25-04-2025
In Mangar ‘forest', two I-T dept attachment notices spring up
1
2
Gurgaon: Mangar's flora has seen two additions – signboards on which are scribbled land attachment notices from the income-tax department. The notices, which were originally issued in 2022 but were put up at the site only this month, proclaim that 430 acres of land in Mangar have been attached as benami property.
The notices underline both the peculiarity of Mangar – a protected pristine forest that is not legally recognised as one – and the oddity of the larger Aravalis that it is part of. Most of Aravali land is privately owned, making the revenue department, and not the forest department, its custodian. Private ownership has been the primary cause of degradation of the Aravalis over decades because of large-scale construction.
You Can Also Check:
Gurgaon AQI
|
Weather in Gurgaon
|
Bank Holidays in Gurgaon
|
Public Holidays in Gurgaon
The land in question is part of the Mangar Bani grove and its buffer zone, a 1,200-acre stretch along the Delhi-Haryana border that was notified as a 'no-construction zone' by Haryana govt in 2016.
"This property i.e. 430 acres in village Mangar, Faridabad, has been attached by Benami Prohibition Unit (Chandigarh) of Income Tax department under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, vice order dated 29.03.2022 passed by adjudicating authority," the boards put up on April 15 read.
The attachment notice of March 2022 adds that the 430 acres are held by "benamidars" (nominal owners) for "beneficial owners (actual controllers)".
The notices name the firms Kenwood Mercantile, Goodfaith Builders, M/s Peakwood Realty, M/s Agrim Infratech, and individuals Lal Chand Bansal and Shakuntala Rani as nominal owners. Real estate company M3M India and six other individuals are named as beneficiaries.
Asked about the case, which is currently in Punjab and Haryana high court, a spokesperson for the realtor said on Friday the attached land is "proprietarily owned by the promoters of M3M Group".
"The matter is currently sub judice, and we are optimistic about a favourable outcome. Furthermore, we affirm that there is no element or component of benami transactions involved in this regard," the spokesperson said.
This land has, however, been involved in controversies even before the benami case. In 2016, National Green Tribunal (NGT) denied M3M's claim that the land owned by it in Mangar was agricultural, not Aravali forest. NGT referred to two surveys by the forest department and Forest Survey of India (FSI) to conclude that this was densely vegetated land.
"125 to 175 acres fall in Manger Bani sacred forest and the rest is in the surrounding areas recorded in the revenue records as gair mumkin pahar (uncultivable hills)… The area claimed by respondents 6 to 8 is predominantly covered by open dense forest. It satisfies all the criterions of a forest," NGT's order of March 2016 read.
A few months later, the same year, on the directions of NCR Planning Board, Haryana govt issued a notification to ban construction in 600 acres of the core Mangar Bani zone and another 600 acres, which it earmarked as its 'buffer zone'.
The only forest of its kind in the Aravalis, Mangar has no legal recognition as a forest because Haryana has not defined forests. Hence, provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act are not applicable to it. Going by the Supreme Court order to states to follow the dictionary meaning of the forest, Mangar should be protected under FCA.
Experts told TOI it was this lack of this 'forest' tag that over the years had facilitated splintering of ownership of land, allowing ownership to change hands.
"Even after three decades of Supreme Court orders to identify forests, Haryana has not been able to start the process. Supreme Court in the 2011 Lafarge judgment and the 1996 Godavarman case directed all states to identify forests as per their dictionary meaning. This case shows how the rich and powerful have bought Aravali forest areas in Haryana," retired Indian forest service officer MD Sinha, former chief conservator of forests for south Haryana, told TOI.
Sinha said that in such a situation, govt "should not deal with semantics of what constitutes a forest" but focus on "conserving whatever forest Haryana has left".
Chetan Agarwal, a forest analyst, too said the main concern was that of "legal status" of forests. "Forest status is still hanging. Besides, SC's orders to give ownership of village common land to panchayats have not been implemented. This is one land parcel that the I-T department should conserve and secure for future generations," he said.
In the 2011 Lafarge order, which was linked to environmental approvals given for mining in Meghalaya, Supreme Court had directed all states to identify and map all forest-like areas. Preceding this ruling was the 1996 TN Godavarman case, which said that forests must be recognised on the dictionary definition of 'forest'. This meant that any area with characteristics of forests must be protected under FCA, regardless of the land's status in govt records. This concept, called 'deemed' forest, effectively widened the scope of FCA.
The top court, while hearing petitions in March this year, reiterated its directions given in the Lafarge order and told all states to identify forest areas and submit their findings to the central govt in six months.
State officials had told TOI earlier this month that Haryana govt has formed committees to work on the 'dictionary definition' of forests, but they can start the process only after another panel finalises a definition of 'forest'.
"The committee will soon establish criteria for 'forest' definition to ensure that Mangar Bani and similar forest-like areas across Haryana receive protection under FCA. This is crucial, as these areas currently lack the necessary legal support to prevent encroachment. We had a meeting recently and one more is planned next month. Soon, we will be able to reach a decision on the criteria," Vineet Garg, principal chief conservator of forests, said on Friday.
