Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Original Application No. 169/2016 / KOLKATA

Disposition

dismissed

Acts

SECTION 2 A FOREST CONSERVATION ACT 1980
ORISSA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT 1980
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA ACT 1964
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT 1980
SECTION 2 FOREST CONSERVATION ACT 1980
LAND ACQUISITION ACT
ARTICLE 12 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
INDIAN FOREST ACT
provisions of Section 4 of the OIIDC Act, 1980,
Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the OIIDC Act, 1980,
Article 73 subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive
2.8 of Forest (Conservation) Act
Section 32 of the OIIDC Act, 1980,
Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the OIIDC Act, 1980,
Section 3 of the OIIDC Act, 1980.
Commission Act, 1959
Section 2(i) OIIDC Act, 1980,
25. Section 4 (2) of the OIIDC Act, 1980,
Section 2(h) of the OIIDC Act, 1980,
Corporation Act, 1956, Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 and Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948,
provisions of Rule 6 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003,
provisions of Section 13 of the OIIDC Act, 1980
Sec. 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Section 15 of the OIIDC Act, 1980
Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation. Section 3
Act." 23. Section 15 of the OIIDC Act, 1980
22. Section 3 of the OIIDC Act, 1980
Rule 6.1 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

National Green Tribunal (Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata) — Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This Original Application (No. 169/2016/EZ; M.A. No. 23/2017/EZ) was filed by four applicants (residents of Chandia and Gobarghati villages, District Jajpur) alleging that Respondent No.5 (Tata Steel Limited, Kalinganagar) was constructing a boundary wall and felling trees on forest land in Chandia and Gobarghati without obtaining required approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The applicants asserted that Tata Steel had taken possession of land from IDCO and had not applied for forest clearance for such non-forest use.

Procedurally, the record shows:

Environmental Clearance for the Tata Steel project (Phase-I, 3.0 MTPA) was granted on 07.11.2006; Phase-I commissioned November 2015 and an expansion to higher capacity was later proposed by Respondent No.5.
Applicants and villagers submitted a petition to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) on 27.09.2016 and filed an RTI on 24.08.2016; Ministry responded on 21.09.2016 indicating no Forest Clearance to Tata Steel (as per applicants' claim).
Respondents filed counter-affidavits: Tata Steel produced documents asserting that 1419.95 hectares of forest land had earlier been granted forest clearance under Section 2 (letters dated 03.02.1993 and 06.02.1993, and a clarification dated 14/17.01.2005), and IDCO/DFO produced a Site Inspection Report (16.12.2016) addressing the status of the land and construction activity.
The Tribunal reserved judgment on 8 March 2022 and pronounced it on 5 April 2022. The Tribunal allowed publication of the judgment on the net and in the NGT Reporter.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Respondent No.5 (Tata Steel Limited) had constructed a boundary wall and felled trees on forest land in Chandia and Gobarghati without obtaining requisite prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Whether the 1419.95 hectares of forest land for which the Ministry accorded Stage-II approval (vide letters of 1993 and clarification of 2005) included the 77.420 acres in Chandia and Gobarghati, and whether the allotment/lease of that land by IDCO to Tata Steel was lawful and effective.
Whether IDCO (Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation) is a statutory body that must be treated as 'State' or 'other authority' for purposes of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the consequences of that status for who could apply for forest diversion.
Whether, after forest clearance had been granted in favour of the State/IDCO, the user agency (Tata Steel) was required to separately apply for forest clearance.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

Tata Steel (Respondent No.5) was constructing a boundary wall on forest land and felling trees without obtaining prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
IDCO (Respondent No.6) did not have authority to hand over forest land to a private company without the private company making requisite applications (Form 'A' / Form 'I') for diversion to the State Government and the Ministry.
The lease agreement (1996) between IDCO and Tata Steel did not record that Forest Clearance had been granted in 1993; clause (viii) allegedly precluded transfer until final approval for diversion was issued by the Government of India.
Tata Steel, as the user agency in possession, had not itself applied for forest clearance in Form 'A' and thus its use was in violation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Respondents' Arguments

Respondent No.5 (Tata Steel) produced a counter-affidavit asserting that Stage-II Forest Clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was granted in respect of 1419.95 hectares on 03.02.1993 (with a subsequent memo dated 06.02.1993) and that the land allocation to Tata Steel was part of that diversion.
Respondent No.6 (Divisional Forest Officer/IDCO) and the Site Inspection Report stated the 77.420 acres in Chandia and Gobarghati were included within the 1419.950 hectares cleared in 1993 and clarified in 2005; the boundary wall was being built on land already accorded forest clearance and Tata Steel had not felled Sal trees but cleared miscellaneous bushes; some tree felling nearby was by local tribal inhabitants.
The State and IDCO argued that the original proposal for diversion was moved by the Government of Odisha (07.11.1991) and Stage-II approval was granted by the Ministry on 03.02.1993; IDCO, being a statutory corporation created under the OIIDC Act, 1980, had powers to hold and allot the land and acted under State authority.
Respondents contended that once the State/IDCO had obtained forest diversion for the specified area, there was no requirement for the lessee (Tata Steel) to reapply for forest clearance in respect of the same land.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors., (1975) 1 SCC 421	Holds that certain statutory bodies (e.g., Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation) function as agencies/authorities of Government; statutory bodies may be 'authorities' within Article 12 of the Constitution.	The Tribunal relied on the reasoning in Sukhdev Singh to conclude that a statutory corporation with pervasive State control can be treated as 'State' under Article 12; this supported the finding that IDCO is a 'State' actor for purposes of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. v. Hari Om Enterprises & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 208	Recognizes that a State Industrial Development Corporation may be 'State' under Article 12 and that its functions and character can render it subject to constitutional requirements (e.g., fairness under Article 14).	The Tribunal cited this decision to reinforce that IDCO (an industrial infrastructure development corporation) is 'State' within Article 12; the decision supported the conclusion that IDCO's powers and functions (allotment, transfer, control by State) bear on the validity of the diversion/allotment process.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's analysis proceeded in discrete steps based on the record:

Documentary Record and Site Inspection: The Tribunal reviewed documents produced by respondents (letters dated 03.02.1993 and 06.02.1993, clarification dated 14/17.01.2005) and a Site Inspection Report (16.12.2016) by the Divisional Forest Officer, which recorded that Stage-II approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 had been granted for 1419.950 hectares of forest land in the Kalinganagar Industrial Complex, explicitly including the 77.420 acres in Chandia and Gobarghati. The Site Inspection observed boundary-wall construction (half constructed) and recorded that Tata Steel had not felled Sal trees in the process; any observed felling was by local tribal inhabitants clearing bushes.
Nature and Effect of 1993 Approval and 2005 Clarification: The Tribunal noted that the original Stage-II approval (03.02.1993) included a set of nine conditions; condition (ii) originally stated "No forest land will be utilized for construction of factory, township etc." but was later deleted by a clarification in 2005. The 2005 letter imposed other conditions (supervision by RCCF, plantation of vacant land, compliance of remaining earlier conditions, creation of green belt).
Statutory Character of IDCO and its Capacity to Hold/Allot Land: The Tribunal examined the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 (OIIDC Act). It noted provisions (Preamble; Sections 2(h), 2(i), 3, 4, 13, 15, 32) establishing IDCO as a statutory corporation with powers to acquire, hold, lease and allot land, subject to State control and directions. The Tribunal concluded that IDCO, given its statutory structure and pervasive State control, is a juristic person and qualifies as 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution. The Tribunal relied on precedents (Sukhdev Singh and the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation case) for this conclusion.
Who May Apply Under Section 2, Forest (Conservation) Act: The Tribunal analyzed Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rule 6 requirement that a "user agency" must file proposal in Form 'A' etc. It emphasized that Section 2 contemplates that the State Government or "other authority" makes the application to the Central Government for diversion. Because IDCO is a statutory authority which acts for and under the State, and because the proposal dated 07.11.1991 was initiated by the State Government (with IDCO/IPICOL involvement noted in record), the Tribunal held the process of initiation and grant of Stage-II approval on 03.02.1993 was valid.
Effect of Clearance Granted to State/IDCO on Need for Separate Clearance by Lessee: The Tribunal reasoned that once forest clearance for the land was granted in favour of the State/IDCO, there was no requirement for the lessee (Tata Steel) to again seek forest-clearance for the same land. Thus, the absence of a separate Form 'A' application by Tata Steel did not, in the Tribunal's view, amount to illegality because the clearance had already been granted to the State/IDCO.
On Para 2.8 and Transfer Fee Guidelines: The Tribunal considered an objection regarding compliance with para 2.8 of certain Forest (Conservation) guidelines (concerning transfer fees to discourage middlemen) and observed that those guidelines were directed at mining leases and had no application to the present lease/allotment by IDCO. The Tribunal also observed that there had been no transfer of lease by IDCO to Tata Steel such that the transfer-fee objection was inapplicable.
Conclusion from Conspectus of Facts and Law: Given the documentary evidence of Stage-II clearance (1993) and its clarification (2005), the Site Inspection Report confirming the inclusion of the 77.420 acres and the conduct of boundary-wall construction within land allotted by IDCO, and the legal determination that IDCO is a 'State' authority able to apply for diversion under Section 2, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicants' challenge.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

Original Application No. 169/2016/EZ is dismissed.

The Tribunal expressly recorded:

The Original Application had "no merit" and was dismissed (paragraph 43 of the judgment).
The Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 23/2017/EZ) was disposed of (paragraph 44).
There shall be no order as to costs (paragraph 45).

Implications:

Direct effect: The applicants' challenge to the legality of Tata Steel's boundary-wall construction and alleged felling on the 77.420 acres for which Stage-II forest clearance had been granted was rejected; Respondent No.5's use (within the area declared diverted and allotted by IDCO) was upheld on the facts and documents before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal concluded that IDCO is a statutory body that can be treated as 'State' for purposes of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that the State/IDCO's earlier securing of forest clearance obviated the need for a separate user-agency application by Tata Steel for the same land.
No broader policy or precedent beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation and cited Supreme Court authorities was newly established by this decision; the judgment applies the cited precedents and existing statutory framework to the facts at hand and resolves the dispute between the parties accordingly.

Dates and publication: Judgment reserved 8 March 2022; pronounced 5 April 2022. The Tribunal allowed publication on the internet and in the NGT Reporter (as recorded in the judgment).

This summary is prepared strictly from the content of the provided opinion and contains no additions or inferences beyond the material in that opinion.

Show full summary ...

MANOJ KUMAR BANARA AT-BALIGOTHA CHANDIA PO-GOBARGHATI PS-KALINGANAGARDIST. JAJPUR v. STATE OF ODISHA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ODISHA SECRETARIAT BUILDING

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

EASTERN ZONE BENCH,

KOLKATA

............

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 169/2016/EZ (M.A. No. 23/2017/EZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Manoj Kumar Banara, At-Baligotha, Chandia, PO-Gobarghati, P.S.-Kalinganagar, District-Jajpur, - 755026,

2. Sikandar Banra, At-Baligotha, Chandia, P.O.-Gobarghati, P.S.-Kalinganagar, District-Jajpur - 755026,

3. Smt. Sini Soy, At/P.O.-Gobarghati, P.S.-Kalinganagar, District-Jajpur - 755026,

4. Ramaray Jarika, At/P.O.-Gobarghati, P.S.-Kalinganagar, District-Jajpur - 755026,

....Applicant(s)

Versus

1. State of Odisha, Through Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Odisha,

Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar,

Pin - 751001,

2. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh,

New Delhi - 110003,

3. District Collector, Jajpur, At/PO-Jajpur, Odisha, Pin - 755007,

4. Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack, At/Po/Dist-Madhupatana, Cuttack, Odisha - 753010,

5. Tata Steel Limited Ltd., Kalinganagar, Through Vice President (Operations), Block-2, General Office,

At/Po-Duburi, District-Jajpur, Odisha - 755026,

6. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation

(IDCO),

Through Managing Director, At/Po-IDCO Tower, Janpath, Bhubaneswar, Pin - 751022,

....Respondent(s)

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:

Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, Advocate

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :

Mr. Ashok Parija, Advocate General a/w Mr. Tarun Patnaik, ASC and Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani, Advocate for R-1, 3 & 4, Mr. Gora Chand Roy Choudhury, Advocate for R-2, Mr. Rakesh Dwevedi, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Debashis Kundu, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Jaydeve Ghorai, Advocate and Mr. Dipbesh Ghorai, Advocate for R-5, Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Ramesh Sahoo, Advocate & Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate for R-6,

JUDGMENT

PRESENT:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA (EXPERT MEMBER)

__________________________________________________________________ Reserved On:- 8^th March, 2022

Pronounce On:- 5^th April, 2022

__________________________________________________________________

1. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the net? Yes

2. Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter? Yes

__________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

2. This Original Application has been filed by the Applicants, who are four in number, alleging that the Respondent No.5, Tata Steel Limited Ltd., Kalinganagar, is constructing a boundary wall for its Integrated Steel Plant on forest land situated in Chandia and Gobarghati villages and in the process is felling trees without taking requisite approval as required under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 from the Central Government. It is stated that the Respondent No.5 has set-up a Steel Plant for production of

6.0 MTPA of crude steel in Kalinganagar Industrial Complex, Odisha. Environmental Clearance for the said project was granted by the Respondent No.2, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, on 07.11.2006 and Phase-I of the Integrated Steel Plant for production of 3.0 MTPA crude steel was commissioned in November 2015.

3. The genesis of the present controversy appears to be when the Respondent No.5 sought to expand its plant production capacity to

8.0 MTPA of crude steel by increasing the capacity of individual units and optimizing the capacities of the existing plant site. The production plan of the proposed expansion, according to the Applicants, is as under:-

Crude Steel - 8.00 MTPA

Hot Rolled Coils - 7.00 MTPA

Cold Rolled Products - 2.20 MTPA

Long Products - 2.00 MTPA (Bar, Wire

Rod, Medium & Light)

4. The Applicants alleged that they, along with other local villagers, submitted a public petition before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack (Respondent No.4 herein), complaining about the felling of trees and illegal construction of boundary wall on forest land vide their petition dated 27.09.2016. An RTI application was also moved on 24.08.2016 to which a response was submitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change on 21.09.2016, pointing out that no Forest Clearance had been granted to the Tata Steel Limited, Kalinganagar, (Respondent No.5. herein). The Applicants have also filed a Deed of Delivery of Possession dated 26.09.2005 (page no. 19 of the paper book), showing that the Respondent No.5 has taken over possession of

932.321 acres of land (822.501 acres of acquired Private Land +

32.400 acres of Govt. Land as Schedule 'A' and 77.420 acres of Govt. Land as Schedule 'B') along with trees standing thereon from the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation,

Bhubaneswar, ('IDCO' in short), Respondent No.6 herein, in Chandia & Gobarghati Villages of Sukinda Tehsil.

5. The case of the Applicants is that the Respondent No.5, being the user agency, has taken forest land for non-forest activity but has never applied for any Forest Clearance nor has any such approval been granted as required under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is further alleged that the Respondent No.6, IDCO, Bhubaneswar, does not have any authority for handing over of forest land to a private company which has never applied for the same under Form 'I'/Form 'A' to the State Government and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt. of India, for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. It is stated that Rule 6.1 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, requires that every user agency that wants to use any forest land for non-forest purposes shall make its proposal in the relevant form appended to the rules, namely, Form 'A' for proposal seeking first time approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, Form 'B' for proposal seeking renewal of leases where approval of Central Government under the Act of 1980 has already been obtained and Form 'C' for prospecting of minerals to the Nodal Officer of the concerned State Government or the Union Territory Administration as the case may be along with requisite information and documents complete in all respects.

6. A counter-affidavit dated 16.03.2017 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5, Tata Steel Limited, Kalinganagar, stating

that 1419.95 hectares of forest land had been granted Forest, Clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the purpose setting up of iron ore based industries at Jakhapura subject to 9 conditions vide letter dated 03.02.1993 which were later re-numbered as Memo No. 3155 of F & E dated

06.02.1993.

7. The Respondent No.5, Tata Steel Limited, has also filed an affidavit dated 03.02.2017 along with which the documents dated 03.02.1993 and 06.02.1993 have been filed as Annexures. These 9 conditions as mentioned in page 248 of the paper, read as under:-

i. Legal status of the forest land will remain unchanged.

ii. No forest land will be utilized for construction of factory, township etc.

iii. Compensatory plantation to be raised over equivalent non-forest land which will be notified as protected forest under Indian Forest Act.

iv. 176 ha. of forest area proposed for construction of township should be located in the non-forest area proposed for construction of township should be located in the non-forest area and the proposed area should be used for green belt plantation using mainly indigenous species at the cost of the project.

v. No forest land should be utilized for rehabilitation of oustees.

vi. In 76 ha. forest area which contains 1.13 lakhs trees, no tree cutting shall be done & this area shall be part of green belt.

vii. Free supply of firewood shall be given to the labourers working on the project.

viii. In the green belt indigenous species shall be planted.

ix. Conditions stipulated while granting site clearance/environmental clearance shall be strictly adhere to."

The document filed (at page no. 249 of the paper book), along with the affidavit of Respondent No.5, shows the diversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land for the purpose of iron ore industries at Jakhapura (Near Daitari) in Cuttack District of Odisha after deletion of Condition No. (ii) of the Final Approval granted vide Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change letter no. 8- 213-91 FC date 03.02.1993 which has been sent from Asst. Inspector General of Forests, Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O. New Delhi, addressed to the Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

8. What is noteworthy and what has also been pointed out by Mr. Rakesh Dwevedi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 as well as Mr. S. P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.6 and the learned Advocate General Mr. Ashok Parija appearing for State of Odisha, is that though permission was granted for diversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land but condition no. (ii) envisaged that no forest land will be utilized for construction of factory, township etc. This frustrated the very purpose of grant of sanction/approval by the Government of India for diversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land.

9. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the proposal in prescribed proforma for diversion of 1419.95 hectares of

forest land spreading over nine villages in sukinda Tehsil of Cuttack District for setting up of Integrated Steel Plant, had been moved by the Govt. of Odisha, Forest and Environment Department through its proposal dated 07.11.1991 and on this application Sanction/Approval was finally granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt. of India, on 06.02.1993. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt. of India, however, realized that the condition no. (ii) was per se retrograde to the very purpose of granting approval for conversion of forest land to non-forest land and, therefore, a clarification was issued on 14/17.01.2005 whereby condition no. (ii) was deleted from the earlier letter dated 06.02.1993. This letter of 14/17.01.2005 stipulated the following conditions which read as under:-

1. Minimum area for construction of factories shall be utilized under supervision of the RCCF, Bhubaneswar.

2. Vacant land/land remaining after the establishment of the factories shall be planted up at the project cost under supervision of State Forest Department.

3. State Government shall ensure compliance of the remaining conditions incorporated in the final approval granted vide Ministry's letter dated 3/4-2-1993, by the user agency.

4. Green belt shall be created by the user agency at the earliest as per earlier stipulation vide letter dated 3/4-2- 1993."

10. The Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, Respondent No.6, has filed its counter-affidavit dated 31.01.2017 reiterating the same facts and has further stated that the Respondent No.5 is constructing a boundary wall along the Eastern, Southern and Western side of the land area occupied on lease from IDCO. The boundary wall is being constructed on the forest land which has already been granted Forest Clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is also stated that 77.42 acres of forest land in Chandia & Gobarghati Mouza was included in the proposal for diversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land moved by the IDCO to facilitate the construction of Integrated Steel Plant Project at Jakhpura near Daitari in Cuttack District (now Jajpur District), Odisha and, therefore, it is not correct to say that the boundary wall is being constructed by the Respondent No.5 on forest land for which no approval has been granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change as required under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

11. Another affidavit also dated 31.01.2017 has been filed by the Respondent No.4, Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, bringing on record a Site Inspection Report of an inspection carried out on 16.12.2016 which clearly records that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has accorded Stage-II approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for 1419.950 hectares of forest land vide its letter No. 8-213-91-FC dated 03.02.1993 and clarified on 14/17.01.2005, in favour of IDCO, Bhubaneswar, for the entire forest land in Kalinganagar

Industrial Complex including the 77.420 acres of forest land in Village-Chandia and Gobarghati. The forest land has then been allotted/leased out by the IDCO to different industrial houses at Kalinganagar including M/s Tata Steel Ltd. (Respondent No.5 herein). The Site Inspection Report of Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division is being reproduced herein below:-

"Site Inspection Report of Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack, Forest Division.

.............. xxx ................ xxx ............... xxx .................... .............. xxx ................ xxx ............... xxx .................... It is a fact that M/s TATA Steel Ltd. has used forest

land at Kalingnagar for establishment of steel plant. It is alleged in the OA that prior approval of Central Govt.

under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has not been obtained for 77.420 Ac. of forest land in Chandia

and Gobarghati villages. In fact, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India have accorded Stage-II approval under Sec. 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for

1419.950 ha. of forest land vide their Letter No. 8-213-91- FC dt. 03.02.1993 & dt. 14/17/01/2005 in favour of

Infrastructure Development Corporation of Odisha (IDCO) for the entire forest land in Kalingnagar Industrial

Complex including the 77.420 Ac. Forest land in village Chandia and Gobarghati. The said diverted forest has

been allotted/leased out by IDCO to different industrial houses at Kalinganagar including M/s TATA STEEL LTD.

The details of village wise plot no., area, kissam of land & area diverted under F (C) Act, 1980 in respect of Chandia & Gobarghati village are furnished below.

Name of Khata No. Plot No. Kissam Total Area diverted

village area in in Ac. As per

Ac. F(C) Act.

Gobarghati	75	162	Jhati Jungle	9.82	9.82
		256	Sal Jungle	5.59	5.59
		286	Dali Jungle	0.300	0.300
		288	Sal Jungle	14.00	14.00
		553(p)	Dali Jungle	62.30	3.210
		Total			32.920
Chandia	96	7A&B	Sal Jungle		41.410
		71	Jhati Jungle		3.09
		Total			44.5
		G. Total			77.420

Therefore the allegation that prior permission of Central

Govt. has not been obtained is not correct.

As regards felling of trees and construction of boundary

wall, the field position was verified. The TATA steel

authorities are constructing boundary wall along eastern,

southern and western side of the area occupied on lease

from IDCO. The boundary walls are now half constructed.

the boundary wall is being constructed on the forest land

which has already been accorded with forest clearance

under Sec. 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the

alleged forest land of 77.420 Ac. As per the details

furnished above is well inside the land allotted by IDCO to

M/s TATA Steel Ltd. (Respondent No.5). Therefore, the

allegation with regard to construction of boundary wall on

non-diverted forest land of 77.420 Ac. Is not correct.

Felling of few miscellaneous trees was observed at some

places by the local tribal inhabitants adjoining to

boundary wall but M/s TATA Steel Ltd. have not felled

any Sal trees as alleged in the application while

constructing the boundary wall. They are cleaning

miscellaneous bushes which are coming on the way of

boundary line. The M/s TATA Steel Ltd. (Respondent No.5)

is not causing any harm to medicinal plants available in

nearby forested hillocks and so also to wildlife."

12. The Respondent No.2, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in its counter-affidavit dated 17.03.2017 has also

confirmed the facts that a proposal had been submitted to the said Ministry by the Govt. of Odisha vide its letter dated 07.11.1991 for diversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest and for purposes of iron ore based industry at Jakhapura (Near Daitari) in Cuttack District. The proposed project was for setting up of one Integrated Steel Plant of

3 MTPA capacity, two Steel Plants of 1-1.3 MTPA, two Pig Iron Plants, one Hot Strip Mill and other ancillary industries at the site. It is stated that the proposal was initiated by the IDCO, Bhubaneswar, (Respondent No.6 herein), and Stage-II (Final) approval for diversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land for the purpose of iron ore based industry at Jakhapura was granted by the Ministry vide its letter dated 03.02.1993.

13. The Respondent No.5, Tata Steel Limited, in its affidavit dated 16.03.2017 has reiterated the same facts and it is also stated that the IDCO, Bhubaneswar, (Respondent No.6 herein), allotted the following required land for the steel project vide its allotment letters which are as under:-

i. Allotment letter 14154 dated 17.05.2005 for land measuring 2000 acres of village Chandia, Gadapur, Gobarghati and Nuagaon under Sukinda Tahsil, District-Jajpur.

ii. Allotment letter no. 11339 dated 21.06.2007 for land measuring 140.398 acres of village Chandi & Gobarghati under Sukinda Tahasil, District-Jajpur.

iii. Allotment letter no. 11335 dated 21.06.2007 for land measuring 400 acres of village Gadapur, Khurunti & Chandia under Sukinda Tahasil, District-Jajpur.

iv. Allotment letter no. 11331 dated 21.06.2007 for land measuring 500 acres of village Gadapur, Khurunti,

Nuagaon & Chandia under Sukinda Tahasil, District- Jajppur.

With reference to the land situated in Chandia and Gobarghati villages, it is stated that the total area is 932.321 acres of land comprising of; Private Land measuring 822.501 acres, Government/Non-forest land measuring 32.400 acres and Government Forest Land measuring 77.420 acres. It is also stated that the land measuring 77.42 acres is part of the original land area of 1419.45 hectares for which Forest Clearance has already been granted for non-forest use vide letter dated 03/04.02.1993. It is also stated that the Deed of Delivery of Possession of 932.321 acres of land in Chandia and Gobarghati villages comprising of approximately 377.420 acres of Government Land which was prior to Delivery of Possession to the Respondent No.5 by the IDCO, Bhubaneswar and the said land had already been diverted for non- forest purposes.

14. Mr. Rakesh Dwevedi, learned Senior Counsel referring to the original proposal/application dated 07.11.1991, submitted by the State Govt. to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, pointed out that the total requirement of the proposed project mentioned therein was 4019.13 hectares spreading over nine revenue villages of Sukinda Tahasil and its break-up reads as under:-

Private Land .. 2345.43 ha.

Govt. non forest land .. 253.75 ha.

Forest land .. 1419.95 ha.

Total .. 4019.13 ha.

Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the document dated 31.08.2004 (page no. 298 of the paper book), issued by the General Manager, IDCO, Bhubaneswar, to the Chief Conservator of Forest (Nodal), Bhubaneswar, mentioning the total area of the nine villages as Ace. 3507.290 (1419.950 hectares).

15. Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, learned Counsel for the Applicant, however, referring to the lease agreement dated 18.01.1996 executed between the IDCO, Bhubaneswar, (Respondent No.6 herein) and the Respondent No.5, submitted that clause (viii) thereof proves that the lessee is not empowered to transfer the demised land in favour of the user agency until and unless final approval order for diversion of the forest land is issued by the Government of India. The learned Counsel submitted that the agreement does not mention that Forest Clearance had been granted in 1993 and if that had been the position, it would certainly have found mention in the lease deed of 1996 executed between the IDCO, Bhubaneswar and the Respondent No.5.

16. So far as the Forest Clearance of 1993 is concerned, the proposal of the Govt. of Odisha dated 07.11.1991 as well as the Forest Clearance letter dated 06.02.1993 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, are already part of the record and, therefore, there is absolutely no iota of doubt or dispute that Forest Clearance for the land in question has been granted by

the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, therefore, non-mention of the same in the Lease Deed executed between Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.6 would be of no consequence.

17. Mr. Pani next submitted that the IDCO, Bhubaneswar, (Respondent No.6 herein), itself was a lessee having received the land from the State Government and, therefore, it could not have been transferred the same to Respondent No.5.

18. Mr. Rakesh Dwevedi has referred to the various provisions of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1980 (in short OIIDC Act, 1980), copy of which has been filed by the Additional Standing Counsel for State Respondents, and submitted that IDCO itself has been created under Section 3 of the OIIDC Act,

1980.

19. A reference to the Preamble of the OIIDC Act, 1980 would enable us to understand the scheme and purpose of the OIIDC Act, 1980. The Preamble of which reads as under:-

" Whereas it is expedient to make special provision for securing the orderly establishment of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State of Orissa and to assist generally in the organization thereof, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."

20. 'Industrial Area' has been defined in Section 2(h) of the OIIDC Act, 1980, to mean any area declared to be an industrial area by

the State Government by notification, which is to be developed and where industries, industrial housing and related services are to be accommodated.

21. 'Industrial Estate' has been defined in Section 2(i) OIIDC Act, 1980, to mean any site selected by the State Government where the Corporation builds factories and other buildings, services and amenities and makes them available for any industry or class of industries.

22. Section 3 of the OIIDC Act, 1980 provides for establishment by the State Government, of a Corporation by the name of Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation. Section 3 reads as under:-

"3. Establishment and incorporation. - (1) For the purpose of securing and assisting in the rapid and orderly establishment and organization of industries, trade and commerce in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State of Orissa, there shall be established by the State Government, by notification, a Corporation by the name of the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation.

(2) The Corporation shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, and may sue and be sued in its corporate name, and shall be competent to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract and do all things necessary for the purposes of this Act."

23. Section 15 of the OIIDC Act, 1980 empowers the Corporation to acquire and hold such property including transfer of any such

property held by it on such conditions as may be deemed proper by the Corporation. Section 15 of the OIIDC Act, 1980 reads as under:-

15. General power of the Corporation:- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Corporation shall have power:

(a) to acquire and hold such property, both movable and immovable as the Corporation may deem necessary for the performance of any of its activities, and to lease, sell, exchange or otherwise transfer any property held by it on such conditions as may be deemed proper by the Corporation;

(b) to purchase by agreement or to take on lease or under any form of tenancy any land to erect such buildings and to execute such other works as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out its duties and functions;

(c) to allot plots, factory sheds or buildings or part of bui9ldings, including residential tenements, to suitable persons in the industrial estates established or developed by the Corporation;

(d) to modify or rescind such allotments, including the right and power to evict the allottees concerned on breach of any of the terms or conditions of the allotment;

(e) to constitute advisory committees to advise the Corporation;

(f) to engage suitable consultants or persons having special knowledge or skill to assist the Corporation in the performance of its functions;

(g) to enter into and perform all such contracts as it may consider necessary or expedient for carrying out any of its functions; and

(h) to do such other things and perform such acts as it may think necessary or expedient for the proper conduct of its functions and the carrying into effect the purposes of this Act."

24. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the provisions of Section 4 of the OIIDC Act, 1980, and submitted that under the

terms of the Act there shall be a Board of Directors for purposes of general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of the Corporation which shall vest in a Board of Directors and this Board of Directors shall exercise all the powers and discharge all the functions which may be exercised or discharged by the Corporation.

25. Section 4 (2) of the OIIDC Act, 1980, further lays down that there shall be 15 Board of directors who shall be as under:-

"(2) The Board of Directors shall consist of fifteen Directors, namely:-

(i) Secretary to Government in the Industries Department;

(ii) Secretary to Government in the Finance Department;

(iii) Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department;

(iv) Director of Industries, Orissa;

(v) Chairman, Orissa State Electricity Board;

(vi) Managing Director, Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited;

(vii) Managing Director, Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited;

(viii) Managing Director, Orissa State Financial Corporation;

(ix) Managing Director, Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited;

(x) Chief Engineer, Public Health Department;

(xi) Managing Director of the Corporation;

(xii) Four Directors nominated by the State Government from amongst persons appearing to it to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, industry or trade or finance, or who, in the opinion of the State Government, are capable of representing the interest of persons engaged or employed therein."

26. The learned Advocate General also submitted that Sub-section

(3) of Section 4 of the OIIDC Act, 1980, provides that one of the Directors shall be appointed as Chairman of the Board by the State Government. Thus, the character of IDCO is not only statutory but one wholly controlled by the Government.

27. The learned Advocate General also drew our attention to Section 32 of the OIIDC Act, 1980, which provides that for purposes of furtherance of the objects of the Act, the State Government may upon such conditions as may be agreed upon between the Government and the Corporation, place at the disposal of the Corporation any land vested under the State Government and after such and has been developed by or under the control and supervision of the Corporation, it shall be dealt with by the Corporation in accordance with regulations made under the OIIDC Act, 1980 and directions given by the State Government in that behalf. Section 32 of the OIIDC Act, 1980, reads as under:-

"32. Transfer of Government Lands to the Corporation:- (1) For the furtherance of the objects of this Act the State Government may, upon such conditions as may be agreed upon between the Government and the Corporation, place at the disposal of the Corporation any land vested in the State Government.

(2) After any such land had been developed by or under the control and supervision of the Corporation, it shall be dealt with by the Corporation in accordance with the regulations made under this Act and the directions given by the State Government in that behalf."

28. Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani, however, submitted that at the time when the proposal was forwarded by the Government of Odisha to the Central Government on 07.11.1991 for conversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land to non-forest land, the IDCO was never referred to and, in fact, it was the Managing Director, Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited, ('IPICOL' in short), who had initiated the proposal by intimating the site for the proposed project and, therefore, if at all the lease could have been between the IPICOL and the Respondent No.5 and there was no Forest Clearance in favour of IPICOL or IDCO, Bhubaneswar.

29. The submission of learned Counsel may be rejected at the outset by reference to the provisions of Section 13 of the OIIDC Act, 1980 which reads as under:-

13. Corporation to absorb certain staff and to assume obligations of State Government in respect of matters to which this Act applies.:- (1) The Corporation shall take over and employ such of the existing staff serving for the purposes of the Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited and the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited as the State Government may direct, and every person so taken over and employed shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder;

Provided that the conditions of service of the members of the staff who are taken over by the Corporation shall in no way be less advantageous than those which were applicable to them immediately prior to their absorption.

(2) All obligations incurred, all contracts entered into and all matters and things engaged to be done, before the first

establishment of the Corporation, by, with or for the State Government or the Corporations aforesaid for any of the purposes of this Act, in respect of any schemes for the development of industrial estates or industrial areas entrusted to the Corporation, shall be deemed to have been incurred, entered into or engaged to be done, by, with or for the Corporation; and accordingly all suits or other legal proceedings instituted or which might have been instituted by or against the State Government or the Corporation aforesaid, as the case may be, may be continued or instituted by or against the Corporation.

(3) All expenditure which the State Government or the Corporations aforesaid may have incurred before the date of the coming into force of this Act in connection with any of the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be a grant to the Corporation under S. 21 on that date, and all assets acquired by such expenditure shall vest in the Corporation."

30. In (1975) 1 SCC 421 (Sukhdev Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors.); the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 and Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, in para nos. 43, 44, 45 and 50 held as under:-

"43. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 is an Act to provide for the establishment of a Commission for the development of petroleum resources and the production and sale of petroleum and petroleum products produced by it and for matters connected therewith. Article 298 stats that that the executive power of the Union and of each State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade or business and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts. Under Article 73 subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive

power of the Union shall extend to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws; and to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement. The Union is competent to carry on trade and business in mines and mineral resources. The power of the Union is co-extensive with the legislative power of the Parliament. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission is established for the development of petroleum resources and the production and sale of petroleum and petroleum products. The exploitation of the resources is by the Union through the agency of the statutory commission. The members of the commission are appointed by the Central Government. if they want to resign, resignation has to be sent to the Central Government. Termination of appointment of members is by the Central Government. The powers and functions of the Commission are those assigned by the statute and such functions as the Central Government may assign. No industry which will use any of the gases produced by the Commission as a raw material shall be set up by the Commission without the previous approval of the Central Government. The capital of the Commission is what has already been incurred by the Central Government as non- recurring expenditure in connection with the existing organization. The Central Government may also provide to the Commission any further capital which may be required by the Commission for carrying on its business. The Commission may, with the previous approval of the Central Government borrow money. The budget is to be in such form as the Central Government may prescribe. The Commission may not re-appropriate without the previous approval of the Central Government. The reports, accounts are to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India and these are not only to be forwarded to the Central Government but are also to be laid before the Parliament. The audit report is also to be placed before the Parliament. Any land required by the Commission is to be

acquired under the Land Acquisition Act as if it were required by a company. The Commission is empowered to enter upon any land or premises. The dissolution of the Commission is by the Central Government.

44. All these provisions indicate at each stage that the creation, composition of membership, the functions and powers, the financial powers, the audit of accounts, the returns, the capital, the borrowing powers, the dissolution of the Commission and acquisition of land for the purpose of the company and the powers of entry are all authority and agency of the Central Government.

45. The Life Insurance Corporation Act is an Act to provide for the nationalization of life insurance business in India by transferring all such business to the Corporation established for the purpose and to provide for the regulation and control of the business of the Corporation and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. On the appointed day, viz., July 1, 1956, all assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of all insurers became transferred to and vested in the Corporation. The service of existing employees of insurers was transferred to the Corporation. It became the duty of the controlled business of an insurer to deliver the same to the Corporation forthwith. The Corporation was empowered to reduce the amounts of insurance under contracts of life insurance in such matter and subject to such conditions as it thought fit. In the discharge of functions under the Act, the Corporation is guided by directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may give to it. If any question arises whether a direction related to a matter or policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government shall be final.

50. The structure of the Life Insurance Corporation indicates that the Corporation is an agency of the Government carrying on the exclusive business of life

insurance. Each and every provision shows in no uncertain terms that the voice is that of the Central Government and the hands are also of the Central Government."

31. With regard to the Industrial Finance Corporation being a Body Corporate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para nos. 51 & 52 held as under:-

"51. The Industrial Finance Corporation is a body corporate. The authorized capital of the Corporation shall be ten crores of rupees divided into twenty thousand fully paid up shares of five thousand rupees each. Ten thousand shares of the total value of five crores of rupees shall be issued in the first instance. The remaining shares may be issued with the sanction of the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India shall each subscribe for two thousand shares. Scheduled banks may subscribe for two thousand five hundreds shares, insurance company five hundred shares and co-operative banks for one thousand shares of the Corporation. It is significant that ordinary citizens cannot be shareholders. All shares of the Corporation held by the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India shall stand transferred to and vest in the Development Bank. As compensation therefor, the Development Bank shall pay to the Central Government and to the Reserve Bank respectively the face value of the shares held by that Government and by that Bank. The shares of the Corporation shall be guaranteed by the Central Government as to the repayment of the principal and the payment of the annual dividend at such minimum rate as may be fixed by the Central Government by notification. The Development Bank means the Industrial Development Bank of India established under the Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964.

52. The Chairman of the Corporation shall be appointed by the Central Government. Four Directors are nominated by the Development Bank; two directors are nominated by the Central Government; two directors are elected by scheduled banks; two directors are elected by scheduled banks; two directors are elected by shareholders of the corporation other than the Development Bank scheduled banks and the co-operative banks; two directions are elected by co-operative banks. The Central Government may remove the Chairman."

32. In para 67 of the judgment in Sukhdev Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the statutory bodies by referring to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation to be 'authorities' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Para 67 of the judgment reads as under:-

"67. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that rules and regulations framed by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation have the force of law. The employees of these statutory bodies have a statutory status and they are entitled to declaration of being in employment when their dismissal or removal is in contravention of statutory provisions. By way of abundant caution we state that these employees are not servants of the Union or the State. These statutory bodies are 'authorities' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution."

33. In (2009) 16 SCC 208 (Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. Vs. Hari Om Enterprises & Ors.); with reference to the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 4 held as under:-

"4. The appellant Corporation is a public sector undertaking. Its principal function is allotment of industrial plots belonging to the State of Haryana. It was set up as a catalyst for promoting economic growth and accelerating the pace of industrialization. It not only provides financial assistance to the industrial concerns by way of term loans; it also develops infrastructure for setting up of industrial units. The Corporation also invests money in developing the industrial estates at strategic locations. In exercise of its functions, it also allots industrial plots to entrepreneurs for setting up their industries on 'no-profit- no-loss' basis. The entrepreneurs, according to the Corporation, must be the deserving ones. For the said purpose, it keeps in mind the principle that allotment of land should not be made to speculators who invest in property for getting high returns on escalation of price."

34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 22 held the Corporation to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Para 22 reads as under:-

"22. The parties themselves agreed that despite the fact that the Corporation is a juristic person, an appeal against its decision shall lie to the Financial Commission of the State, indisputably, the function of the appellant is a sovereign function. It, in any event is State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its action, therefore, must be fair and reasonable so as to subserve the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution."

35. On a careful consideration of the Constitution, nature of business and the activities of the IDCO created under the OIIDC Act, 1980 and having regard to its powers and functions and pervasive control of the State Government, the Board of Directors,

we have no reason to doubt that IDCO is a juristic person being 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

36. We may next refer to the provisions of Section 13 of the OIIDC Act, 1980, make it amply clear that IDCO shall take over and employ such of the existing staff serving for purposes of the Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited and the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited as the State Government may direct and every person so taken over and employed shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the OIIDC Act, 1980, also makes all obligations incurred, all contracts entered into and all matters and things engaged to be done before first establishment of the Corporation by, with or for the State Government or the Corporations in respect of any scheme for development of industrial estates or industrial areas, shall be deemed to have been incurred, entered into or engaged to be done by, with or for the Corporation.

Thus, after the coming into force of the OIIDC Act, 1980, even if there is a reference to the Managing Director of IPICOL who made suggestions for development of any site as an industrial estate or industrial area, the same shall be deemed to have been made or carried out in pursuance of the OIIDC Act, 1980, and shall be deemed to be the Act of the Corporation i.e., IDCO under the OIIDC Act, 1980. Be that as it may, the documents on record, namely, the proposal dated 07.11.1991 was initiated by the State Government

of Odisha for grant of Forest Clearance to 1419.95 hectares of forest land for non-forest use.

37. Mr. S. P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel submitted that by virtue of provisions of the OIIDC Act, 1980, the IDCO remains the lessor and IDCO entered into a lease agreement with the Respondent No.5 on 24.09.2005 for a period of 99 years. Reference has been made to the lease deed and a perusal of the same would show that the lessor is the IDCO established under the OIIDC Act, 1980. The lease deed also mentions that the lessor as per the direction of the State Government obtained land in Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex near Duburi in the District of Jajpur for establishment of an industrial complex where Steel Plants, Refineries and other industries are proposed to be accommodated and industrial infrastructure and other amenities are proposed to be provided. Under this lease agreement, on an application made by the Respondent No.5, lessee, the IDCO has vide its allotment letter dated 17.09.2005 agreed to grant the lease comprising of 1970.903 acres of land to the Respondent No.5.

Referring to the conditions which are outlined in para 5 of the lease deed, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no transfer of the lease to the Respondent No.5 by IDCO and the status of IDCO continues to remain that of ''lessor' and the status of Respondent No.5 continues to remain that of 'lessee'. Mr. S.P. Mishra also drew our attention to para 30 of the lease deed which further provides that in the event that the demised

property or any part thereof at any time required by the lessor for any purpose declared by the State Government to be a public purpose, the lessor shall be entitled to resume the demised property or such part thereof and on giving six months notice in writing and on expiry of the said lease period may, through officer or person authorized by it in that behalf, may re-enter and take possession of demised property or part thereof and of all buildings and structures thereon and compensation as may be determined proper by the lessor will be paid to the lessee. This shows that there has been no transfer of property in favour of Respondent No.5 and the status of Respondent No.5 continues to remain that of a lessee.

38. Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani next submitted that under the provisions of Rule 6 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, it is the user agency who is required to submit an application in Form 'A' for use of any forest land for non-forest purposes. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Respondent No.5 never applied for seeking Forest Clearance in respect of land in its possession for use for non-forest purposes and, therefore, continuous use of such land by it was in gross violation of the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

39. The submission of the learned Counsel is completely misconceived and may be negated by reference to the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which reads as under:-

"2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. -

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing, -

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression 'reserved forest' in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

(iii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government;

(iv) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforesation." Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, clearly amplify and state in unambiguous terms that it is the State Government or other authority who shall make an application to the Central Government for use of forest land for non-forest purposes.

In the present case, we find that the application dated 07.11.1991 the proposal for conversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land for non-forest purposes was initiated by the State Government. Even if it may be accepted for the moment it was initiated on the proposal of the Managing Director IPICOL and IPICOL having merged in the IDCO after coming into force of the OIIDC Act, 1980, the IDCO which itself is a statutory authority

acting on behalf of the State Government under the provisions of the OIIDC Act, 1980 and is, therefore, a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, even if the application had been moved by the IDCO for conversion of forest land 1419.95 hectares for non-forest use, the same would have been valid as an application made by 'other authority' having regard to the language of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

40. In the present case the undisputed facts, however, are that it was the State Government which had initiated the proposal on 07.11.1991 for diversion of 1419.95 hectares of forest land to non- forest use and, therefore, we find no illegality in any such process of initiations by the State Government or in granting of Forest Clearance by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Respondent No.2, vide its letter dated 3/4.02.1993

41. We may also note that once Forest Clearance of the land in question for non-forest use had been granted in favour of the State Government, there was no requirement for again seeking Forest Clearance of the same land by the Respondent No.5. Even otherwise the Respondent No.5 is not 'other authority' for purposes of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

42. The affidavit of the Respondent No.6, IDCO, Bhubaneswar, dated 08.12.2021 further discloses a reference to the letter of the Special Secretary to Govt., Forest & Environment Dept. Odisha, dated 06.07.2017 addressed to Assistant Inspector General (Forests), MoEF&CC, Govt. of India, that 'transfer of forest land

through Deed of Delivery of Possession by IDCO to Tata Steel Ltd. in 2005 appears to have been affected due to lack of awareness', appears to have been expressed without taking the view of the IDCO into account. This has, however, been clarified by the State Government to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change vide its letter dated 03.10.2017 addressed to the Assistant Inspector General (Forests), MoEF&CC, Govt. of India, which states that in response to observation made at point (2) of the above letter of Forest and Environment Department with specific reference to application of para 2.8 of Forest (Conservation) Act guidelines in the instant case, the Chief General Manager (Environment) , IDCO, vide his letter No. 18011 dated 15.09.2017 has further indicated that following diversion of forest land to the extent of 1419.95 hectares spread over 9 villages, Collector, Jajpur sanctioned the lease of such diverted forest land vide his order No. 12 dated 04.01.1996 and land was transferred to IDCO through execution of lease deed and possession of land was handed over to IDCO by the concerned Tahasildar. Thus, IDCO is the sole lease holder and owner of the land. Thereafter IDCO had allotted the land to various industrial units for setting up of their industries including 77.14 acres of diverted forest land to M/s Tata Steel Limited for establishment of iron ore based industries there. However, ownership of land remains with IDCO and M/s Tata Steel Limited is only utilizing the land for establishment of their 6.00 MTPA Steel Plant. Thus, IDCO has observed that para 2.8 of Forest (Conservation) Act guidelines does not seem to be applicable in this case. The Ministry of

Environment, Forests and Climate Change was further requested to take note of the above comments of IDCO with regard to application of para 2.8 of Forest (Conservation) guidelines in the present context and communicate their further order, if any, for required compliance at this end. The letter dated 03.10.2017 is extracted in para 17 of the affidavit of the IDCO which reads as under:-

"..... Collector, Jajpur sanctioned the lease of such diverted forest land vide his order no. 12 dt. 04/01/1996 and the land was transferred to IDCO through execution of lease deed and possession of land was handed over to IDCO by concerned Tahasildar. Thus, IDCO is the sole lease holder and owner of the land. Thereafter, IDCO had allowed the land to various Industrial Units for setting of their Industries including Act. 77.14 of diverted forest land to M/s Tata Steel Ltd. for establishment of Iron Ore Based Industries there. However, ownership of land remains with IDCO and M/s Tata Steel is only utilizing the land for establishment of their 6.0 MTPA Steel Plant. Thus, IDCO have observed that para 2.8, FCI Act guidelines does not seem to be applicable in this case. Ministry is requested to take note of above comments of IDCO with regard to application of para 2.8 of FC Act Guidelines in this present context and communicated their further orders, if any for required compliances at this end."

This also negates the objection of the learned Counsel for the Applicants that para 2.8 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, having not been complied with and, in fact, the condition for levy of

10% of Net Present Value or Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) of whichever is less as transfer fee for purposes to discourage middle man from processing the proposal and then selling it to others. These guidelines are with regard to mining leases and have no application in the present case. It is a lease of forest land and in any case there is no transfer of lease by IDCO to Respondent No.5.

43. Therefore, on a conspectus of facts and reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the present Original Application and same is accordingly dismissed.

44. The M.A. No. 23/2017/EZ also stands disposed of.

45. There shall be no order as to costs.

........................................

B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JM

......................................

SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EM

Kolkata,

April 5^th, 2022, Original Application No. 169/2016/EZ (M.A. No. 23/2017/EZ)

MANOJ KUMAR BANARA A... v. STATE OF ODISHA REPR...