http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  202 of 1995

PETITIONER: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2006

BENCH: CJI Y.K. Sabharwal, Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

IA NO.989, 1221 & 1311 IN IA NOS.857-858   IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995

[WITH IA NOS.997-998, 1128, 1187, 1282-1284,  1295, 1296, 1305, 1320-1321, 1335, 1376-1377,  1388 IN WP (C) NO. 202 OF 1995 & SLP (C) NO.22531  OF 2003]

Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.

The question for consideration in these matters is  whether the land measuring about 15 hectares leased by  State of Chhattisgarh to M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and  Power Limited (for short ’Maruti’) for setting up of coal  washery is a part of forest land or not.  This question has  been raised by one Deepak Agarwal by filing I.A. 858 of  2003 claiming to be a public spirited person and  journalist by profession and concerned about the adverse  affect on environment of the area as a result of the grant  of lease of forest land for non forest activities in violation  of law.  The applicant claims that undue favour and  patronage has been extended to Maruti for establishment  of coal washery plant in respect of land which is a forest  land by wrongly showing in various revenue records that  the land is part of the village Nawagaon Khurd whereas  actually the land forms part of village Ratija. The Parliament enacted Forest (Conservation) Act,  1980 (for short the ’FC Act’) with a view to prevent large  scale forest depletion and to protect the forest resources.   The object was to check further deforestation which  ultimately results in ecological imbalance.  The Act has  made provisions for the conservation of forests and for  matters connected therewith.  In T.N. Godavarman  Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. [ (1997) 2 SCC  267], this Court held that the FC Act must apply to all  forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or  classification thereof.  Noticing earlier decisions in cases  of  Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors.  [(1987) 1 SCC 213] and Rural Litigation and  Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1)  SCC 504] and dispelling doubts, if any, it was held in  Godavarman that the word ’forest’ must be understood  according to its dictionary meaning.  This description

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether  designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the  purpose of Section 2(i) of the FC Act.  The term ’forest  land’ would also include any area recorded as forest in  the Government record irrespective of the ownership.   The court issued wide ranging directions.  Each State  Government was directed to constitute an Expert  Committee to identify areas which are ’forests’,  irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognized or  classified under any law and irrespective of the ownership  of the land of such forests; identify areas which were  earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared;  and identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging  to the Government and those belonging to private  persons.         The Government of Madhya Pradesh, of which  Chhattisgarh was a part at the relevant time, issued a  circular dated 13th January, 1997 in compliance with the  directions issued in T.N. Godavarman’s case  for the  purpose of identification of the forest.  The circular stated  that according to the dictionary meaning, the term ’forest’  means such large areas where agriculture is not done  and which is covered by trees and shrubs.  It further  stated that, taking a practical approach, in view of the  judgment as well as the dictionary meaning of the term  ’forest’, area measuring 10 hectares or more having an  average number of 200 trees per hectare ought to be  treated as forest.   According to the applicant, on application of  aforesaid circular, the land in question would be forest  land and it is also so under the Government record and  as per the dictionary meaning of the term ’forest’ as well.  To examine the question whether land is part of  forest or not, this Court by order dated 7th May, 2003  referred the application to Central Empowered Committee  (CEC) for its report.   The CEC submitted its report dated 6th October,  2003 (registered as IA 989 and hereinafter referred to as  ’first report’).  In this report, CEC concluded that the land  allotted to Maruti is a forest land and, therefore, prior  approval of the Central Government under the FC Act  was necessary before allowing setting up of coal washery  plant by Maruti.  Admittedly, such approval had not been  obtained.   The State of Chhattisgarh and Maruti vehemently  disputed that the land is part of forest.  Their stand is  that the land was allotted after it was clearly established  that it was not a forest land. The first report shows that hearing before CEC took  place on four different dates i.e. 3rd June, 2003, 9th July,  2003, 25th July, 2003 and 14th August, 2003.  On first  two dates, one K.K.Srivastava appeared for the applicant  Deepak Agarwal.  This fact has relevance on the issue of  bonafides of Deepak Agarwal in approaching this court in  public interest, an aspect to which we would advert to  little later.   Detailed objections were filed to the first report of  CEC.  On directions of this Court, an affidavit dated 13th  August, 2004 was filed by T.S.Chatwal, Secretary (Forest)  Government of Chhattisgarh, inter alia, stating that land  is not recorded in the forest land records at Katghora  Division either as protected or as reserved forest; has not  been subject matter of any blanket notification covering  ’protected forest’ for the then Central Provinces and Barar  issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

does not form part of the un-demarcated protected forest  in village Ratija etc.  It was further stated that as per  available traversing records for the year 1893-1894, the  land in question was traversed by the Survey of India and  was named as Nawagaon Khurd surrounded by village  Ratija, Chainpur and Sirkikhurd and its area was  measured to be 50.25 acre.  The settlement operation  carried in 1929-1930 did not cover the land in question  and as such no survey number was assigned to this piece  of land, which remained unsurveyed till June 2002.   The State Government was directed to trace the  relevant notifications and other notifications issued by  the forest department in the month of October 1949 and  place the same before the CEC.   Maruti claimed that  notification of October 1949 had considerable bearing on  the question of the land being forest or not.  Maruti was  also permitted to place the same before CEC.  Other  parties were also permitted to file before CEC additional  documents.  CEC was directed to further examine the  matter, hear the parties and file a report with its  recommendations. In compliance of the aforenoted directions, a report  dated 4th November, 2004 (Registered as I.A. 1221 and  hereinafter referred to as the ’second report’) has been  filed by CEC.  The CEC, in the second report has noted  detailed facts, submissions of SECL, State Government,  meetings with the officers of State of Madhya Pradesh  and Chhattisgarh.       On detailed examination of  voluminous record including notifications and maps, the  old settlement records of the concerned villages, the CEC  observed that there was no authentic record available to  show that the area of Nawagaon Khurd merged with that  of village Ratija during the settlement of 1928-1929.    CEC further observed that no revenue records are  reported to have been maintained/available or filed before  it regarding the settlement of the area of Nawagaon  Khurd or its merger with village Ratija.  In the draft  notification prepared by the Orange Unit, Bilaspur, this  area has not been shown as part of Ratija village but as  Nawapara (Masahati village) and that in the consolidated  map the allocation of land allotted to Maruti falls within  Nawagaon Khurd and outside the boundary of village  Ratija.  The CEC accordingly expressed the view that:         (a)     the area of village Nawagaon Khurd  was not merged and made a part of village  Ratija or any other adjoining villages  during the settlement of 1928-29; (b)     no settlement records for the area of  Nawagaon Khurd were prepared during  1928-29; (c)     since new settlement has not taken  place after 1928-29, the settlement maps  prepared during 1928-29 are the relevant  and the correct maps which have to be  relied upon; and  (d)     the location of the land allotted to  M/s Maruti falls within the area of  Nawagaon Khurd and not within the  village Ratija.

       In respect of Notifications of 1949, CEC said that:  

       (a)     none of the notifications  particularly the notification dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

17.10.1949 pertain to Bilaspur district;  and

(b)     the notification No.3228-2845 dated  17.10.1949 or 3228-3283/2845 dated  17.10.1949 referred to in the draft  orange area proposal of 2002 either do  not exist or pertain to other districts.

       The CEC in the second report concluded that the  land allotted to Maruti is not a forest land. The second report has also noticed the submission  of Maruti that application of Deepak Agarwal is not in  public interest and that he has been set up to serve the  business interest of M/s Aryan Coal Private Limited (for  short, ’Aryan’) who will be adversely affected financially  after the establishment of coal washeries by Maruti due  to increased competition and consequent reduction in  prices.  It was also pointed out that during hearing before  CEC, Deepak Agarwal was represented by K.K.Srivastava  who had represented Aryan in revenue proceedings  before Tehsildar and also that he was a witness in a large  number of sale deeds executed by shareholders of Aryan  for purchase of land in Rajgarh.           The second report led to filing of various  applications and also a letter dated 27th March, 2005 by  Secretary, Bilaspur Environment Society filing therewith  a report of Regional Remote Sensing Services Centre,  Nagpur dated 28th February, 2005 with a view to  challenge the conclusion contained in the second report  about land being not forest land and seeking to rely upon  settlement record.   By an order dated 1st April, 2005, CEC was directed  to again examine the entire matter and report in the light  of the documents brought to the notice of the Court and  placed on record.  The Forest Survey of India, Regional  Remote Sensing Agency and the South-East Coal Field  Limited were directed to render such assistance as may  be required for the purpose of preparation of report by  CEC.   After further examination, report dated 14th April,  2005 has been filed by CEC (hereinafter referred to as  ’third report’).   The third report, inter alia, shows that a request  was made by CEC to Forest Survey of India to carry out  photo interpretation of the satellite imagery of the area by  comparing imageries of different period and to give views  about vegetation, forest cover, number of trees etc.  Simultaneously, the National Remote Sensing Agency was  also requested to give their comments on the satellite  imagery of the area in and around the land area allotted  to Maruti along with significant changes in the forest  cover during different periods, reliability and accuracy of  the interpretation and methodology for identifying the  areas allotted etc. The site was also visited between 12- 13th April, 2005 during which the coordinates of the area  allotted to Maruti were verified by a technical expert of  FSI using the Differential Global Positioning System (GPS)  and the ground truth verification of the area was carried  out along with Regional Director, Forest Survey of India,  Nagpur.  The report also notices that during the visit,  inspection of other areas was also carried out and  discussions were held with the Principal Chief,  Conservator of Forests, Chhattishgarh Forest  Department, Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur Circle,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

District Collector Korba, Divisional Forest Officer, Officers  of SECL, members of the Bilaspur Environment Society,  K.K.Srivastava, representative of the applicant,  representatives of the forest trade unions of the area,  public representatives, representatives of Maruti and  other interested parties.  Detailed reference has been  made in the third report to the interpretations of experts  including that of the Forest Survey of India.  It also  doubts the bonafides of the applicant.  The report further  notes number of cases that were filed in respect of  allotment of land to Maruti as under:

i)              Mr.B.L.Wadera \026 Hon’ble High  Court of    Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur;  

(ii)    Mr.Sanjay Srivastava (relation of  Mr.K.K.Srivastava) \026 Hon’ble High  Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur;  

(iii)   Mr.Deepak Agarwal \026 present  application before the Hon’ble  Supreme Court

(iv)  Mr.Surendra Sahu \026 petition before  the Hon’ble High Court of  Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur;

(v)     SECL \026 present application for  intervention before this Hon’ble  Court;

(vi)    SECL \026 suit in Katghora Civil Court;

(vii)   SECL \026 Writ Petition against CEC’s  report before this Hon’ble Court  (dismissed as withdrawn);

(viii)  Samyuki Kendriya Shramik  Sangathan \026 application for  intervention before this Hon’ble  Court;

(ix)            Koyla Mazdoor Sabha \026 application  for intervention before this Hon’ble  Court;

(x)     Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor  Congress \026 application for  intervention before this Hon’ble  Court;

(xi)    Koyla Shramik Sangh \026 application  for intervention before this Hon’ble  Court;

(xii)   Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor  Sangh \026 application for intervention  before this Hon’ble Court; and

(xiii) Mr.B.L.Wadera \026 SLP against the  Hon’ble High Court’s order.          Regarding nexus between K.K.Srivastava and Aryan  and what type of society the Bilaspur Environmental  Society is, the report states that:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

"After considering the number of cases,  filed on this   issue, the documents  filed by M/s Maruti regarding   alleged  nexus between Mr.K.K.Srivastava with  M/s Aryan, reduction in the washed coal  prices agreed to by M/s Aryan after an  offer at a cheaper rate was made by M/s  Maruti to Gujarat Electricity Board,  annual account of Bilaspur Environment  Society.  SECL’s own use of revenue  forest land on a large scale, prima-facie  there appears to be some merit in the  contention of M/s Maruti that the  plethora of cases in various Courts have  been filed on behalf of its competitor M/s  Aryan with a view to prevent him from  establishing the coal washery, and not in  public interest.

The claim made by Mr.K.K.Srivastava  that he is a public spirited person  involved in protection of environment and   forests and that he is not getting  financial support from anybody but is  spending from his own resources and  contribution from his friends and  relations, is difficult to accept on its face  value;

The accounts of Bilaspur Environment  Society show that it does not have a bank  account and all receipts and expenditure  are in cash."

       The third report reiterates the conclusions and the  recommendations made in the second report that the  land allotment of Maruti is not of forest land. At this stage, we may note that some dispute as to  the title of the land in question between State  Government and Maruti on one hand and M/s South  East Collieries Limited (SECL) on the other is pending in  a civil court.  In these proceedings, we are not concerned  about the title of the land that may have to be examined  and decided by the civil court.  All pleas, factual and  legal, as permissible in law, would be open to the parties  to be agitated before the civil court.  The only question for  our consideration in these proceedings is as to the nature  of the land, namely, it is forest land or not.         However, before we consider the aforesaid question,  first the bonafides of the applicant need to be determined.   In opposition to the application filed by Deepak Agarwal,  it has been urged that the label of public interest given by  the applicant in the present litigation, is clearly and  demonstrably a camouflage since the real person behind  this application allegedly filed in public interest is a  competitor of Maruti operating in the area and having a  monopoly.   Some unions have also tried to jump into the fray by  filing applications seeking impleadment in these  proceedings so as to contend that the allotment is of a  forest land.  We see no reason to allow the impleadment  of parties in these proceedings.  Be that as it may, we  have to decide in the light of facts aforenoted, whether  the land leased to Maruti is forest land or not.  But before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

we examine the question of the nature of the land being  forest or not, it is necessary to consider the bonafides of  Deepak Agarwal who has approached this Court in public  interest.  Howsoever genuine a cause brought before a  court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has  to decline its examination at the behest of a person who,  in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose  bonafides and credentials are in doubt.  In a given  exceptional case where bonafides of a public interest  litigant are in doubt, the court may still examine the  issue having regard to the serious nature of the public  cause and likely public injury by appointing an Amicus  Curiae to assist the court but under no circumstances  with the assistance of a doubtful public interest litigant.   No trust can be placed by court on a mala fide applicant  in public interest litigation.  These are basic issues which  are required to be satisfied by every public interest  litigation.    It was sought to be contended on behalf of Deepak  Agarwal that the CEC had no authority to examine his  bonafides and, thus, exceeded its jurisdiction by stating  in its report that his bonafides are in doubt.  Some  insinuations were sought to be made against CEC and  learned Amicus Curiae.  We strongly deprecate this  approach of the applicant.  The CEC has been appointed  and so also learned Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in  determining issues relating to depletion of forests and  preservation and conservation of forests in the country.   Many forest survey reports recognise that various orders  by this Court have helped in arresting fast depletion of  forests.    Assuming in a given case an error is committed  by the Committee in its report, while pointing it out, it is  necessary for the applicant to use temperate language in  the pleadings and not the one used by the applicant.   Since, during hearing, neither the insinuations nor the  language was supported and rather regret was expressed,  we would say no more on this aspect.  It, however,  deserves to be clarified that it is incorrect to assume that  CEC exceeded its jurisdiction in pointing out facts which  are relevant to determine the bonafides of the applicant.   In fact, having regard to nature of duties assigned and  responsibility placed upon CEC, it is the duty of CEC to  point out facts relevant to determine bonafides of any  applicant.  It is always necessary to determine real motive  behind a public interest litigation. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that none  has a right to approach the Court as a public interest  litigant and that Court must be careful to see that  member of the public, who approaches the Court in  public interest, is acting bona fide and not for any  personal gain or private profit or political motivation or  other oblique considerations. {See S.P.Gupta v. Union of  India & Anr. [1981 Supp. SCC 87]}.  For the last few years, inflow of public interest  litigation has increased manifold.  A considerable judicial  time is spent in dealing with such cases.  A person acting  bona fide alone can approach the court in public interest.   Such a remedy is not open to an unscrupulous person  who acts, in fact, for someone else.  The liberal rule of  locus standi exercised in favour of bona fide public  interest litigants has immensely helped the cause of  justice.  Such litigants have been instrumental in  drawing attention of this Court and High Courts in  matters of utmost importance and in securing orders and  directions for many under-privileged such as, pavement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

dwellers, bonded labour, prisoners’ conditions, children,  sexual harassment of girls and women, cases of  communal riots, innocent killings, torture, long custody  in prison without trial or in the matters of environment,  illegal stone quarries, illegal mining, pollution of air and  water, clean fuel, hazardous and polluting industries or  preservation of forest as in the Godavarman’s case.   While this Court has laid down a chain of notable  decisions with all emphasis at their command about the  importance and significance of this newly developed  doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert  and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow  its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a  meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener  without any interest or concern except for personal gain  or private profit or other oblique consideration {See  Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. [1992) 4 SCC  305]}  It seems that this caution has not had the desired  effect on the applicant like the present one. In a recent decision in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware  v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2005) 1 SCC 590]  (Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ) taking note of earlier  decisions, it was said that: "It is depressing to note that on account  of such trumpery proceedings initiated  before the Courts, innumerable days are  wasted, which time otherwise could have  been spent for the disposal of cases of  the genuine litigants. Though we spare  no efforts in fostering and developing the  laudable concept of PIL and extending  our long arm of sympathy to the poor,  the ignorant, the oppressed and the  needy whose fundamental rights are  infringed and violated and whose  grievances go unnoticed, un-represented  and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but  express our opinion that while genuine  litigants with legitimate grievances  relating to civil matters involving  properties worth hundreds of millions of  rupees and criminal cases in which  persons sentenced to death facing the  gallows under untold agony and persons  sentenced to life imprisonment and kept  in incarceration for long years, persons  suffering from undue delay in service  matters - government or private, persons  awaiting the disposal of cases wherein  huge amounts of public revenue or  unauthorized collection of tax amounts  are locked up, detenus expecting their  release from the detention orders etc. etc.  are all standing in a long serpentine  queue for years with the fond hope of  getting into the Courts and having their  grievances redressed, the busybodies,  meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or  officious interveners having absolutely no  public interest except for personal gain or  private profit either of themselves or as a  proxy of others or for any other  extraneous motivation or for glare of  publicity break the queue muffling their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

faces by wearing the mask of public  interest litigation and get into the Courts  by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions  and thus criminally waste the valuable  time of the Courts and as a result of  which the queue standing outside the  doors of the Courts never moves, which  piquant situation creates frustration in  the minds of the genuine litigants and  resultantly they lose faith in the  administration of our judicial system. Public interest litigation is a weapon  which has to be used with great care and  circumspection and the judiciary has to  be extremely careful to see that behind  the beautiful veil of public interest, an  ugly private malice, vested interest  and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It  is to be used as an effective weapon in  the armory of law for delivering social  justice to citizens. The attractive brand  name of public interest litigation should  not be used for suspicious products of  mischief. It should be aimed at redressal  of genuine public wrong or public injury  and not be publicity-oriented or founded  on personal vendetta. As indicated above,  Court must be careful to see that a body  of persons or member of the public, who  approaches the court is acting bona fide  and not for personal gain or private  motive or political motivation or other  oblique considerations. The Court must  not allow its process to be abused for  oblique considerations by masked  phantoms who monitor at times from  behind. Some persons with vested  interest indulge in the pastime of  meddling with judicial process either by  force of habit or from improper motives,  and try to bargain for a good deal as well  as to enrich themselves. Often they are  actuated by a desire to win notoriety or  cheap popularity. The petitions of such  busybodies deserve to be thrown out by  rejection at the threshold, and in  appropriate cases with exemplary costs."

       It was further said :

"Courts must do justice by promotion of  good faith, and prevent law from crafty  invasions. Courts must maintain the  social balance by interfering where  necessary for the sake of justice and  refuse to interfere where it is against the  social interest and public good. (See  State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu,  and  Andhra Pradesh State Financial  Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and  Anr. No litigant has a right to unlimited  draught on the Court time and public  money in order to get his affairs settled  in the manner as he wishes. Easy access

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

to justice should not be misused as a  licence to file misconceived and frivolous  petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr.  K. Parasaran. Today people rush to  Courts to file cases in profusion under  this attractive name of public interest.  They must inspire confidence in Courts  and among the public."

       Now, reverting to the present case, it seems that  lakhs of rupees have been spent by the applicant and/or  on his behalf to prosecute the present litigation.  On our  direction, the applicant filed his income tax return which  shows that he has hardly any means to incur huge  amounts which have been spent to pursue this litigation.   Further, when the matter was referred by this court to  CEC for a report on first date of hearing, K.K. Srivastava  represented the applicant.  Learned senior counsel for the  applicant fairly and candidly admitted that sometimes  along with the advocate-on-record, K.K.Srivastava has  been coming to instruct him.  There is ample material on  record that on numerous occasions, K.K.Srivastava  represented Aryan before number of authorities. There is also ample material to show that K.K.  Srivastava has been collecting material to prove that the  land in question is forest land.  He is a person in contact  with Aryan.  Regarding his financial status, Deepak  Agarwal has filed an affidavit dated 24th August, 2005  along with which certain documents have also been filed.   In the affidavit, it has been claimed by him that he is  fighting the case with the help of like-minded people,  well-wishers and friends.  As to his own financial  resources, it is stated that in the income tax return,  financial help taken from friends, social workers and like- minded people has not been shown as it does not fall in  the category of income.  He has filed affidavits of some  people from whom it is claimed that donation collectively  of the sum of Rs.86,500/- was taken.  As per the affidavit  of Deepak Agarwal, a sum of Rs.55,000/- has been  incurred by Bilaspur Environment Society for obtaining  satellite imagery report.  Further, a sum of Rs.60,000/-  has been spent by him on traveling and lodging expenses  in connection with litigation and Rs.50,000/- in  connection with documentation and other court  expenses.  A revised income tax return filed on 31st  March, 2005 has been placed on record.  According to it,  the total income from business is shown as Rs.51,560/-  and from other sources at Rs.1,02,947/- total being  Rs.1,54,507/-.  It has not been disclosed as to when the  original Income Tax return was filed.  The amount of tax  shown to have been deducted at source is Rs.5,147/-.   The date of birth of Deepak Agarwal as per income tax  return is 22nd February, 1973.   However, in the affidavit  dated 24th August, 2005, the age mentioned is 32 years  whereas in the affidavit dated 19th July, 2005, it is stated  as 35 years.  Further, a perusal of the affidavits of the  persons from whom donation is said to have been taken  shows that alleged donors of cash amounts are mainly  employees of SECL and contractors working for Aryan.  It  has not been explained as to what was the reason for  filing a revised income tax return.  A submission was  sought to be made at hearing, without any plea having  been raised in the application or the affidavit, that  Deepak Agarwal came to this Court as a lone crusader  bona fide but later on some help was rendered by others

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

who donated the amount as claimed and also by Bilaspur  Environment Society.  It may be noted that Maruti has  been pleading since beginning that Deepak Agarwal has  been set up by their competitor and there was, in fact, a  link between the competitors of Maruti and Deepak  Agarwal in the form of K.K. Srivastava.  Deepak Agarwal,  in fact, denied that there was any link between him and  K.K. Srivastava who appeared on his behalf before CEC  and Aryan and took the stand that nothing has been  submitted to prove that it was the same K.K. Srivastava  who appeared on behalf of the Aryan.  Regarding K.K.  Srivastava being attesting witness to the sale deeds, it  was pleaded that K.K. Srivastava was in a business of  sale and purchase of land and in course of his business  dealing, he might have come across such sale deeds.  The  same plea was taken in respect of proceedings before  Tehsildar.  Regarding the Bilaspur Environment Society,  which purportedly assisted Deepak Agarwal, as admitted  by him and allegedly paid Rs.55,000/- for obtaining  satellite images, it may be noted that firstly, one fails to  understand as to what prevented the said society from  approaching this court. Secondly, a close perusal of the  record throws open many questions about the credibility  of the society which spent Rs.55,000/- in cash for  obtaining satellite images and also obtained donations.   On perusal of record, we have no doubt that the  application filed by Deepak Agarwal is far from bona fide.   He has been set up by others.  We strongly deprecate the  filing of an entirely misconceived and mala fide  application in the garb of public interest litigation by  Deepak Agarwal.  He is nothing but a name lender.   Despite our conclusion as aforesaid, we have         in-depth examined the three reports of CEC.  The CEC in  its second report has explained in detail the grounds and  the reasons for reversal of its findings as contained in the  first report.  The first report had only considered the  letter dated 17th October, 2002 of DFO, Khatghora  including no objection from grampanchayat, orange area  proposals of 1997-98, joint inspection report of 18th  October, 2002 with enumeration lists, report of Deepak  Srivastava & Mr.Negi of MoEF, Members and SECL maps.   The second report, however, considers in detail several  notifications of the order of October 1999, old settlement  maps and the guidelines of State Government in respect  of orange area proposals.   It shows that non-forest land  can also be included in the said proposals and various  other documents and for reaching the conclusion that the  land in question is not a forest land, in fact, the said land  was of Nawagaon Khurd and not village Ratija and that  this area was not formally merged and made part of  village Ratija in the settlement (Bandobast) carried out  during 1928-29.  We have examined various old record  from 1893-94 onwards including the old maps and find  no reason to take a view different than the one taken by  CEC in its second report.  The conclusions reached and  the recommendations made in the second report deserve  to be accepted.         The third report is based on the satellite imageries  and supports the conclusions reached by CEC in its  second report.  In respect of the third report, one of the  submissions made on behalf of Deepak Agarwal was that  reliance by CEC on LISS III (23.5 metre resolution) is not  warranted because the satellite images provided by  RRSSC has satellite data of LISS III with Panchromatic  Data Technology and LISS IV (5.8 metre resolution).  It

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

was argued that State Forest Report, 2003 of Forest  Survey of India noticed that 5.8 metre resolution recorded  various images as small as 0.1 hectare (within given area,  in this case, the area of interest of 18.12 hectares)  whereas 23.5 meter resolution is not capable of recording  anything less than 1 hectare forest cover within that  area.  In nutshell, the contention is that LISS III has  limited technology and, therefore, the report based on  LISS III is not reliable.  The submission is that LISS IV  should have been used for arriving at the correct position.         In short, Deepak Agarwal has submitted that the  report of NRSA was not accurate because it has opted for  a technology with 23.5 metre spatial resolution and  output generation in the scale of 1:50000 considered to  be inferior with respect to smaller portion of land.   According to Deepak Agarwal, NRSA should have opted  for a better technology available today under which the  spatial resolution is available at 5.8 meter and also  output generation in the scale of 1:15000.  According to  Deepak Agarwal, CEC should not have accepted the  report of NRSA based on the above parameters of 23.5  metre (spatial resolution) and of output generation in the  scale of 1: 50000.         In order to decide the above contentions, it is  necessary to understand the following concepts: i) GIS (GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATIOIN SYSTEM)

GIS is an organized collection of computer  hardware, software, geographic data designed to  capture all forms of geographically referenced  information (See Volusia.org).  In short, it is a  computer system capable of holding and using data  describing places on the earth’s surface.  ERDAS  IMAGINE 8.6 is a computer tool under GIS.  It is  referred to in the report of Forest Survey of India  (FSI) dated 14.4.2005 annexed to the third report of  CEC. ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6 is an advanced software  product used for image processing, to uncover  features like boundary and area of a given plot of  land (face).  Once uncovered, the geographical  information is integrated with attributes (spatial and  non-spatial) and stored in an information system to  be used for analysis. Images can be taken from satellites or from  planes flying over an area of interest (AOI).  Under  ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6, the images are comprised of  pixels (picture elements) which are contained in the  image.  These pixels are scanned by the computer  which gives the boundary and the area.  It also  scans the colours.  Different surfaces reflect light  differently.  Colour images are used to identify  various ground objects like forests, man-made  surfaces, roads etc.  For example, healthy crops  contain infra-red light whereas forests reflect  different colours of the spectrum, making the  spectrum information an important component of  geographical information analysis. This  advancement of technology is due to combination of  telecommunication and computer engineering (See:  webopedia.com). The above discussion is important because  Deepak Agarwal has relied upon photo printing  analysis done by him with the help of CAD  (Computer Aided Designing).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

The issue which is required to be considered is  whether ERDAS IMAGINE 8.6 used by NRSA is  better than CAD which is a programme used by  Deepak Agarwal.  We have indicated broadly the  advanced features of the software, viz., ERDAS  IMAGINE 8.6.  On the other hand, CAD, is also a  software used by engineers to view a design from an  angle with the push of a button and to zoom in and  zoom out for close-ups and long distance views.  It  helps the computer to tract designs.  CAD software  generally examines the boundaries and that too in a  design.  In the present case, we are concerned with  the area covered by the forests.  Therefore, the  technology adopted by NRSA based on ERDAS  IMAGINE 8.6 is more reliable than CAD. Therefore, GIS links spatial data with  geographical information about a particular feature  on the map (See: volusia.org).         ii) GPS (Global Positioning System) GPS is a satellite based positioning system  operated by USA.  It consists of satellites.  It is a  data collection tool for GIS.  Basically, the signals  from the satellites in GPS are received by GPS  receivers on the earth.  Therefore, different stations  are earmarked on the earth covering a particular  area.  It is the matching of the satellite with the  receiver which plays an important role.  Certain  discrepancies in the matching are got over by  differential GPS (See: esri.com).         iii) IRS \026 LISS III         It stands for Linear Imaging Self Scanning  Sensor which is a multi-spectral camera.  LISS-III  products comprise of path/row products,  georeferenced products etc. (See: earth.esa.int).  It  helps to track areas and boundaries.  Combination  of LISS III with ERDAS-imagine is more reliable than  photo print analysis by CAD.  It is better to depend  on interpretation of IRS LISS III Digital Data by  EDRAS Imagine than by CAD. As stated above, the main challenge to the NRSA  report is that proper parameters have not been taken into  account and although better technology was available the  same was not deliberately resorted to.  The contention is  that CEC should have opted for the latest technology. We do not find merit in this argument.  The  technology of 2001, 2002 and 2003 is not to be  discarded.  The later technology gives more spatial  information but that does not mean that the information  given by the earlier technology is inaccurate.  The latest  technology under GIS can locate even a pin on the earth.   However, we are not concerned with such a tiny object in  this case.  Be that as it may, we may also point out that  even in the State of Forest Report 2003, FSI has based its  figures of forest cover by using Digital Image Processing  (DIP) by using the scale of interpretation of 1:50000.   Further, in that report, FSI has relied upon the  introduction of a new methodology based on remote  sensing to estimate the trees covered below 1 hectare  which cannot be discerned by using LISS-III data.  Under  the new method, a canopy of all forests that can be  delineated from satellite data (Sensor LISS-III) was  termed as forest cover.  Even under this new technology  adopted by FSI the spatial resolution of 23.5 mtr. of   LISS-III has been taken into account and by using DIP  technique, forest cover was mapped even in 2003 at a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

scale of 1: 50000.  Therefore, consistently, FSI has taken  the above parameters into account.  Hence, there is no  merit in the contentions raised by Deepak Agarwal saying  that CEC has been randomly selecting queries and data.         In short, NRSA’s report submitted through FSI is  reliable and we see no reason to reject it.  On the basis of  the said report, it can be said that AOI (area of interest)  does not qualify so as to be included in the category of  Deemed Forest i.e. a compact block of 10 hectares having  200 trees per hectare.         Before concluding, it may also be noted that except  Deepak Agarwal, other parties before us have not  questioned the conclusions in the second and the third  report of CEC that the land in question is not a forest  land.  Besides, Maruti being the allottee, the State of  Chhattisgarh, the Ministry of Environment and Forest,  Forest Survey of India and even SECL have not  questioned the conclusion of CEC that the land in  question is not a forest land.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, even on facts we  find no substance in the plea that the land allotted to  Maruti is forest land.  Accordingly, we accept the  recommendations of CEC as contained in the second and  third report.  As already noted, the dispute in respect of  the title is not a matter in issue before us.  Thus, we have  not examined this issue.         In conclusion, we dismiss the applications filed by  Deepak Agarwal with costs.  The applicant has abused  the process of law and deserves to be sternly dealt with.   The enormous judicial time has been wasted which could  have been used for deciding other cases.  It has also  resulted in CEC and others incurring huge expenses and  their wastage of time as well.  In this view, we quantify  costs at Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the applicant Deepak  Agarwal to CEC.  The cost, if not deposited with CEC  within four weeks, shall be executable as a decree.  The  amount of cost shall be utilized for preservation of forests  in State of Chhattisgarh.  The Special Leave Petition and  other applications are also disposed of in terms of this  judgment.