BIHAR STATE MINERAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 11.12.1996 issued by respondent principal Chief Conservator of Forest by which the petitioner Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation has been directed to stop mining operation with effect from 26.12.1996 and further for a declaration that lands measuring 86 acres appertaining to village Chandula and 86.80 acres of land appertaining to village Simalgoda, are not the forest land within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to consider and grant permission to the petitioner -Corporation for carrying on mining operation over the land, in question.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation was established in the year, 1972 with the sole aim of promoting mineral development in the State after obtaining mining lease in the State. The land, in dispute, was acquired through Land Acquisition proceeding in the year 1965 for quarying stone materials for use of Farakka Barrage after acquisition of the land, in question. The said land was vested in Farakka Barrage authority and as such, the Department of Forest, Govt. of Bihar, ceased to have any control over the said land. After construction of the said Farakka Barrage, the said lands were transferred for mining purposes in October, 1975 and since then the petitioner Corporation is in possession over the same and carrying on mining operation. After the lands having been transferred to the petitioner Corporation in October. 1975, the petitioner became the owner of the property and the Forest department has nothing to do with the same. The respondent State of Bihar granted lease in 1975 for five years which was subsequently renewed till 15.10.1982 The petitioner Corporation, thereafter, applied for further renewal of the lease on 2.6.1992 which was rejected by the respondent Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 18.6.1992, copy of the said order is made Annexure -3 to this writ application. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Mines and the respondent Commissioner of Mines while admitting the said revision application has stayed operation of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 23.8.1994, copy of the said order is made Annexure -4 to this writ application. Meanwhile, respondent Divisional Forest Officer issued a notice to the petitioner Corporation stating therein that the land over which the mining operation is being carried on by the petitioner is the forest land and without obtaining prior permission from the Union of India the mining operation by the petitioner Corporation is in violation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is also stated that the action of the petitioner Corporation is a penal offence under the provisions of the Act and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to stop the mining operation with effect from 30,4.1996, Copy of the said notice is made Annexure -5 to this writ application. Subsequently, the Union of India through its Ministry of Environment and Forest granted permission for carrying on mining operation over the land, in questions, till 11.9.1996. The respondent Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has directed the petitioner Corporation to forthwith stop the mining operation on the ground that the period for which permission was granted by the Union of India for mining operation has already expired.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 Divisional Forest Officer wherein, inter alia, it is stated that the petitioner Corporation was in possession of the lease -hold areas having several plots both in village Simalgoda and Chandula. Some of the plots were described as Jangal Jhari, Kurwa Bari etc. It is alleged that in between 1875 to 1884 it was found that massive deforestation was taking place in the forest falling in the district of Santhal Pargana and in order to check further deforestation the then Government of Bengal vide its Notification No. 4844 dated 2.11.1894 declared all the unsettled Govt. land as protected forest under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1878. Pursuant thereto the land, in question, was declared as protected forest by the forest department and the said Notification still holds the field. Report of Survey Settlement operation as well as the said Notification are made Annexures 'B' and 'C respectively to this counter affidavit. It is alleged that in the last survey settlement operation the lands were recorded as "Gairmazrua Jangal" (waste land suitable for afforestation or protection) and "Gair Mazrua Digar" (other kind of waste land) and, as such, the lands, in question, were legally constituted protected forest land. The final report of the last survey settlement operation in the district of Santhal Pargana is made Annexure 'D' to the counter affidavit. It is then stated that vide Govt. Notification dated 25th February, 1946 the land, in question, was notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as reserved forest and, accordingly, the Government appointed a Forest Settlement Officer and Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, as Appellate Authority. It is further alleged that the petitioner Corporation has got two leases of village Simalgoda and Chandula in 1982 for five years without approval of the Central Government. At the time of renewal of the lease, the respondent District Mining Officer was informed vide letter dated 16.5.1988 that the land, in question, constituted the forest land and for renewal of the mining lease approval of the Central Government is necessary in terms of the Provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is also alleged that pursuant to the direction of the District Forest Officer the petitioner Corporation submitted a proposal for seeking permission of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act but the petitioner Corporation has not supplied the complete information. Sum and substance of the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the land, in question, being forest land, and the lease with respect to the mining area having not been renewed, the respondent has rightly directed the petitioner Corporation to stop mining operation. According to the respondent, the land is not raiyati land of the petitioner, on the contrary it falls within the forest area and, as such, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the land in absence of the approval from the Central Government in terms of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.