Forest Settlement Officer Alone Competent To Conduct Demarcation Under Indian Forest Act | Punjab And Haryana High Court Pulls Up Haryana For 37-Year Delay In Declaring Morni Hills A Reserved Forest
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel has held that the process of survey, demarcation, and mapping of the Morni Hills area, pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, must be carried out exclusively by the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO). The Court has directed the State of Haryana to issue the final notification declaring the area as Reserved Forest under Section 20 of the 1927 Act by 31.12.2025. The Bench further mandated that all documents, mapping data, and infrastructure necessary for such settlement be transferred to the FSO without delay.
The matter was brought before the High Court by way of a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation, seeking directions to ensure the settlement of forest rights in Morni Hills, Haryana, under the framework of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Punjab Settlement Manual. The petitioner contended that despite residents of Morni Hills qualifying as traditional forest dwellers, their status remained unrecognized and unregularized for decades.
It was submitted that a notification dated 18.12.1987 had already been issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, declaring its intent to constitute specific land in the Morni Hills as a Reserved Forest. Following this, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Kalka was initially appointed as the Forest Settlement Officer, later replaced by Shri M.P. Sharma, a retired officer from the Indian Forest Service.
In the course of proceedings, a civil miscellaneous application was filed by Shri M.P. Sharma seeking to continue functioning as FSO. His application was based on his past administrative engagement and experience in the Morni Hills region. He submitted that adequate infrastructure and support staff be provided to carry out the mandated duties under the 1927 Act.
The petitioner argued that statutory obligations arising under the 1927 Act had not been fulfilled by the State. Multiple representations were made by local residents, but no substantial action ensued. The Court noted that affidavits submitted by the State acknowledged the delays in the settlement process. In particular, an affidavit dated 04.03.2025, filed by the Secretary of the Forest and Wildlife Department, confirmed that while survey and mapping using LiDAR technology had been completed by the Survey of India in 14 Bhoj areas, ground verification by Revenue and Forest Departments was still pending.
The affidavit further outlined a phased plan whereby two of the 14 Bhoj areas—Bhoj Koti and Bhoj Jabyal—would undergo ground verification and settlement processes by March 2025. For these two areas, limited staffing (two Kanungos and two Patwaris) would be deployed to assist the FSO, with further manpower to be allocated progressively as work advanced in the remaining Bhoj areas.
The State opposed the petitioner’s suggestion that the FSO alone was empowered to carry out demarcation, claiming such demarcation should be undertaken by Revenue Authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900.
The applicant in CM-11760-CWP-2024 submitted that M.P. Sharma’s extensive service in the region made him particularly suitable to carry out the demarcation and settlement efficiently, provided the necessary infrastructural support was extended.
The Court recorded that “Section 4 of the 1927 Act clearly mandates the appointment of a Forest Settlement Officer to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed by any person in or over any land proposed to be notified as Reserved Forest.”
Further, quoting Section 8 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Bench observed: “Bare perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that the statute vests power with the FSO to inter alia conduct survey, demarcation, making maps and act as a Civil Court.”
Addressing the State’s claim that demarcation was beyond the FSO’s jurisdiction, the Court stated: “The State of Haryana seems to be under a misconception that the function & power of carrying out demarcation is out of the jurisdictional purview of FSO. In fact, the contrary is spelt out from Section 8 of 1927 Act.”
The Court held that once a Section 4 notification is issued, all tasks under Chapter II of the 1927 Act must be carried out by the FSO: “Consequently, once FSO has been appointed (as is the case herein) the function & power of conducting all tasks provided in Chapter II of 1927 Act including power to conduct survey & demarcation is exclusively vested in FSO to the exclusion of Revenue Authorities.”
It further recorded: “The entire process of declaring a land as a Reserved Forest ultimately attains finality upon the comprehensive fulfillment of the requirement prescribed in Chapter II of 1927 Act & culminating in issuance and publication of notification under Section 20 thereof.”
Addressing the delay, the Court held: “The pleadings filed by the State Government, especially affidavit dated 04.03.2025, reflects a sordid state of affairs, insomuch as, since the year 1987 no concrete steps appear to have been taken.”
Citing constitutional principles, the Court recorded: “The supine inaction of the State in adhering to the dictates of this foundational Article (Article 48-A) constitutes not merely a perfunctory disavowal of a directive principle of state policy, but stands as an outrageous affront to the capacious ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Quoting prior Supreme Court rulings, the Court stated that environmental protection is intrinsically linked to the right to life and cannot be treated as an ancillary administrative matter.
Finally, the Court noted: “The Morni Hills, are serving as the prime green cover acting as lungs for tri-city of Chandigarh – Panchkula – Mohali. Indubitably, the authorities are required to take a decision, one way or the other, regarding completion of the process which begins with issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1927 Act and culminates upon a notification issued under Section 20 of the 1927 Act.”
The Court issued the following directions:
(i) The Forest Settlement Officer is mandated to, forthwith, take requisite steps to ensure expeditious submission of his report. The State of Haryana is directed to issue a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, designating the scheduled land as Reserved Forest by 31.12.2025.
(ii) All documents, survey results, mapping data, and demarcation records presently with the Revenue Authorities, Forest Department, and the Survey of India shall be handed over to the FSO. The FSO shall be provided, without delay, all necessary infrastructure, including manpower and technical support, required to perform functions under Chapter II of the 1927 Act. These include making inquiries, conducting surveys, demarcating boundaries, preparing maps, and exercising powers analogous to that of a Civil Court.
(iii) The interim order passed earlier by the Court, restraining all non-forest activities in the Morni Hills area as notified on 18.12.1987, shall continue to operate until issuance of the final notification under Section 20.
(iv) All pending applications stand disposed of.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
The Court directed the Forest Secretary of Haryana to file a compliance affidavit by the second week of January 2026. Failure to do so may invite legal consequences under applicable law.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, Advocate, and Mr. Raywant Kaushish, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Ms. V. Tyagi, Secretary (Forest), Haryana (through V.C.); Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate.
Case Title : Vijay Bansal v. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2018:PHHC:102096-DB
Case Number: CWP-469-2017 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu; Justice Sumeet Goel
