Mohali man says his land wrongly classified as forest, HC asks state to decide

Jeet Mohinder, a recorded shareholder in Khasra numbers 734 (Abadi Deh) and 732 (Gair Mumkin Abadi), submitted that his land was never classified as forest in revenue records — either in 1972–73 or in 2017–18 — and therefore cannot be treated as such under the Forest Conservation Act, which came into effect on October 25, 1980.

He said his property was wrongfully brought under forest-like restrictions after the government, through a 2003 notification under Section 4 of the PLPA, declared the entire Siswan village as protected land. A 2008 corrigendum, Singh claimed, further extended these restrictions to all inhabited and agricultural areas.

Citing earlier judgments, Jeet Mohinder argued that his land was eligible for exemption under a 2011 notification that de-listed cultivated and habitation areas from PLPA restrictions for bona fide agricultural use. However, no relief was granted despite his August 2025 representation to the Department of Forest and Wildlife Preservation.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in B.S. Sandhu vs Union of India, which held that not all land notified under the PLPA qualifies as forest, and that classification must be based on revenue records as of 1980. The high court, in follow-up cases, reiterated that PLPA notifications apply only if the land was recorded as forest on that date.

Jeet Mohinder’s counsel argued that the continued restrictions violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution, preventing lawful use of the property and ignoring judicial directions.

He further submitted that local officials have not reversed blanket restrictions or issued new notifications excluding lands like his, leaving his property in limbo.

Having received no response to his written appeal to the Forest Department in August, Jeet Mohinder approached the high court, seeking an end to what he called an arbitrary forest classification. His petition requested that the state government issue a fresh notification to free his land from forest rules, declare earlier restrictions inapplicable, and comply with past Supreme Court and High Court judgments. He described the years-long imposition of forest rules as an unjust burden, violating his constitutional rights to equality, livelihood, and property.

The respondents in the case include the Financial Commissioner and Secretary (Forest and Wildlife Preservation) and the Administrative Secretary of the department.

The dispute is among several in the Shivalik foothills where landowners have alleged that blanket PLPA notifications, meant for soil and forest conservation, have encroached upon private abadi and agricultural land. Environmentalists, however, caution that delisting must be carefully examined to prevent unregulated construction in ecologically sensitive zones.