State Of M.P And Others v. Krishnadas Tikaram ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

1994 INSC 410

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 3276 of 1990, decided on September 21, 1994

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

B.Y Kulkarni and S.K Agnihotri, Advocates, for the Appellants;
Ghanshiam Das Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Judges

Justice K. Ramaswamy
Justice N. Venkatachala

Acts

Section 2 of the Act
Section 3 of the The Forest (Conservation) Act (69 of 1980)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent was granted a mining lease in 1966 for 20 years to extract limestone from forest land. After the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force on 25-10-1980, Section 2 of that Act required prior approval of the Central Government for any fresh grant or renewal of a lease involving forest area.

Upon expiry of the original term, the respondent sought renewal in 1986. The State Government initially ordered renewal for another 20 years on 07-02-1986, but the Forest Department objected and the order was cancelled before registration of the lease-deed.

The respondent challenged the cancellation before the High Court in Misc. Petition No. 2758 of 1989. Relying on State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, the Division Bench on 18-08-1989 directed the State to grant the renewal, reasoning that part of the lease area had already been “broken”. The present appeal by the State questions that direction.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether renewal of a mining lease in forest land after the commencement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 can be granted without prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act.
Whether the High Court was correct in directing renewal of the respondent’s lease on the ground that part of the area was already broken.
The validity of the subsequently registered lease-deed executed pursuant to contempt proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Relied on Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat to assert that even renewal constitutes a fresh grant requiring prior Central Government approval.
Contended that the absence of such approval rendered the State’s earlier renewal order void, justifying its cancellation.

Respondent’s Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi (1985) 3 SCC 643; AIR 1985 SC 814	Suggested that renewal of a lease could be granted where part of the area was already broken up.	Relied upon by the High Court; the Supreme Court distinguished and declined to follow it in light of later authority and Section 2 of the 1980 Act.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504; AIR 1988 SC 2187	Held that renewal of mining operations in forest area after 25-10-1980 requires prior approval of the Central Government.	Court adopted this principle to invalidate the grant of renewal without such approval.
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; AIR 1987 SC 1073	Reiterated that renewal is a fresh grant and must comply with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.	Used in conjunction with Rural Litigation case to reinforce the mandatory nature of Central Government approval.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court affirmed the principle that a renewal of a mining lease is treated as a fresh grant. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 expressly prohibits any grant or renewal involving forest land without prior approval of the Central Government. Because no such approval was obtained, the State’s initial order of 07-02-1986 was inconsistent with the statute.

The Court observed that the State Government recognised its error and had cancelled the renewal before the lease-deed was registered. Consequently, the High Court’s reliance on Banshi Ram Modi was misplaced in light of the subsequent authoritative decisions in Rural Litigation and Ambica Quarry Works, which clarified the mandatory requirement of Central approval.

The registration of the lease-deed during contempt proceedings was declared illegal as it stemmed from an order that was itself void for non-compliance with Section 2.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed. The direction of the High Court to renew the respondent’s lease and the registration of the lease-deed are declared illegal and invalid.

Implications: The decision enforces strict compliance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, confirming that any renewal of mining leases in forest areas without prior Central Government approval is void. The ruling affects only the parties to the case and does not create new precedent beyond reaffirming existing Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

State Of M.P And Others v. Krishnadas Tikaram .

Order

1. The respondent was initially granted mining lease in the year 1966 for a period of 20 years to extract limestone in the forest area. The Forest (Conservation) Act (69 of 1980) has come into force with effect from 25-10-1980. Under Section 2 of the Act grant or renewal after the Act has come into force shall be made, in the event of the State Government deciding to grant lease or renewal, with the prior approval of the Central Government. The object of the Act is to maintain ecology and preservation of the forest. It is also the object under Section 3 to regenerate the forests by planting trees and forest growth. In 1986 after the expiry of the lease the respondent had approached the Government for renewal. Though the Government had taken the decision and passed an order on 7-2-1986 to grant further renewal for a period of 20 years in terms of the original grant, it was objected to by the Forest Department. Consequently it was cancelled. The respondent had approached the High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2758 of 89 and the Division Bench by its order dated 18-8-1989 following the ratio in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi (1985) 3 SCC 643, AIR 1985 SC 814 directed to grant renewal on the ground that part of the leased area had already been broken and, therefore, renewal should be granted.

2. The appellant contends that this Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504, AIR 1988 SC 2187 and Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213, AIR 1987 SC 1073 had held that even the renewal of the lease cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the Central Government. We find force in the contention. It is settled law that the grant or renewal is a fresh grant and must be made consistent with law. Section 2 prohibited the grant or renewal. In case the State Government decides to grant fresh lease or renewal of the lease it is mandatory that it should obtain prior approval of the Central Government. Admittedly, no prior approval of the Central Government had been obtained under Section 2 of the Act. The State Government thus had realised the mistake in directing renewal when the Forest Department had objected to the renewal of the lease in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the cancellation of the order, before it came into effect by registering, had been properly made by the appellant. The High Court was, therefore, not right in directing grant of renewal of the lease.

3. It is brought to our notice that under contempt proceedings the lease-deed was directed to be registered and it was accordingly registered. It is declared that the registration is illegal and is invalid.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

State Of M.P And Others v. Krishnadas Tikaram .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of M.P And Others v. Krishnadas Tikaram .

Comments