Why efforts to reclaim the Ridge — Delhi’s lungs — is no easy task

Over the years, vast swathes of the Ridge area — that act as the Capital’s lungs — have been built upon. Less than a fourth of the “encroached land” has been freed so far, documents show.

Freeing up this land has led to conflict, the key to some of which is a document submitted in 2019 by the then Divisional Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in an application filed in 2013 by Delhi resident and activist Sonya Ghosh seeking protection of the Delhi Ridge from damaging construction. The accompanying map, which marked encroachments, was prepared after a joint survey by the Revenue and Forest Departments in 19 villages in and around the Southern Ridge.

Of the 357.07 hectares of encroached forest land in the South forest division identified as per the 2019 document, the Forest Department has cleared just 79.88 hectares, or around 22%. Much of this action was taken in 2019-20.

The two villages in South Delhi with the largest area still encroached are Asola (38.17 hectares) and Bhatti (38.19 hectares). Sections of the two villages are notified as the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary.

Senior officials in the Forest Department pointed to a range of reasons for the slow pace of removal of encroachments: several court cases; land awaiting demarcation; orders from the Delhi High Court asking for status quo to be maintained till fresh demarcation is carried out; issues of manpower; absence of a dedicated fund to reclaim land; and the “lakhs of people” who might be displaced if large-scale demolitions, particularly of unauthorized colonies, are initiated.

A set of illustrative instances point to what still stands on the Southern Ridge and why:

A police station

Maidangarhi police station in Asola is missing the characteristic red and blue board usually mounted on the front façade of most stations. Instead, ‘P S Maidangarhi’ is painted in bold red letters on the wall of an archway that leads to the station — single-storey structures surrounding a courtyard and a lawn. Down the road, about 100m away, is the forest — a green expanse walled off by the Forest Department.

In 2020, its SHO filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Saket — the ADM was appointed Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) under the Section 4 notification to examine and decide claims over land that was notified — for “de-notification” of forest land, stating that it was allotted to the Delhi Police by the Director (Panchayat) in February 2015. It said the applicant wants the land to be “de-notified from Ridge notification”.

Going by the 2019 list of encroachments, the khasra number of the land marks it as a ‘farmhouse encroachment’. The Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF), South Forest Division, submitted in the ADM court in 2020 that the land mentioned by the applicant has been declared forest, and asked that the “present claim be dismissed with heavy costs”.

DCP (South) Ankit Chauhan did not respond to questions about the police station and if it was a temporary arrangement.

A source in the Revenue Department said the case before the FSO has not yet been decided.

This was not the only allotment of ‘forest’ land to other departments/agencies. In 2019, the Divisional Commissioner, who decides appeals in cases filed before the FSO, told the NGT that allotments made post the 1994 notification were done “without proper approval”. The document submitted to the NGT had a list of such allotments — a total of 1,990 bighas and 15 biswa.

IGNOU

When Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) submitted a request for permission to build a five-storey admin block on 0.27 hectares on its Maidangarhi campus — this was cleared by Delhi’s Ridge Management Board last August and then went to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court for further clearance — the matter raised the question of “documentary evidence” to confirm ‘forest’ land and its demarcation.

The Ridge Management Board, while granting permission, noted that approval was sought for construction in an area that falls within a ‘reserve forest’.

The final declaration of a ‘reserved forest’ is under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, only after all claims over land have been settled and appeals disposed of.  Out of 7,777 hectares identified as the Ridge in the 1994 Section 4 notification, the final Section 20 notification has been issued only for 14.18 hectares in Chattarpur and 89.30 hectares in Rangpuri, as per a report of the CEC from this May.

The CEC wrote to the District Magistrate (DM), South Delhi, stating that IGNOU and forest officials claim that out of the 218 bighas on which IGNOU stands, 68 bighas are forest land. “However, this demarcation is not on the ground due to which it is not possible to ascertain if the proposed construction site falls in a forest area or not. Hence you are requested to get this demarcation done as soon as possible,” the CEC wrote to the DM.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saket, then wrote to DCF (South) in July asking the Forest Department to provide the Section 4 notification under the Indian Forest Act that can point to its claim over the 68 bighas. As per revenue records, IGNOU has a perpetual lease deed for 202.02 bighas of land belonging to the gram sabha, dating back to the 1980s.

Sources in the Revenue Department said they were looking for a Section 4 notification that specifies khasra numbers that have been declared ‘forest’ land. The DCF responded in July that the notification issued in 1994 only describes boundaries and does not have a “khasra-wise list of forest land”. The DCF also pointed to the 2019 document filed in the NGT as mentioning the khasra number where IGNOU is located.

The DM wrote to the CEC later in July that “as per revenue record and documentary evidence, it is not clear as to how Forest Department is claiming ownership of this land,” and that it is doing so “as per affidavit” filed in the NGT. He also recommended IGNOU be granted permission for construction.

A senior official in the Forest Department maintained that the Divisional Commissioner’s affidavit is the department’s “Bible” when it comes to acting on encroachments. In the case of IGNOU, CEC has yet to submit its report for the apex court’s consideration.

Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB)

As per Forest Department officials, RSSB is the single largest property owner in Asola and Bhatti with whom it is now engaged in a tussle.  RSSB describes itself as a registered society, a “spiritual and socio-religious organisation”, which has had a “major centre” at Asola-Bhatti for “over 40 years.” The sprawling gated property spans 300 acres.

Going by the Divisional Commissioner’s 2019 document, around 95 bighas of ‘forest’ land is identified as encroached by RSSB in Bhatti. This, however, is not the only area identified as encroached on by the organisation. RSSB’s appeals before the Divisional Commissioner altogether involve 340 bighas in Asola and Bhatti.

In 2020 and 2021, RSSB filed four applications in the FSO’s court, all for exchange of land — it offered to swap its own land for forest land in Asola and Bhatti.

The Forest Department opposed these applications. It also pointed out that the FSO’s court has no power to exchange land, and that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, says no state or other authority can convert forest land for non-forest activity without the Centre’s approval.

In 2023, RSSB withdrew these applications. Soon after, it filed another three applications before the FSO, which are now pending. Going by records with the Forest Department, RSSB had filed the three applications seeking “deletion/exclusion/exchange of forest land”. The department has opposed these applications on the grounds that there is a delay of “more than 28 years” in claiming rights over the land.

RSSB filed three appeals, each pertaining to different pockets of land, before the Divisional Commissioner this year, which are pending. One says some of the contested land was not part of the notified reserved forest; another says the L-G had assigned or leased out some of this land to RSSB in 1988 for 99 years; and the third offers to surrender some of their land and asks to “delete and marked as forest” from the notification.

RSSB did not respond to questions emailed to an ID on its website. H C Yadav, Secretary, RSSB, in whose name the appeals before the Divisional Commissioner were filed earlier this year, also did not respond to calls and texts seeking comment.

Farmhouses, other private properties

RSSB is not the only private property owner to seek exchange of its land for forest land. In some cases, the FSO issued orders allowing the exchange, which was then challenged by the Forest Department in appeals before the Divisional Commissioner.

Forest Department data from this February shows around 41 cases are pending with the FSO out of a total of 82 cases from the South Forest Division. As for appeals, a total of 32 cases, affecting around 100 hectares of forest land, were pending before the Divisional Commissioner.

According to officials in the Forest Department, it has also filed appeals in instances where the FSO has accepted the claim of a private property owner over land identified as forest.

Of the 14 villages that make up the Southern Ridge, Asola has the largest area under farmhouse encroachment.

On being issued notice to vacate the land, property owners approached the HC which allowed a stay till the demarcation of land was verified.

A few instances point to the issues that have been raised and long-drawn legal processes:

– In three cases where “notices of demolition and eviction” were issued to three property owners in Sainik Farms, they approached the HC in 2021. In November of that year, the court directed that petitioners’ claims be verified by way of demarcation and the process be completed in four weeks. The matter was last heard in May when the demarcation process was complete but the report was not finalised. It is now listed in October.

– The FSO, in some cases, allowed an exchange of land. In a 2019 order, for instance, it let a farmhouse owner in Satbari, where 1 bigha 5 biswa of land was forest land, exchange privately owned land with forest land as the applicant had said they would lose passage to their property if a boundary was raised around forest land.

Forest officials maintain the actual exchange wasn’t carried out as the department filed appeals before the Divisional Commissioner; these are yet to be decided.