RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA DEHRADUN IN THE MATTER OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHS:VIJAY SHREE MINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are concerned here with Mining Lease, No. 99. By a decision of this Court dated 30th August, 1988 in Writ Petitions 8209 and 8821 of 1983 [(1989) Suppl (1) SCR 5041 : (1988 Supp (2) SCR 690 : AIR 1988 SC 2187) an exception was made in the case of this lease since its period was to expire in 1990. The lease from the Government was of 15 acres of land and another 100 acres of land were taken by the lessee from some private source. The learned counsel appearing for the lessee had undertaken before the Court that over the said 100 acres no mining operation would be carried out and the lesee would immediately restore vegetation over the area and full forest growth would be available on the same. The mine was further neither within the forest limit nor within the municipal area and the minerals from the area were to be removed not through the city limits. The learned counsel had also undertaken that on the expiry of the lease, even the 15 acres of land taken on lease from the Government would be subjected to afforestation by the lessee, and undertaking to that effect was also directed to be filed in the Court. On such undertaking being filed the mine as a special case was permitted to operate until the expiry of the lease. The Monitoring Committee, as provided in the judgment, was to supervise the afforestation programme to be undertaken by the lessee. It was further provided that in case the Committee was of the view that the undertaking was not being properly carried out the permission to work out the lease was to be varied. The Court also observed that an exception which was made in the case of the said lease was for testing the genuineness of the representation made by the lessee and also in consideration of the smallness of the area.

(2.) At the instance of the State and the petitioners the above order was modified on December 16, 1988. It was then brought to the notice of this Court that the mine was within the municipal limits of Mussoorie and all mining leases situated within the Municipal limits had been closed down by the earlier order until mining was cleared by the Bandyopadhyay Committee. None of such mines was cleared. It was further noticed that the location of the lease was not far away from the heart of Mussoorie town and the limestone quarried had to be transported through the city. All these facts were contrary to the representations made when the earlier order was passed. The Court, therefore, felt that except for the assurance of immediate reafforestation of the 100 acres of private land and the further assurance that after the lease period was over in 1990, the remaining 15 acres comprised in the lease would also be afforested, there was no difference of any substance between this lease and the other leases situated within the Municipal limits and which were not permitted to continue mining under the earlier order. Hence, the Court directed that the mining in the present lease shall also be stopped w.e.f. December 31, 1988. The Court further directed that if there be any limestone collected before that day the lessee shall be permitted to remove the same but from January 1, 1989 there would be no further mining in the area. Although it was the claim of the State that in fact the area comprised by the lease-was acquired by the State Government for development of tourism and the possession had already been handed over to its Tourism Department, the Court did not go into the said question firstly because the dispossession of the lessee under the acquisition proceeding was disputed by the lessee and secondly, because the question of possession was irrelevant to the order that was to be passed. There was, however, no dispute that the lessee had been operating the mine at the. relevant time. The mining was, therefore, directed to be ended of. December 31, 1988. The lessee was also discharged w.e.f. December 31, 1988 from his undertakings given to the Court while passing the earlier order.

(3.) The Monitoring Committee in its inspection report dated May 23, 1989 disclosed among other things, the following state of affairs :