http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICERS AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.NAGESWARAMMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises form the order of the Division  Bench of  the Andhra  Pradesh High Court dated July 7,  1995 made  in Writ  Appeal No.96/94.  The  admitted facts are, that the respondent had a mining lease granted by the Director  of Mines on September 18 1979 to extract mines in the  forest area  for five  years i.e.  upto September 12 1984. The  Forest (Conservation)  Act, 1980 case in to force on October  25 1980.  Therefore by the date of the expiry of the lease the authorities were denuded of the power to grant renewal of  the mining  lease. Lease  is  right  to  extract minerals and  the renewals should  be in accordance with the law in operation as on the date of renewal. Renewal of lease being not  a vested  right the application for renewal; must be disposed  of according to law prevailing as on that date. On expiry  of the  lease period,  on September  13 1989,  an application came to be made for renewal thereof. It would be obvious that  the renewal  was in  violation of Section 2 of the forest  Conservation Acts  since  admittedly  the  prior approval of the Central Government was not obtained.      Consequently  the   Forest  Department   in  the  joint inspection made  on  February  7.1990  discovered  that  the respondent was  extracting mines  within the forest area and therefore,  they  issued  directions  canceling  the  lease. Consequently the   respondent  case to file writ in the High Court. After  the  joint  survey  was  conducted  under  the direction of  the High  Court, the  High Court  directed the respondent to  carry on  extraction of  the stacked material form the  forest area, subject to the respondent’s obtaining prior approval  of the  competent  authorities.  Thus,  this appeal by special leave.      It is  contended by Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent,  that what the respondent had been denied is not making  any fresh  extraction of the mines in the forest area but  only the removing of the stacked minerals form the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

surface of  the earth, that too, with the permission granted by the  authorities: the  direction issued by the High Court in the impugned order, therefore, is correct in law. We find no  force   in  the  contention.  The  learned  judges  have proceeded on  the premise that the respondent is entitled to extract and  remove minerals,  said to  be  stacked  on  the ground that  the lease  is a  valid lease: otherwise he does not get  any right.  The premise on which the Division Bench has proceeded  is obviously  illegal. Section  2 of  the Act prohibits of  mining operations  if the  mines are  situated within the  forest area.  It is a total prohibition,  unless the State  Government grants  mining lease  with  the  prior concurrence of the Central Government. Admittedly, the prior concurrence of the Central Government had not been obtained. Shri Subba  Rao sought  to place  before us  the  guidelines issued  by   the  Department   of  Environment  and  Forest, Government of  India in relaxation of Rules/Guidelines under Forest (conservation)  Act 1980.  Therein the question is of the clearances  of  the  project  by  the  State  Government without obtaining  the prior   concurrence of the Department of Environment  and forest.  In that behalf it was mentioned that the  renewal of  the mining  leases. if they are within particular radius  was directed to be done without any fresh breaking up  of fresh  area and  felling of  the  trees  but subject to  re-forestation. It this case that situation does not arise.  This is  a case  of grant  of renewal in routine way. Under  these circumstances, the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court is clearly illegal.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed  but,   in  the circumstances without costs.