Ranchi, March 5: The forests and environment ministry has recommended to the chief minister the suspension of a senior officer for identifying 116.7 hectares of the government’s “protected forests” as “private land” to expedite a lease in favour of Tata Steel’s Noamundi mines in 1997.

The ministry has urged action against Pradeep Kumar, a senior Indian Forest Service officer now posted as general manager of the Forest Corporation in Hazaribagh, as his move could have caused losses worth crores to the exchequer.

Following Kumar’s recommendation, the Union forests ministry had given its nod to the land lease to Tisco, but it was withdrawn when the violation was brought to light by the then regional chief conservator of forests.

Kumar, an official of the rank of conservator of forests and former director of tourism in Jharkhand, was divisional forests officer (Kolhan) when he allegedly tried to favour the steel major by flouting the “Compensatory Land for Land” rule of the Union forests ministry. To get forest land for mining, Tisco was to give an equal quantum of land for afforestation but Kumar verified that the 116.742 hectares offered by the company was non-forest land.

In May 2001, then principal chief conservator of forests Shahdeo Jha had recommended that the case be withdrawn because the “controversial land” was not given to Tisco and, therefore, no loss was incurred by the government.

Demanding that the chapter be closed, Jha had submitted a report to the government mentioning that Kumar recommended the transfer on the basis of khatiyan (land records). “As the circle inspector and circle officer of Khuntpani, forest range officer of Barbela, deputy commissioner of West Singhbhum, divisional forest officer Pradeep Kumar, conservator of forests S.N. Trivedi, divisional forest officer Shailja Singh and working plan officer K.K. Chatterjee have found the forest land as non-forest land according to the khatiyan, none of them can be held guilty,” Jha had said in his report.

But forest officials argued it was their duty to save land. “Revenue officials are not meant to save forests, but IFS officials are,” said a senior forest department official. A probe report filed by principal chief conservator of forests J.L. Shrivastava held Kumar guilty of irregularities in the land transfer. The report says following Tisco’s application for fresh lease of land for the Noamundi mines, Kumar recommended the land transfer without inspecting the site of the compensatory land.

On February 26, forests minister Yamuna Singh wrote to chief minister Babulal Marandi with a request to return the file as “some important aspects” of the Noamundi land transfer had to be “reviewed and reconsidered”.

Kumar said he worked according to rules and regulations and recommended the land since it was mentioned as non-forest territory in the khatiyan.

“The recommendation was based on the report of the revenue and forests officials. The charges will not stand in any court of law,” he added.

“The land was finally not transferred and the government did not lose anything. Still the issue has been raked up to harass me. A total of nine officials verified it as non-forest land. How can I be held guilty? If action is to be taken, it should be taken against all nine and those revenue officials who marked it as non-forest land in the khatiyan,” Kumar said.

Shrivastava’s report says Kumar did not inspect the site but simply forwarded the recommendation of the district administration, which does not have the signature of the local range officer, to the then PCCF. “Kumar forwarded his recommendation on the baseless report of the range officer to the PCCF, Bihar, vide letter no. 713 dated 6.9. 97. The DFO recommended that the land can be transferred as it is worth afforestation.'

The report further quotes Kumar as having said that he did not have time to inspect the site as the Tisco officials wanted the work to be expedited and that then West Singhbhum deputy commissioner U.P. Singh had directed him on telephone to send the recommendations directly to the PCCF.

The report says the site has evidence of forests with and the forest department had undertaken a plantation drive in 1977. Ironically, Kumar says in his report that a plantation drive was undertaken at the site, yet mentions it as non-forest land.