Timeline

TimeLine Details

Proposal received date at each stage of flow.

A.	General Details

(i). Proposal No. : FP/UK/Others/6951/2014 (ii). Name of Project for which Forest Land is required : For construction of Rop Mai ki Madhi's official building (iii). Short narrative of the proposal and Project/scheme for which the forest land is required : Diversion of 0.264 HA of Forest for construction of Reporting out Post Mai ki Madhi 's offical building (iv). State : Uttarakhand (v). Category of the Project : Others (vi). Shape of forest land proposed to be diverted : Hybrid (vii). Area of forest land proposed for diversion(in ha.): 0.264

Time Line

Proposal No.	Submitted by User Agency	Query for Shortcoming(if any) by Nodal Officer	Resubmission of Proposal by User Agency	Query by Nodal Officer for submitting Hard Copies	Uploading(by U.A.) of copies of receipt received from DFO & DC	Division	Circle	Nodal Office	State Government	Regional Office	Stage-I Approval on	Stage-II Approval on
FP/UK/Others/6951/2014	25/09/2014	29/11/2014 03/10/2014	20/12/2014 26/11/2014	07/01/2015	08/01/2015	Rudraprayag :13/01/2015	Garhwal: 08/02/2015 (Rudraprayag)	Uttarakhand: 10/02/2015	Uttarakhand: 01/04/2015	Dehradun: 17/04/2015

C. Essential Details Sought History

Communication between Regional Office & State Government	Communication between State Government & Nodal Officer	Communication between Nodal Officer & Circle	Communication between Circle & Division	Communication between Division & User Agency
Query raised by Regional Office (Dehradun) on:16/06/2015 Replied by State Government(Uttarakhand) on:20/06/2015 Query raised by Regional Office (Dehradun) on:14/08/2015 Replied by State Government(Uttarakhand) on:06/10/2015 Query raised by Regional Office (Dehradun) on:05/11/2015 Replied by State Government(Uttarakhand) on:09/11/2015 Query raised by Regional Office (Dehradun) on:01/12/2015 Replied by State Government(Uttarakhand) on:06/12/2015 Query raised by Regional Office (Dehradun) on:09/12/2015	Query raised by State Government (Uttarakhand) on:17/06/2015 Replied by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:20/06/2015 Query raised by State Government (Uttarakhand) on:19/08/2015 Replied by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:05/10/2015 Query raised by State Government (Uttarakhand) on:07/11/2015 Replied by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:09/11/2015 Query raised by State Government (Uttarakhand) on:02/12/2015 Replied by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:06/12/2015 Query raised by State Government (Uttarakhand) on:10/12/2015	Query raised by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:12/02/2015 Replied by Circle(Garhwal) on:23/03/2015 Query raised by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:27/02/2015 Replied by Circle(Garhwal) on:01/04/2015 Query raised by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:27/03/2015 Replied by Circle(Garhwal) on:11/09/2015 Query raised by Nodal Officer (Uttarakhand) on:20/08/2015 Replied by Circle() on:	Query raised by Circle (Garhwal) on:13/02/2015 Replied by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:20/03/2015 Query raised by Circle (Garhwal) on:28/02/2015 Replied by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:20/03/2015 Query raised by Circle (Garhwal) on:20/03/2015 Replied by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:01/04/2015 Query raised by Circle (Garhwal) on:31/03/2015 Replied by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:11/09/2015 Query raised by Circle (Garhwal) on:22/08/2015 Replied by DFO () on:	Query raised by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:16/02/2015 Replied by UA on :25/02/2015 Query raised by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:04/03/2015 Replied by UA on :13/03/2015 Query raised by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:13/03/2015 Replied by UA on :13/03/2015 Query raised by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:16/03/2015 Replied by UA on :16/03/2015 Query raised by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:20/03/2015 Replied by UA on :20/03/2015 Query raised by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:31/03/2015 Replied by UA on :31/03/2015 Query raised by DFO (Rudraprayag) on:09/05/2018 Replied by UA on :12/04/2022

NOTE:- Proposal is pending at DFO .

Please wait ...

Proposal No.-

Sno.	From	Status	To	EDS Date	EDS sought/Replied
1	Nodal Officer	EDS	CF (Garhwal)	12/02/2015	1. If tree felling is not required in spite of large no of trees why .264 ha is required. Please upload lay out plan of the proposed chowki. 2. Please check whether girth class has been confused with dia class of trees in Form II 3.What efforts have been made by police department to identify alternate land like advertisement, tender, etc. Why civil land is not available. Please upload certificate from District Collector that there is no civil or nap land acquisition possible.
2	CF (Garhwal)	EDS	DFO (Rudraprayag)	13/02/2015	1. If tree felling is not required in spite of large no of trees why .264 ha is required. Please upload lay out plan of the proposed chowki. 2. Please check whether girth class has been confused with dia class of trees in Form II 3.What efforts have been made by police department to identify alternate land like advertisement, tender, etc. Why civil land is not available. Please upload certificate from District Collector that there is no civil or nap land acquisition possible.
3	DFO (Rudraprayag)	EDS	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	16/02/2015	1. If tree felling is not required in spite of large no of trees why .264 ha is required. Please upload lay out plan of the proposed chowki. 2. Please check whether girth class has been confused with dia class of trees in Form II 3.What efforts have been made by police department to identify alternate land like advertisement, tender, etc. Why civil land is not available. Please upload certificate from District Collector that there is no civil or nap land acquisition possible.
4	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	REPLY	DFO (Rudraprayag)	25/02/2015	Dear sir on reference of your on line latter date 16.02.2015 here attach some attachment.
5	Nodal Officer	EDS	CF (Garhwal)	27/02/2015	please rectify objections as per attached file
6	CF (Garhwal)	EDS	DFO (Rudraprayag)	28/02/2015	please rectify objections as per file attached
7	DFO (Rudraprayag)	EDS	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	04/03/2015	please edit the complete report
8	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	REPLY	DFO (Rudraprayag)	13/03/2015	Sir,Kindly Reffer to your Letter by e-mail Dt. 04-03-2015 which is for due to essential detail sought coming in the land transfer proposal for construction of ROP Mai ki Madhi's Official building.So in the compliance of your order all documents are attached here. Police Office Rudraprayag.
9	DFO (Rudraprayag)	EDS	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	13/03/2015	sir please edit the proposal trees list
10	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	REPLY	DFO (Rudraprayag)	13/03/2015	Sir, Kindly Reffer to your Letter by e-mail Dt. 13-03-2015 which is for due to essential detail sought coming in the land transfer proposal for construction of ROP Mai ki Madhi's Official building.So in the compliance of your order all documents are attached here. Police Office Rudraprayag.
11	DFO (Rudraprayag)	EDS	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	16/03/2015	complete proposal and edited file
12	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	REPLY	DFO (Rudraprayag)	16/03/2015	Sir, Kindly Refer to your Letter by e-mail Dt. 16-03-2015 which is for due to essential detail sought coming in the land transfer proposal for construction of ROP Mai ki Madhi's Official building.So in the compliance of your order all documents and file with edited files are attached here. Police Office Rudraprayag.
13	DFO (Rudraprayag)	REPLY	CF (Garhwal)	20/03/2015	sir, please receive the proposal.
14	CF (Garhwal)	EDS	DFO (Rudraprayag)	20/03/2015	please rectify objections as per file attached
15	DFO (Rudraprayag)	EDS	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	20/03/2015	Sir, please complete the proposal objection
16	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	REPLY	DFO (Rudraprayag)	20/03/2015	Sir, Kindly Reffer to your Letter by e-mail Dt. 20-03-2015 which is for due to essential detail sought coming in the land transfer proposal for construction of ROP Mai ki Madhi's Official building.So in the compliance of your letter all documents are attached here. Police Office Rudraprayag.
17	DFO (Rudraprayag)	REPLY	CF (Garhwal)	20/03/2015	sir, please receive the objection proposal.
18	CF (Garhwal)	REPLY	Nodal Officer	23/03/2015	All the three objections have been addressed.
19	Nodal Officer	EDS	CF (Garhwal)	27/03/2015	Please rectify/reply to objections as per file attached
20	CF (Garhwal)	EDS	DFO (Rudraprayag)	31/03/2015	Please reply to /rectify objections as per file attached
21	DFO (Rudraprayag)	EDS	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	31/03/2015	Please reply to objections
22	User Agency (madanmishra29@gmail.com)	REPLY	DFO (Rudraprayag)	31/03/2015	Sir, Kindly Reffer to your Letter by e-mail Dt. 27-03-2015 which is for due to essential detail sought coming in the land transfer proposal for construction of ROP Mai ki Madhi's Official building.So in the compliance of your order all documents are attached here. Police Office Rudraprayag.
23	DFO (Rudraprayag)	REPLY	CF (Garhwal)	01/04/2015	Reply from user agency is attached herewith.
24	CF (Garhwal)	REPLY	Nodal Officer	01/04/2015	Reply from user agency is attached herewith
25	Regional Office	EDS	State secretary	16/06/2015	1. The forest land proposed for diversion comes to 0.264 ha but the UA has mentioned the same as 0.260 ha. 2. Componentwise breakup of total land required has been given in para-B-2.4 of Part-I. 3. Map in SOI Toposheet and Geo-referenced digital map have not been submitted in para-C-iii and C-iv of Part-I. 3. No. of trees is mentioned as 44 in enumeration list submitted as additional document but it is mentioned as 42 in Part-II. 4. In para-14 of Part-II, CA stipulated is not commensurate to the forest land diverted and progress of CA also does not appeared to be correct. 5. Certificate under FRA alongwith all the annexures has not been submitted. 6. Muck Dumping Plan has not been submitted.
26	State secretary	EDS	Nodal Officer	17/06/2015	Pls reply to obj of RO-1. The forest land proposed for diversion comes to 0.264 ha but the UA has mentioned the same as 0.260 ha. 2. Componentwise breakup of total land required has been given in para-B-2.4 of Part-I. 3. Map in SOI Toposheet and Geo-referenced digital map have not been submitted in para-C-iii and C-iv of Part-I. 3. No. of trees is mentioned as 44 in enumeration list submitted as additional document but it is mentioned as 42 in Part-II. 4. In para-14 of Part-II, CA stipulated is not commensurate to the forest land diverted and progress of CA also does not appeared to be correct. 5. Certificate under FRA alongwith all the annexures has not been submitted. 6. Muck Dumping Plan has not been submitted.
27	Nodal Officer	REPLY	State secretary	20/06/2015	In principle approval has already been accorded by State Government as the proposal is concerned with earthquake and landslide prone areas as identified in the National Policy on Disaster Management by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Also, no felling of trees is proposed in the area to be transferred. However, the proposal seems to have wrongly been forwarded to Regional Office.
28	State secretary	REPLY	Regional Office	20/06/2015	In principle approval has already been accorded by State Government as the proposal is concerned with earthquake and landslide prone areas as identified in the National Policy on Disaster Management by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Also, no felling of trees is proposed in the area to be transferred. However, the proposal has wrongly been forwarded to Regional Office. The copy of in-principle approval is attached herewith. Kindly request NIC to either upload the in-principle approval or revert the proposal to State Govt so that the in-principle approval accorded by state govt can be uploaded online.
29	Regional Office	EDS	State secretary	14/08/2015	The State Govt in reply dated 20-06-15 has now stated that no felling is involved and hence in-principle approval has been issued at their level. however, it is not understood that how the building proposed over the said forest land can be constructed without felling of project affected trees. The list of trees submitted with additional documents says felling of 44 trees is essential whereas in the abstract of project affected trees it is mentioned that no tree felling will be carried out. however the abstract is not is not signed by DFO and DFO in part II has not mentioned anything abount not felling of trees. DFO should inspect and submit a clear report on the number of trees to be felled so that it could be ascertained whether it comes under the purview of State Govt. No information is
30	State secretary	EDS	Nodal Officer	19/08/2015	Plz reply to obj of RO-The State Govt in reply dated 20-06-15 has now stated that no felling is involved and hence in-principle approval has been issued at their level. however, it is not understood that how the building proposed over the said forest land can be constructed without felling of project affected trees. The list of trees submitted with additional documents says felling of 44 trees is essential whereas in the abstract of project affected trees it is mentioned that no tree felling will be carried out. however the abstract is not is not signed by DFO and DFO in part II has not mentioned anything abount not felling of trees. DFO should inspect and submit a clear report on the number of trees to be felled so that it could be ascertained whether it comes under the purview of State G
31	Nodal Officer	EDS	CF (Garhwal)	20/08/2015	Plz reply to obj of RO-The State Govt in reply dated 20-06-15 has now stated that no felling is involved and hence in-principle approval has been issued at their level. however, it is not understood that how the building proposed over the said forest land can be constructed without felling of project affected trees. The list of trees submitted with additional documents says felling of 44 trees is essential whereas in the abstract of project affected trees it is mentioned that no tree felling will be carried out. however the abstract is not is not signed by DFO and DFO in part II has not mentioned anything abount not felling of trees. DFO should inspect and submit a clear report on the number of trees to be felled so that it could be ascertained whether it comes under the purview of State G
32	CF (Garhwal)	EDS	DFO (Rudraprayag)	22/08/2015	Please remove the objection
33	DFO (Rudraprayag)	REPLY	CF (Garhwal)	11/09/2015	sir, proposal objection removed.
34	CF (Garhwal)	REPLY	Nodal Officer	11/09/2015	Sir, Please receive information to the proposal
35	Nodal Officer	REPLY	State secretary	05/10/2015	DFOs inspection report as directed by Regional Office is being attached herewith with consent.
36	State secretary	REPLY	Regional Office	06/10/2015	DFOs inspection report as directed by Regional Office is being attached herewith with consent.
37	Regional Office	EDS	State secretary	05/11/2015	State Govt. may attend to the observations as per attachment
38	State secretary	EDS	Nodal Officer	07/11/2015	Plz reply to obj of RO-State Govt. may attend to the observations as per attachment
39	Nodal Officer	REPLY	State secretary	09/11/2015	The State of Uttarakhand has been identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs as highly affected by landslides, very high risk earthquake zone and area liable to floods. As a proof of the same, the relevant maps published in the national disaster management policy 2009 published by Ministry of Home Affairs is attached herewith.
40	State secretary	REPLY	Regional Office	09/11/2015	The State of Uttarakhand has been identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs as highly affected by landslides, very high risk earthquake zone and area liable to floods. As a proof of the same, the relevant maps published in the national disaster management policy 2009 published by Ministry of Home Affairs is attached herewith.
41	Regional Office	EDS	State secretary	01/12/2015	State Govt. may attend the observations as per attachment.
42	State secretary	EDS	Nodal Officer	02/12/2015	Plz reply to obj of RO-State Govt. may attend the observations as per attachment.
43	Nodal Officer	REPLY	State secretary	06/12/2015	The orders from MoEF dated 18 Jan 2013, 13 Feb 2014 and 7 Nov 2014 does not mention the phrase FROM SECURITY POINT OF VIEW. It only mentions SENSITIVE AREAS IDENTIFIED BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS.
44	State secretary	REPLY	Regional Office	06/12/2015	The orders from MoEF dated 18 Jan 2013, 13 Feb 2014 and 7 Nov 2014 does not mention the phrase FROM SECURITY POINT OF VIEW. It only mentions SENSITIVE AREAS IDENTIFIED BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS.
45	Regional Office	EDS	State secretary	09/12/2015	The guidelines dated 13.02.2014 of Govt. of India mention - Police establishments like police stations/outposts/border outposts/watch towers, in sensitive areas identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Though it does not specifically mention areas sensitive from security point of view but mention of outposts/boarder outposts/watch towers implies that this is from security point of view as such kind of establishments are required in areas sensitive from security angle. Moreover, the guidelines of Govt. of India do not mention sensitive from natural disaster point of view either. State Govt. may take action as per this office EDS dated 01.12.2015.
46	State secretary	EDS	Nodal Officer	10/12/2015	Plz reply to obj of RO-The guidelines dated 13.02.2014 of Govt. of India mention - Police establishments like police stations/outposts/border outposts/watch towers, in sensitive areas identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Though it does not specifically mention areas sensitive from security point of view but mention of outposts/boarder outposts/watch towers implies that this is from security point of view as such kind of establishments are required in areas sensitive from security angle. Moreover, the guidelines of Govt. of India do not mention sensitive from natural disaster point of view either. State Govt. may take action as per this office EDS dated 01.12.2015.
47	DFO (Rudraprayag)	EDS	User Agency (dipibhatt91@gmail.com)	09/05/2018	Please remove the objection
48	User Agency (dipibhatt91@gmail.com)	REPLY	DFO (Rudraprayag)	12/04/2022	The correction have been made as per the instruction received