CITATION

AIR 1993 Pat 109

FACTS

It was stated that with respect to an area of 6.90 acres of land, in Mauza Naili (Kushdira) in the district of Gaya, initially a lease was granted for stone crushing. The concerned lease was renewed from time to time and ultimately and finally it was renewed for a period of five years by the District Mining Officer, Gaya. In a revision case the period of five years was enhanced to 10 years by the Mines Commissioner in accordance with the Government policy. It is alleged that all of a sudden, respondent No. 4 stopped the mining operation, being carried out by the petitioner, and seized the truck, tools and other materials, belonging to the petitioner. It is stated since the petitioner was holding a statutory lease, granted by the competent authority, and continuing over the land, the officials of the Forest Department had no authority to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner and seize the commodities, disclosed above.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents have the right to obstruct the mining operation over an area which has a valid mining lease granted by competent authority?

PETITONER’S CONTENTION

It has been contended that since initial mining lease was granted before the Forest Act came into force, the approval of the Central Government for renewal of such lease isn’t necessary. It was also contended that in view of the statutory lease, the petitioner has fundamental right to carry on the mining operation over the leased hold land. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his legal right, unless he is given a proper notice with reasonable opportunity before taking such arbitrary decision in accordance with law. It was further urged that admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner by either department, therefore, any action, depriving him from operating the mines is illegal and without jurisdiction.

JUDGEMENT

As per the Forest Act, 1980, for grant or renewal of any mining lease, prior approval of the central government is necessary. Hence, the renewal of mining lease in the present case was illegal and without jurisdiction because no prior approval of the Central government was obtained. Thus, the respondent’s had every right to restrain the petitioner from operating the mines as it was illegal.

Also, the area in which the petitioner had set up the mines had been declared as Forest area, thus any agreement or grant of mining lease in favour of petitioner is null and void as no prior approval was taken. The main reason for the Forest Act to be developed was to provide and safeguard the conservation of forest, to prevent deforestation and to check the environment deterioration. Section 2 of the Act, makes it mandatory for the state government to take permission the central government before renewal of the lease, which wasn’t done in the present case. All the formalities as required under the Act should be complied with before a lease is granted or renewed.

As far the release of commodities is concerned. It was observed by the court that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before seizure of the commodities. Thus, the commodities need to be released to the petitioner.

CONCLUSION

The petitioner will not be allowed to operate the mines.