JIT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a mining lease holder of Gare Goshini quarries and had been quarrying slate -stones from the said quarry atleast from 1985. Agreement Annexure P -l indicates that he purchased the quarrying right of the aforesaid quarry in a public auction on 21 -5 -84 and was granted the lease hold w.e.f. 25 -3 -1985 for a period of five years ending on 24 -3 -1990 The said lease was extended for a further period of five years from 25 -3 -1990 to 24 -3 -1995, vide Annexure P -2. It appears that in the year 1992, respondent Deputy Commissioner, classified the said area as un -demarcated forest land and, therefore, directed that all mining operations thereupon -should be stopped forthwith. The order of said respondent dated 4 -5 -1992 was conveyed to the petitioner as Annexure P -3 The petitioner protested against the aforesaid order and requested that the same be withdrawn (vide Annexure P -4) Since no action, whatsoever, was taken on the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the legal validity of the order, Annexure P -3, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court by its interim order dated 30th December, 1992 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order and hence the petitioner is continuing the mining operations thereupon.

(2.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the quarry -site cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as forest land and hence the impugned order is illegal. It is specifically submitted that the quarrying in that area has been continuing since long and the said rights were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985 and hence stopping the mining operation after the same has been done by the petitioner for little over six years, is illegal. The learned Advocate General brought to our notice the notification of 1st June, 1986 issued by the Lt. Governor of the then State of Punjab under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, constituting the area covered by the petitioners lease as part of "protected forest" and submitted that since the leased area is a part of "protected forest", provisions of section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1980) are attracted and hence no mining operation could be permitted. The petitioners learned Counsel in reply submitted that even if the said notification was held to be valid, the area would be a part of protected forest under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act and hence provision of section 2 of the Act of 1980 would not be attracted.

(3.) Section 2 of the Act admittedly applies to forest land and not to protected forest. A protected forest under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act may consist of forest land as well as waste land. Under the circumstances, simply because a particular area forms part of protected forest, it cannot be assumed that all lands including therein is forest land. There is nothing on record to indicate that the laud covered by the mining lease is recorded as forest land anywhere in the revenue record. Indeed, the revenue records -maintained under the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, require the nature of land to be specifically recorded. Under the circum stances it is reasonable to assume that if the land covered by the agreement with the petitioner was recorded as forest land in any of the revenue records maintained under the aforesaid Act, the respondents would have produced the said record for consideration of this Court. Since no such record is produced, it is reasonable to assume that the land in dispute is not recorded as forest land anywhere in the revenue record. As long as it is not established as a fact that the land in dispute is forest land, section 2 of the Act would not be attracted. There is, therefore, no justification in law for the impugned order which must be held to be illegal and un justified.