RATAN LAL Vs. FOREST DEPTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a holder of mining lease of 'Cheja Pather', in challenging the action of the non-petitioner is that the mining lease had been sanctioned to the petitioner before coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for short the 'Act' and as such, S.2 of the Act will not apply.

(2.) A mining lease of 'Cheja Patthar' for an area measuring 70 X 70 Sq. Meters was sanctioned to one Panchu Ram s/o late Shri Ram Sahai Mali, respondent of Gandhi Nagar Choraha, Jaipur, under the order dt. 27th Sept. 1980 by the Mining Engineer Jaipur. The lease holder Panchu Ram was required to pay an yearly dead 'rent under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977. The period of lease was 10 years. Later with the permission of the Mining Department the lease was transferred by the lease holder to the petitioner and the transfer deed was registered on 18-8-1984. Thereafter the petitioner has been excavating the mineral and was paying royalty and dead rent.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that all of a sudden the employees of the Forest Department i.e. respondents 3 and 4, without any prior intimation and without any notice to the petitioner started interfering in the working of the Mines and prevented the petitioner from excavating stones from the area. On an enquiry from the officials of the Forest Department the petitioner was not communicated any reason for their interference with the working out the mining lease by the petitioner. The employees of the Forest Department have fixed boundary wall with fencing wires, resulting in deprivation of the petitioner for excavating the minerals from the mining area and loss of dead rent and of huge amount which has been invested by him. According to the petitioner no objection certificate was issued to Shri Nanchu Ram by the Forest Department for grant of mining lease for a period of 10 years. A show cause notice was issued to the non-petitioners and a reply was filed by respondent 2. In the reply filed by respondent 2, a case has been set up that this mining lease was executed by Panchu Ram on 29-12-80 within the Forest Area as determined by the State Government by notification dt. April, 1966 published in Rajpatra dt. 22nd Dec., 1966 Part 1.1 Kh. But in view of the Act, the petitioner could not be granted the mining lease unless prior approval of the Central Government is obtained. No such approval was obtained and the petitioner can not operate the mines. The Forest Department according to the reply fixed quire fencing with pole all along the hill in order to protect the 30-35,000 plants which were planted in 50 Hects. area. The Forest Department is said to be taking action within the ambit of law.