CEO served notice, asked to cancel allotments
Gopal Sharma
JAMMU, Dec 15: In sheer violation of Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and Forest Conservation Act-1980 of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, besides contempt of the J&K High Court directive, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC), Leh has made illegal allotments in Changthang Wildlife Sanctuary in Ladakh (UT), bordering Himachal Pradesh and China, forcing MOEF to cancel allotments of land made to some locals by the LAHDC.
In a notice served to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO/DC) of the LAHDC and the Commissioner/ Secretary Forests, Ladakh Union Territory by the Forest and Wildlife authorities, the top officers of the UT/LAHDC have been directed to cancel all the illegal allotments as they had no such powers to make allotments in the demarcated protected Sanctuary area. It has also been enjoined upon the CEO/ Deputy Commissioner of the LAHDC, Leh to also cancel the entries of allotments made in the Revenue records of the district in the past.
Chief Conservator of Forest, Ladakh, P P Singh and the Regional Wildlife Warden, Ladakh in their report have stated that since the sites-Lukung (Pangong Lake) and Spangmik as mentioned by the LAHDC for allotments of plots and verification of lists by the Revenue authorities, fall within the boundaries of Changthang Cold Desert Wildlife Sanctuary, therefore, Revenue department can not identify or allot any land to any beneficiary for any non-forestry activity.
While referring to the minutes of the meeting of LAHDC dated August 9, 2019, the report said that Council in that meeting took decision that the concerned Sarpanch of Maan -Pangong A&B shall be provided 5 kanals of land each with the condition that they must further lease out the land to resettle camps owners from Durbuk Sub Division whose camps were demolished during anti-encroachment drive, the report clarified that since the entire area falls within Changthang Wildlife sanctuary, therefore, no habitation can be allowed within the demarcated area. Moreover, the CEC or LAHDC have no such powers.
Regarding decision of LAHDC on cancellation of `Nautor’ of Spangmik village and changing it into ‘Abadi Deh’, the Wildlife Department report said that under Section 19, Chapter 4 of Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Protection Act 1978 (Amended up to 2002), after the notification for declaration of wildlife sanctuary, no right shall be acquired in, on or over the land comprised with the limits of the area specified in such notification, except succession, testamentary or inter-state (for changing Cold Desert Wildlife Sanctuary notification, already issued during 1987).
The report observed that any diversion / allotment of land within the boundaries of any Wildlife Protected Area, shall be considered as violation of the Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Protection Act 1978, Forest (Conservation) Act and numerous judgments of High Court and Supreme Court and NGT issued from time to time. Therefore, any allotment /diversion in the case of Changthang, if done by the Revenue department. may kindly be cancelled.
It said for promotion of eco-tourism within the boundaries of Changthang Sanctuary, there is administrative framework to create eco-development committees and the committee may submit proposal for the same to the Regional and Chief Wildlife Warden (Ladakh), who will process the case for the submission to the State/ UT and the National Wildlife Board with the prior consent of the State/UT level Forest Advisory Committee.
The report further pointed out that decision taken to change the revenue entries from ‘Nautor’ to ‘Abadi Deh’ amounts to offences under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, Section 19/29/54 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and apex court orders. This allotment is also not in accordance with the Section 23 and sub-section 2 of the Section 42 of the LAHDC Act, 1997.
It added that the minutes of the meeting (MOM) revealed that allotment and receipt of plots over ‘Nautor’ inside the Sanctuary had taken place on 10-08-2019. In WP PIL 35/2014 titled ‘ Rattan Singh and Others vs State through Revenue Department and ors were illegally circumvented, the High Court of J&K had ordered removal of this very Nautor/ encroachment. Moreover, by allotting the plots the participants (LAHDC representatives, CEC/ Executive Councilors/ SDM) of the meeting dated August 9, 2019 overreached themselves and committed contempt of the directions of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
The report pointed out with regret that it is common practice for the LAHDC to convene a meeting , take decisions, circulate the same taken in meeting directly to the concerned officers, who then implement the decisions -this aspect is ascertainable from the past practice. Any Wildlife Department official/ Warden was not called to the meeting. It is needless to mention that decisions are taken after obtaining relevant inputs, and such inputs are never taken after taking decisions. The standard procedures were not followed by the CEC and other Councilors/ representatives, for preparing the agenda item with full facts of the case, getting the agenda items approved from the CEC, placing the agenda items in the LAHDC meeting and pursuant to the decision of LAHDC, communicating the decisions to the concerned officers for implementation.
While concluding, the report said the combined impact of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 and the Supreme Court’s order dated 09-05-2002 in IA No.18 in WP No. 337/1995, is that ‘no land inside a Sanctuary or any National Park can be diverted without the approval of State/UT Wildlife Board and the Standing Committee of National Wildlife Board and the authority prescribed ( Forest Advisory Committee), under the Forest ( Coservation) Act, 1980’. The executive powers as per S ection 23, mentioned by the LAHDC with regard to the allotments, are subject to other Acts and Rules in force and not in derogation of other applicable Acts and Rules. Neither Section 23, nor Sub Section 2 of Section 42 of the LAHDC, have any provision for delegation of powers in respect of diversion of land/ land use inside the Sanctuary/ National Parks. It is blatant violation of both the above mentioned Acts, the report observed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
