) for "beneficial owners (actual controllers)".
The notices name the firms Kenwood Mercantile, Goodfaith Builders, M/s Peakwood Realty, M/s Agrim Infratech, and individuals Lal Chand Bansal and Shakuntala Rani as nominal owners. Real estate company M3M India and six other individuals are named as beneficiaries.
Asked about the case, which is currently in Punjab and Haryana high court, a spokesperson for the realtor said on Friday the attached land is "proprietarily owned by the promoters of M3M Group".
"The matter is currently sub judice, and we are optimistic about a favourable outcome. Furthermore, we affirm that there is no element or component of benami transactions involved in this regard," the spokesperson said.
This land has, however, been involved in controversies even before the benami case. In 2016, National Green Tribunal (NGT) denied M3M's claim that the land owned by it in Mangar was agricultural, not Aravali forest. NGT referred to two surveys by the forest department and Forest Survey of India (FSI) to conclude that this was densely vegetated land.
"125 to 175 acres fall in Manger Bani sacred forest and the rest is in the surrounding areas recorded in the revenue records as gair mumkin pahar (uncultivable hills)… The area claimed by respondents 6 to 8 is predominantly covered by open dense forest. It satisfies all the criterions of a forest," NGT's order of March 2016 read.
A few months later, the same year, on the directions of NCR Planning Board, Haryana govt issued a notification to ban construction in 600 acres of the core Mangar Bani zone and another 600 acres, which it earmarked as its 'buffer zone'.
The only forest of its kind in the Aravalis, Mangar has no legal recognition as a forest because Haryana has not defined forests. Hence, provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act are not applicable to it. Going by the Supreme Court order to states to follow the dictionary meaning of the forest, Mangar should be protected under FCA.
Experts told TOI it was this lack of this 'forest' tag that over the years had facilitated splintering of ownership of land, allowing ownership to change hands.
"Even after three decades of Supreme Court orders to identify forests, Haryana has not been able to start the process. Supreme Court in the 2011 Lafarge judgment and the 1996 Godavarman case directed all states to identify forests as per their dictionary meaning. This case shows how the rich and powerful have bought Aravali forest areas in Haryana," retired Indian forest service officer MD Sinha, former chief conservator of forests for south Haryana, told TOI.
Sinha said that in such a situation, govt "should not deal with semantics of what constitutes a forest" but focus on "conserving whatever forest Haryana has left".
Chetan Agarwal, a forest analyst, too said the main concern was that of "legal status" of forests. "Forest status is still hanging. Besides, SC's orders to give ownership of village common land to panchayats have not been implemented. This is one land parcel that the I-T department should conserve and secure for future generations," he said.
In the 2011 Lafarge order, which was linked to environmental approvals given for mining in Meghalaya, Supreme Court had directed all states to identify and map all forest-like areas. Preceding this ruling was the 1996 TN Godavarman case, which said that forests must be recognised on the dictionary definition of 'forest'. This meant that any area with characteristics of forests must be protected under FCA, regardless of the land's status in govt records. This concept, called 'deemed' forest, effectively widened the scope of FCA.
The top court, while hearing petitions in March this year, reiterated its directions given in the Lafarge order and told all states to identify forest areas and submit their findings to the central govt in six months.
State officials had told TOI earlier this month that Haryana govt has formed committees to work on the 'dictionary definition' of forests, but they can start the process only after another panel finalises a definition of 'forest'.
"The committee will soon establish criteria for 'forest' definition to ensure that Mangar Bani and similar forest-like areas across Haryana receive protection under FCA. This is crucial, as these areas currently lack the necessary legal support to prevent encroachment. We had a meeting recently and one more is planned next month. Soon, we will be able to reach a decision on the criteria," Vineet Garg, principal chief conservator of forests, said on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Dyeing units warn: Zero discharge norms may kill Ludhiana industry
1 2 Chandigarh: Under mounting regulatory scrutiny, dyeing units have pushed back against the blanket enforcement of zero liquid discharge (ZLD) norms, warning that the move could cripple micro and small enterprises in the region. Ludhiana's dyeing units have cited existing compliance with pollution norms, severe financial strain, and the looming threat of unit closures. Units argue they function as "diluters and not polluters". The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is, at present, hearing a case concerning the alleged discharge of industrial wastewater into the Buddha Nullah by dyeing units in Industrial Area A. In an affidavit submitted to the tribunal, the Industrial Area-A Dyers Association contended that mandating ZLD—a water treatment process where all wastewater is treated and recycled, leaving no liquid waste to be discharged—across the board may contradict binding observations made by the NGT in other related matters. The association maintained that its member units were already complying with environmental regulations and operating effluent treatment systems effectively. They argued that despite compliance and willingness to cooperate, a sudden policy shift was unfairly targeting only their cluster. The association stated that ZLD was technically and financially unviable for small and micro units, not backed by govt capital investment or subsidies, and likely to lead to the closure of units, which would trigger economic hardship and job losses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Many Are Watching Tariffs - Few Are Watching What Nvidia Just Launched Seeking Alpha Read More Undo The association emphasised that effluent generated by these units, after undergoing in-house treatment, was discharged into the municipal sewer and ultimately treated at the sewage treatment plant (STP), which has shown positive performance results. Citing the Punjab Pollution Control Board's (PPCB) own studies, they argued that treated industrial effluent entering the Buddha Nullah reflected better water quality than areas polluted by cow dung and untreated domestic sewage. In contrast, illegal units operating without treatment in residential areas were unregulated and posed a larger threat to environment. The association held that most units had obtained consent to operate from PPCB, permitting the discharge of treated effluent into the sewer after passing through effluent treatment plants (ETPs), with the applicable fee duly paid. Others have submitted applications and are awaiting approvals. The association explained that these dyeing units had independently invested in and continued to operate sophisticated ETPs designed to treat trade effluent in compliance with prescribed discharge standards. The multi-stage treatment process includes equalisation, neutralisation, and primary to tertiary treatment to ensure the removal of pollutants. Citing test reports and regulatory inspections, the association asserted that the discharged effluent consistently met stringent pollution control norms. Many units had also proactively installed online continuous effluent-monitoring systems (OCEMS), enabling real-time data transmission to PPCB and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) servers for transparent and continuous compliance monitoring. They reiterated that the practice of discharging treated effluent into municipal sewers, followed by further treatment at STPs, was an accepted method that ensured residual contaminants were diluted to permissible levels before reaching natural water bodies such as the Buddha Nullah. This, they argued, reinforced their position that the units functioned as "diluters and not polluters". The units underscored that by investing in ETPs and adhering to discharge norms, they had consistently acted as responsible industrial entities. They said they held valid permissions to operate, and discharge treated effluent as per environmental consents. "The continued operation of these units is vital to economic sustenance and employment generation in the region, and it is carried out in adherence to environmental regulation, without imposing an undue burden on environment," the units said. MSID:: 122228479 413 |
Mint
8 hours ago
- Mint
UK-based arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari declared ‘fugitive economic offender' by Delhi court
A Delhi court on Saturday, July 5, declared UK-based arms consultant Sanjay Bhandari a fugitive economic offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The Enforcement Directorate filed a plea accusing him of money laundering and said that Sanjay Bhandari "absconded" to the UK in 2016. This comes after India's plea seeking his extradition was recently turned down by a UK court. The investing agency filed a criminal case of money laundering against the UK-based arms dealer and others in February 2017. Taking cognisance of an Income Tax department charge sheet filed against him under the anti-black money law of 2015, the ED filed a charge sheet against him in 2020.
Indian Express
17 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Open defiance of courts': Lawyer who fought for a decade to get old vehicles banned on Delhi govt's U-turn
In 2014, Delhi-based lawyer Vardhaman Kaushik moved the National Green Tribunal (NGT) over the Capital's choking air pollution crisis. A decade and orders from the NGT and Supreme Court later, a no-fuel ban on end-of-life petrol and diesel vehicles has barely lasted three days. On Thursday, in a letter to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) — the overarching statutory body for matters concerning air pollution — Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa had said that it would not be feasible to enforce the ban 'at this juncture', and 'immediate implementation… may be premature and potentially counter-productive'. The ban came into effect on July 1. The Delhi government's move has drawn sharp criticism from several quarters. According to Kaushik, the 'poor implementation' of the ban order is 'an open defiance of courts'. 'The (Supreme Court) judgment (on fuel ban) had come in long ago, in 2018… and it has not been executed,' Kaushik told The Indian Express. 'The fuel ban was only a way to implement the court's directions. The hue and cry over this now doesn't make sense.' 'This is not a new rule. These rules for end-of-life vehicles have been there for a long time. The judgment is not being taken seriously,' Kaushik said, adding that only a few vehicles have been impounded over the years. Kaushik dismissed the argument that the ban unfairly targets the middle class. 'People who can afford cars and sit in air-conditioned rooms are cribbing at not being able to sell their car at good rates… Their opinion should not matter,' he said. 'The larger population that cannot afford cars bears the brunt of air pollution.' He insisted that emissions, not the age of the vehicles, should be the focus. However, he underscored that age remains a legitimate proxy. 'Even if an age cap is put aside as suggested by the Environment Minister, the fact remains that a (Bharat Standard) BS III or a BS IV vehicle will always be far more polluting than a BS VI vehicle. The government needs to take a call at this juncture.' In April 2015, acting on Kaushik's plea, the NGT had laid the legal foundation for phasing out old vehicles from the Capital's roads. In 2018, the Supreme Court banned diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi. The legal backing for the ban was reinforced by the 2018 SC order, which had upheld the NGT order. 'The Transport Departments of NCR will immediately announce that all diesel vehicles more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles more than 15 years old shall not ply in NCR in terms of the order of the National Green Tribunal…,' the order had said. It also mandated the impounding of violators and directed that lists of such vehicles be published on the websites of the Central Pollution Control Board and respective transport departments. Following the CAQM's April order on enforcing a fuel ban, a phased rollout was planned, first in Delhi from July 1, then expanded to the districts of Faridabad, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and Sonipat in November. The plan was to expand the ban to the rest of the NCR from April 1, 2026.
