Vijay Bishnoi, J.:— The following identical issue is involved in these writ petitions:
Whether the land for which mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner-firm is a forest land or not?
2. Therefore, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
3. The relevant facts, in a nutshell, are that a lease-deed dated 04.04.1978 was executed between the Mining Engineer, Bikaner and one Poora Ram resident of Napasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, by which Poora Ram was authorised to mine stone ballast from Randhisar Hill of Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu for an area of 3052 square meters for a period of ten years. Poora Ram transferred his lease hold rights in favour of the petitioner-firm with the permission of Mining Department and pursuant to that a deed between Hon'ble the then Governor and the petitioner-firm was executed on 01.01.1982
4. Since, the lease-deed was to expire in the year 1988, the petitioner-firm applied for renewal of the said lease-deed on 31.10.1987, however, the same was not renewed and the petitioner-firm filed S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 5771/1992 before this Court, which was decided on 16.09.1996, whereby a direction was issued to the State Government to decide the application of the petitioner-firm for renewal of lease-deed.
5. In the meantime pursuant to the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267, the State Government approached the Central Government for permission under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1980’) for allowing mining activities in Randhisar Hill.
6. The Assistant Inspector General of Forest, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi vide letter dated 12.12.1997 informed the State Government that the Central Government agrees in principle for diversion of 59.748 hectares (area required for dumping of overburden is restrained to enable 15 hectares) of forest land for mining of masonry stone in favour of 42 leaseholders in District Churu subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
7. Pursuant to the above referred letter dated 12.12.1997, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Churu vide letter dated 02.07.1998 asked the Mining Engineer, Government of Rajasthan, Mines and Geology Department, Bikaner for payment of Rs. 49.32 lacs immediately with the Forest Department so that further proceedings could be initiated.
8. Pursuant to that, the Mining Engineer, Government of Rajasthan, Mines and Geology Department, Bikaner vide letter dated 19.08.1998 raised a demand of Rs. 98,958.80/- against the petitioner-firm. It is noticed that similar type of demands was also raised against 41 mining leaseholders of Randhisar Hill for different amounts as per area of their mining leases.
9. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner-firm preferred S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/1998 challenging the letter dated 12.12.1997 issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Forest, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, whereby the Central Government principally agreed for diversion of 59.748 hectares of forest land for mining of masonry stone in favour of 42 leaseholders in District Churu. The petitioner-firm also challenged the letter dated 02.07.1998, whereby the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Churu directed the Mining Engineer, Government of Rajasthan, Mines and Geology Department, Bikaner to deposit amount of Rs. 49.32 lacs with the Forest Department and the letter dated 19.08.1998, whereby the Mining Engineer, Government of Rajasthan, Mines and Geology Department, Bikaner raised a demand of Rs. 98,958.80/- against the petitioner-firm.
10. The petitioner-firm also prayed for issuing directions to the respondents to appoint a Committee as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (supra) to ascertain whether the Randhisar Hill area is forest area or not. The petitioner-firm also prayed that the respondent-Mining Department be directed to charge penal afforestation charges from the petitioner-firm for less area and for deciding the renewal applications filed by the petitioner-firm on 31.10.1987 and 23.04.1998
11. In reply to S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/1998, the respondent-Mining Department as well as the respondent-Forest Department took a stand that the land of Randhisar Hill area was transferred to the Forest Department vide order dated 16.10.1981 issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan and, therefore, it is a forest land and as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (supra) prior permission of Central Government is necessary for permitting mining activities in area. It is also contended that the Central Government has accorded permission to 42 mining leaseholders to conduct mining activities in Randhisar Hill with certain conditions and pursuant to that the demand has been raised against the petitioner-firm.
12. At this stage, the petitioner-firm preferred S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 3450/1998, whereby it has prayed for quashing;
(i) the letter dated 12.12.1997 issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Forest, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, whereby it agrees in principle for diversion of 59.748 hectares (area required for dumping of overburden is restrained to enable 15 hectares) for mining of masonry stone in favour of 42 leaseholders in District Churu subject to fulfillment of certain conditions; and
(ii) the order dated 11.09.1998 issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Sri. Dungargarh, whereby the petitioner-firm asked to stop mining activities; and
(iii) the order dated 16.10.1981 issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the land of Randhisar Hill was transferred to the Forest Department.
13. It appears that while admitting S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/1998, this Court passed an interim order dated 16.09.1998 to the following effect:—
“Meanwhile, no coercive method be taken.”
14. The said interim order was confirmed by this Court on 03.12.1999
15. Pursuant to the interim order dated 16.09.1998, the Central Government vide letter dated 16.08.1999 accorded permission to extend the period of lease of the petitioner-firm for further ten years. The said period of ten years was expired on 15.09.2009 and when the lease of the petitioner-firm was not extended further, the petitioner-firm preferred S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11590/2009 with the further prayer that the respondent-Forest Department be directed to extend the lease of the petitioner-firm for further ten years or any other suitable period.
16. It is noticed that in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11590/2009, this Court has declined to grant any stay in favour of the petitioner-firm while observing that the period of lease has come to an end from 16.08.1999 to 15.08.2009
17. Later on, the applications filed by the petitioner-firm in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/1998 seeking direction to the respondents to comply with the stay order passed by this Court, to allow it to carry out the mining activities and to issue direction to the respondents to consider it's renewal application has been dismissed by this Court.
18. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner-firm has challenged the authority of the State Government of transferring the land of Randhisar Hill to the Forest Department. The petitioner-firm is also claiming that there is no requirement of approval of Central Government for carrying out mining activities in Randhisar Hill area. The petitioner-firm is also claiming that the land of Randhisar Hill particularly the land of Khasara No. 536/319 is not a forest land and, therefore, no prior approval of the Central Government is required for carrying out mining activities in the said areas, as per Section 2 of the Act of 1980.
19. Per contra, the stand of the State Government is that the land of Randhisar Hill has already been transferred to the Forest Department vide order dated 16.10.1981 and the same has also been mutated in favour of the Forest Department way back in the year 1986 and at present the land of Khasara No. 536/319 is recorded in the name of Forest Department.
20. The respondents are claiming that the State Government has every authority to transfer the land to the Forest Department.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (supra) has held that the term ‘forest land’, occurring in Section 2 of the Act of 1980, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership or classification. The relevant portion of the above referred judgment is reproduced hereunder:—
“4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers allstatutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.
5. We further direct as under:—
I. GENERAL
1. In view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any “forest”. In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith.”
22. From the above, it is clear that the provision of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 apply clearly to all forest so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof.
23. The State Government transferred the land of Randhisar Hill to the Forest Department vide order dated 16.10.1981 and pursuant to that mutation entry was made in the name of Forest Department and ultimately the Forest Department is recorded as Khatedar of the land of Randhisar Hill including the land of Khasara No. 536/319 as such it is clear that the land of Randhisar Hill is a forest land as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India (supra).
24. Apart from that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Churu has submitted counter-affidavit in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 3128/1998 and along with it certain documents have been filed.
25. The Annexure-R-4/04 appended with the counter-affidavit is a Gazette Notification dated 24.09.2009, whereby the land of Khasara No. 536/319 of village Randhisar is declared as protected forest. The said notification is issued under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. The relevant portion of the Notification dated 24.09.2009 published in official Gazette is reproduced hereunder:—
26. From the above, it is clear that the land of Randhisar Hill including the land of Khasara No. 536/319 has now been declared as protected forest.
27. Needless to say that in any land declared as protected forest, mining activities cannot be carried out without prior permission of the Central Government.
28. In view of the above discussions, I don't find any force in these writ petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.
29. Stay petitions also stand dismissed.
Comments