1994 JTR(SC) 940
1994 56 DLT 533 ; 1995 JLJ 57 ; 1994 6 JT 576 ; 1995 MPLJ 276 ; 1995 1 RRR 411 ; 1994 4 Scale 523 ; 1995 Supp1 SCC 587 ; 1994 Supp3 SCR 747
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., K.Ramaswamy, J.
State Of M.P.
Versus
Krishnadas Tikaram
Case No. : 3276 of 1990
Date of Decision : 9/21/94
Advocates Appeared: Agnihotri S.K. : Gupta G.D. : Kulkarni B.Y.
Renewal of a mining lease in a forest area constitutes a fresh grant, making prior approval from the central government mandatory under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Act
Referred
:FOREST CONSERVATION ACT
: S.2
(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Grant or renewal of mining lease in forest area - Prior approval of central government - Mandatory requirement - Renewal of a lease is considered a fresh grant and must be made consistent with the law - If the state government decides to grant a fresh lease or renewal, it is mandatory to obtain prior approval of the central government under Section 2 - Absence of such approval renders the renewal illegal. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A mining lease was granted in 1966 for a period of 20 years to extract limestone in a forest area. After the expiry of the lease in 1986, the lessee approached the government for renewal. Although the government initially passed an order for renewal, the order was subsequently cancelled following objections from forest authorities. The High Court had directed the grant of renewal on the ground that part of the leased area had already been broken.
Findings of Court:
The cancellation of the renewal order was proper as no prior approval from the central government had been obtained as required under Section 2 of the Act. The registration of the lease-deed, which was carried out under contempt proceedings, is declared illegal and invalid.
Issues: Whether the renewal of a mining lease in a forest area requires prior approval from the central government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant or renewal of a lease is a fresh grant and must be made consistent with the law. Under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, prior approval of the central government is mandatory for any grant or renewal of a lease in a forest area.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
A mining lease was granted in 1966 for a period of 20 years to extract limestone in a forest area. After the expiry of the lease in 1986, the lessee approached the government for renewal. Although the government initially passed an order for renewal, the order was subsequently cancelled following objections from forest authorities. The High Court had directed the grant of renewal on the ground that part of the leased area had already been broken.
Findings of Court:
The cancellation of the renewal order was proper as no prior approval from the central government had been obtained as required under Section 2 of the Act. The registration of the lease-deed, which was carried out under contempt proceedings, is declared illegal and invalid.
Issues: Whether the renewal of a mining lease in a forest area requires prior approval from the central government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant or renewal of a lease is a fresh grant and must be made consistent with the law. Under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, prior approval of the central government is mandatory for any grant or renewal of a lease in a forest area.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Renewal - The High Court relied on this case to grant renewal based on existing land breakage, but the Supreme Court found it inapplicable under the Forest (Conservation) Act.
Concurrence - Held that the renewal of a lease in forest areas cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the central government.
Concurrence - Held that the renewal of a lease in forest areas cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the central government.
B.Y.Kulkarni, G.D.GUPTA, S.K.AGNIHOTRI
(1) THE respondent was initially granted mining lease in the year 1966 for a period of 20 years to extract limestone in the forest area. The Forest (Conservation) Act (69 of 1980 has come into force with effect from 25/10/19800. Under Section 2 of the Act grant or renewal after the Act has come into force shall be made, in the event of the State government deciding to grant lease or renewal, with the prior approval of the central government. The object of the Act is to maintain ecology and preservation of the forest. It is also the object under Section 3 to regenerate the forests by planting trees and forest growth. In 1986 after the expiry of the lease the respondent had approached the government for renewal. Though the government had taken the decision and passed an order on 7/2/1986 to grant further renewal for a period of 20 years in terms of the original grant, it was objected to by the Forest Department. Consequently it was cancelled. The respondent had approached the High court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2758 of 89 and the division bench by its order dated 18/8/1989 following the ratio in State ofBihar v. Banshi Ram Modi directed to grant renewal on the ground that part of the leased area had already been broken and, therefore, renewal should be granted.
(2) THE appellant contends that this court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat had held that even the renewal of the lease cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the central government. We find force in the contention. It is settled law that the grant or renewal is a fresh grant and must be made consistent with law. Section 2 prohibited the grant or renewal. In case the State government decides to grant fresh lease or renewal of the lease it is mandatory that it should obtain prior approval of the central government. Admittedly, no prior approval of the central government had been obtained under Section 2 of the Act. The State government thus had realised the mistake in directing renewal when the Forest Department had objected to the renewal of the lease in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the cancellation of the order, before it came into effect by registering, had been properly made by the appellant. The High court was, therefore, not right in directing grant of renewal of the lease.
(3) IT is brought to our notice that under contempt proceedings the lease-deed was directed to be registered and it was accordingly registered. It is declared that the registration is illegal and is invalid.
(4) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.