SHEO PRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard both sides. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, by Annexure-15 to this writ petition, has refused to execute the lease deed in accordance with the decision of the Government holding that prior to the revised survey of 1993 the land or at least part thereof, was recorded as Jangal-Jhari, implying some kind of forest land.

(2.) The impugned order does not give any reason for ignoring the entry made in revised survey published in 1993 wherein there is no mention or indication of the land being even remotely a forest land. Further, there is no mention in the impugned order about letter No.1688 dated 24.09.1996 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar in which the said officer has intimated that the land of which the mining lease is sought is out of the forest land.

(3.) The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar has also chosen to ignore the opinion of of the learned Advocate General dated 06.02.2004, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to this writ petition. Normally these are factors which should have been considered by the State Government while taking a decision to grant or not to grant a mining lease. Once the State Government has taken a decision, the work left for the Deputy Commissioner is largely ministerial work of formal execution of the mining lease deed. However, there may be cases where there are reasons for not executing the mining lease despite the decision of the Government, but those reasons must be absolutely clinching or extremely strong.