1996 JTR(SC) 1324
1996 4 CLT(SC) 124 ; 1996 Supp JT 557 ; 1997 1 RCR(Civ) 570 ; 1996 7 Scale 150 ; 1996 6 SCC 442 ; 1996 Supp5 SCR 196 ; 1996 2 KLT(Online) 1129 ; 1996 7 Supreme 631
1996(7) Supreme 631
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & G.B. Pattanaik. JJ.
The Divisional Forest Officer & Ors. -Appellants
versus
S. Nageswaramma - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 11902 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) 13184 of 1996)
Decided on 23-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant: Ms. K. Amareshwari, Sr. Advocate, A. Venkateshwar Rao and Anil Kr. Tandale, Advocates.
For the Respondent :A.Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao, Advocates.
Act Referred :FOREST CONSERVATION ACT : S.2
(A) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which came into force on October 25, 1980, applies to mining operations within forest areas and requires prior approval from the Central Government for any mining lease or renewal. Section 2 of the Act imposes a total prohibition on mining operations within forest areas unless such prior concurrence is obtained, rendering any lease renewal that lacks this approval illegal. In this case, the respondent's mining lease expired on September 12, 1984, and the subsequent application for renewal on September 13, 1989, was devoid of the mandatory Central Government approval, thereby falling squarely within the prohibition mandated by Section 2 of the Act.
(B) Key legal principles include that a mining lease confers only a statutory right extractable minerals and does not ripen into a vested right post-expiry, necessitating compliance with then-subsisting law for renewal. Further, the doctrine of strict construction applies where prior central approval is mandatory, and any administrative direction violating such statutory prohibition is deemed illegal.
Facts of the case:
The respondent obtained a mining lease on September 18, 1979, to extract minerals in a forest area for five years until September 12, 1984. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force on October 25, 1980. By the time the lease expired, the respondent sought renewal on September 13, 1989, without obtaining the requisite prior approval from the Central Government. The Forest Department, upon joint inspection on February 7, 1990, discovered ongoing mining operations and cancelled the lease. The respondent challenged the cancellation via writ, and the High Court directed that extraction of stacked minerals be permitted subject to obtaining prior approval, a direction contested on appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was found to have proceeded on an illegal premise by assuming that the respondent was entitled to extract and remove stacked minerals based on a valid lease. The Court held that Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 imposes a total prohibition on mining operations within forest areas without prior Central Government approval, and the renewal of the lease in this case was in violation of the Act since such approval was not obtained.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in directing the respondent to extract stacked minerals from the forest area when the underlying lease renewal was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 imposes a strict and total prohibition on mining operations within forest areas unless prior approval is obtained from the Central Government. Consequently, any lease renewal granted without such approval is illegal, and courts cannot permit extraction of minerals based on such an invalid lease.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, without awarding costs.
(A) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which came into force on October 25, 1980, applies to mining operations within forest areas and requires prior approval from the Central Government for any mining lease or renewal. Section 2 of the Act imposes a total prohibition on mining operations within forest areas unless such prior concurrence is obtained, rendering any lease renewal that lacks this approval illegal. In this case, the respondent's mining lease expired on September 12, 1984, and the subsequent application for renewal on September 13, 1989, was devoid of the mandatory Central Government approval, thereby falling squarely within the prohibition mandated by Section 2 of the Act.
(B) Key legal principles include that a mining lease confers only a statutory right extractable minerals and does not ripen into a vested right post-expiry, necessitating compliance with then-subsisting law for renewal. Further, the doctrine of strict construction applies where prior central approval is mandatory, and any administrative direction violating such statutory prohibition is deemed illegal.
Facts of the case:
The respondent obtained a mining lease on September 18, 1979, to extract minerals in a forest area for five years until September 12, 1984. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force on October 25, 1980. By the time the lease expired, the respondent sought renewal on September 13, 1989, without obtaining the requisite prior approval from the Central Government. The Forest Department, upon joint inspection on February 7, 1990, discovered ongoing mining operations and cancelled the lease. The respondent challenged the cancellation via writ, and the High Court directed that extraction of stacked minerals be permitted subject to obtaining prior approval, a direction contested on appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was found to have proceeded on an illegal premise by assuming that the respondent was entitled to extract and remove stacked minerals based on a valid lease. The Court held that Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 imposes a total prohibition on mining operations within forest areas without prior Central Government approval, and the renewal of the lease in this case was in violation of the Act since such approval was not obtained.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in directing the respondent to extract stacked minerals from the forest area when the underlying lease renewal was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 imposes a strict and total prohibition on mining operations within forest areas unless prior approval is obtained from the Central Government. Consequently, any lease renewal granted without such approval is illegal, and courts cannot permit extraction of minerals based on such an invalid lease.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, without awarding costs.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from 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 came into 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.
3. 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 cancelling the lease. Consequently, the respondent came 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 from the forest area, subject to the respondent s obtaining prior approval of the competent authorities. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. It is contended by Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, that what the respondent has been denied is not making any fresh extraction of the mines in the forest area but only the removing of the stacked minerals from the 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 clearance of the projects by the State Government without obtaining the prior concurrence of the Department of Environment and Forest. In the 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 reforestation. In 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.
4.The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
******