KAUSHLENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Department of Mines.

(2.) THE petitioner is a lessee of private lands. He was granted mining rights on the same by the respondents. The lands were contiguous to forest lands. This necessitated a clarification from the Department of Forests, whether the lands fell within the forest requiring clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The Department of Forest on 14.11.2000 reported that though the lands are recorded in the khatian as 'shrubs ' but presently on a part of the lands agricultural operations were being carried out and rest of the lands were barren. This was reconfirmed by the Forest Department in its communication dated 25.11.2000 that the lands on which mining was proposed was outside the boundary of the notified forest.

(3.) THE counter affidavit filed on behalf of Department of Forest in paragraph 4(c) states that the plot in question is outside the boundary of the protected forest. Paragraph 4(d) states that the lease granted to the petitioner is just outside the boundary of the Rajgir protected forest. Paragraph 4(h) states that the demarcation of the leased area was done and the pillar were fixed to avoid any confusion. Sub -paragraph (O) states that the mining lease granted to the petitioner was just outside the boundary of the protected forest of Rajgir and the vegetation and the nature of the land within the Forest and leased area is alike.