UPENDRA JHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, not to interfere with the mining operation carried on by the petitioners in the area which is part and parcel of his lease-hold.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that a mining lease in respect of the area in question had been granted previously to M/s. India Fire Bricks and Insulation Company Private Limited. On the basis of that lease, the aforesaid Company did mining operation in the aforesaid area for a number of years. Thereafter the lease in their favour was terminated and fresh advertisement was made for grant of the mining lease. The petitioner applied for the grant of a lease covering a total area of 415.45 acres of land. The State of Bihar sanctioned the grant of the lease, by its order dated 18-5-1983, for a period of 20 years, for mining Fire Clay in the said area. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh executed a deed of lease on 25th July, 1983 in favour of the petitioner. The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh is said to have demarcated the aforesaid area of 415.45 acres and delivered possession to the petitioner on 30-9-1983. The petitioner claims to have started mining operation. However, the Divisional Forest Officer started interfering with the mining operation carried on by the petitioner and threatened to take coercive action. The Divisional Forest Officer issued letter dt. 14-1-1984 to all the Forest Range Officers under him directing them not to allow the petitioner to carry on the mining operations, in the areas leased to the petitioner by the State Government, which was within reserved forest.

(3.) The stand of the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer appears to be that after the promulgation of the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 with effect from 25-10-1980 which was replaced by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), any forest land cannot be used for non-forest purpose, except with the prior approval of the Central Government. As the lease in question had been granted to the petitioner covering even the reserved forest, without the prior approval of the Central Government, the petitioner was not entitled to carry on any mining operation in that portion of the lease-hold, which is part of the reserved forest area.