BHAGINATH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in Memo No. 735 dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been informed that his application for renewal of mining lease in respect of stone chips pertaining to Mouza-Nawadih, Thana-Barhi, Khata No.1, Plot No. 832(Part), District-Hazaribagh, having an area of 2.10 acres has been rejected by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the area in question for which renewal of lease was sought by the petitioner, falls within the protected forest vide Notification No. C/PF-10160/52-21R dated 02.01.1953. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner's application for grant of renewal of his mining lease situated over the land in question has been rejected without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to process his application dated 04.03.2014 for renewal of mining lease in respect of Village-Nawadih for a further period of 10 years in terms with Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2004') and consequently to grant renewal of mining lease to the petitioner over the said area.

(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the land appertaining to Khata No. 1. Plot Nos. 815, 824, 832833, having total area of 6.81 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land') was settled in favour of the petitioner's father through Hukumnama granted by the Raja of Ramgarh on 111.1930 and after vesting of Zamindari, the rent receipt was issued in his favour by the State of Bihar. On the petitioner's application, he was permitted to carry on mining activities over the said land vide Allotment Letter No. 1437 dated 18.06.2004. The said allotment was made for the period of 10 years, subject to renewal of the same. Pursuant to the said allotment, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the respondents vide registered lease deed dated 11.07.2004 which was valid from 11.07.2004 to 10.07.2014. Before expiry of the said lease deed, the petitioner made an application for renewal of the same in terms with Rule 23 of the Rules, 2004. When the petitioner's application was not processed, he preferred revision application before the Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Ranchi vide Revision Case No. 97 of 2014 for extension of time which was granted twice with a direction to the respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner's application for renewal of the mining lease. However, the respondent No.4 vide order contained in Memo No. 735 dated 27.04.2016, informed the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has rejected his application for renewal of the mining lease over the area in question on the ground that the land over which renewal of mining lease was sought, is a protected forest area vide Notification No. C/P.F-10160/52-21-R dated 001.1953.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned letter dated 27.04.2016, the reference has been made to the letter dated 25.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner's application for renewal of lease has been said to be rejected, however, the said letter was not served to him. On bare perusal of the notification dated 02.01.1953, it would be evident that the same was issued in purported exercise of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1927'), however, the nature and extent of the right of the Government or private persons in or over the said forest land has not been inquired in terms with Section 29(3) of the Act, 1927 and thus the said land cannot be treated to be a protected forest land. In the year 1960-61, a dispute as to whether the said land falls within the protected forest area arose and an order was passed by the Court of the Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh in Case No. 1 of 60-61 whereby it was held that the said land is to be excluded from the forest boundary. In Title Suit No. 89 of 1998 filed by the petitioner's father, the respondent No.2 had filed a sketch map wherein the said land was not shown within the demarcation of the forest area. Even if the mining lease area of the petitioner falls within the purview of the notification dated 02.01.1953, as on today, the said land cannot be treated as the protected forest in view of Sec. 30 of the Act, 1927 which gives power to the State Government to issue notification for declaring the protected forest for a period not exceeding 30 years. The notification dated 02.01.1953 has not been revalidated by the State Government.