Madhya Pradesh High Court
Daduram Sanodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2018
1 W.P.No.10609/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.10609/2017
(Daduram Sanodiya vs. State of M.P. & Others)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13.03.2018
Shri Ishan Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
The petitioner sought mining/quarry lease in terms of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short "Rules, 1996") on 13/14.08.2013 in respect of the land situated at village Bandha, Khasra No.40/2 measuring 3 hectare out of 14.580 hectare.
The Forest Department reported on the basis of the report dated 07.12.2013 of the Mining Inspector that the proposed land is 500 meters from the National Highway and Railway Line and that the land is more than 100 meters away from any river, dam, canal, pond and the closest habitat is 2 kms from the east of the proposed mining area. It was recommended that the land be leased out. It is thereafter, the approval was granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority on the basis of No Objection Certificate granted by the Forest Department.
But subsequently, the Divisional Forest Officer found that the Collector has earmarked the land in question for forestation under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short "Forest Act"). Thus, the No Objection Certificate granted by the Forest Department was withdrawn. The reliance of the Forest Department is on a notification dated 27.02.1996 2 W.P.No.10609/2017 published in the State Government Gazette on 24.05.1996 reserving the land measuring 14.580 hectare comprising in Khasra No.40 for the purpose of plantation in terms of Section 29 of the Forest Act.
The argument of the petitioner is that though the notification was issued, but the land was not transferred in the name of the Forest Department in the revenue record, therefore, the petitioner has a right to seek mining lease. Earlier the petitioner filed a W.P.No.12198/2016 challenging the communication dated 16.11.2015 and 05.04.2016 wherein the land in question was declared to be a protected forest and the communication was addressed to the Collector to cancel the mining lease proposed to be granted to the petitioner. In the said writ petition, the liberty was given to the petitioner to raise all the objections as are raised in the writ petition, before the Collector. The Collector was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law. It is thereafter, the Collector has passed an order on 14.12.2016 that the land comprising in khasra No.40 measuring 14.580 hectare is a protected forest in terms of Section 29 of the Forest Act, which is so declared in the notification dated 24.05.1996 as alternative land for the plantation of the trees.
In these circumstances, the challenge in the present writ petition is to the notification dated 07.02.1996 published in the State Government Gazette on 24.05.1996 and the communication/order of Collector dated 14.12.2016.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the 3 W.P.No.10609/2017 present petition.
The argument that the land was not transferred in the Forest Department is not tenable. Once the land has been declared to be Protected Forest in terms of Section 29 of the Forest Act, no person can carry out any activity other than what is permissible under the Forest Act. The failure to transfer in the revenue record by way of mutation will not change the nature of the forest so declared by way of notification issued under the Forest Act. Initially it appears that No Objection Certificate was granted by the Forest Department in ignorance of the said notification, but when the said notification came to the knowledge of the Forest Department, the NOC was withdrawn.
The petitioner, who intends to take mining lease has no vested right to take lease of the land in question as the same was never granted to him. The land of protected forest cannot be leased for the purpose of mining. Mere fact that the mutation of the land in question was not sanctioned in favour of the Forest Department, that fact will not nullify the notification published in official gazette declaring the land of the protected forest.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
shukla
Digitally signed by
SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Date: 2018.03.14
17:24:09 +05'30'