Judgment:
ORDER
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.
1. The petitioners who are the villagers of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District, contending that the area over an extent of 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District is a forest land, but respondents 1 to 4 have erroneously treated the said land as revenue land and granted mining lease in favour of 5th respondent, which was subsequently transferred to 7th respondent, have preferred the above public interest litigation for the following prayer:
a) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to cancel mining lease No. 2220 granted to the 5threspondent in so far as it relates to forest area in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura Forest area measuring 71.20 acres.
b) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent to compensate the environmental loss caused due to illegal mining activity in the forest area and also to take measure for afforestation and plantation in the said area.
c) Issue a writ/order/direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to constitute a Committee to examine each mine including that of 5th respondent situated in the surrounding areas and to submit a report regarding enormous degradation of the environment in the said area and action to be taken for remedying the said degradation.
2. When the above writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 06.08.2009, this Court after hearing Sri D. Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 and Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and 6, this Court passed a detailed interim order dt.06.08.2009, which reads as hereunder:
1.1. Even though the land to an extent of 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, was granted for mining lease originally in favour of the fifth respondent - B.D. Hanuman Singh in the year 1976 and thereafter, got transferred in favour of the seventh respondent-Vinod Goel, the petitioners objected the same on the ground that by proceedings dated 24.03.2008, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bangalore, cancelled the impugned mining lease as the same is notified as 'Rajathadripura State Forest' and not as a revenue land.
2. On the strength of the said proceedings, the petitioners, have preferred this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to cancel mining lease No. 2220 granted to the 5th respondent in so far as it relates to forest area in Sy. No. 95 o Rajathadripura Forest area measuring 71.30 acres.
b) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent to compensate the environmental loss caused due to illegal mining activity in the forest area and also to take measure for afforestation and plantation in the said area.
c) Issue a writ/order/direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to constitute a Committee to examine each mine including that of 5th respondent situated in the surrounding areas and to submit a report regarding enormous degradation of the environment in the said area and action to be taken for remedying the said degradation.
2.1 On 16.09.2008, learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4. Notice was ordered to the fifth respondent and the petitioners were also permitted to implead the Forest Department, to enable the Forest Department to verify and submit whether the impugned land is a forest land or a revenue land.
4. In the meanwhile, on 19.09.2008, the petitioners moved an application to implead the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as respondent No. 6. The said application came to be allowed on 24.09.2008 and the Forest Department represented by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was impleaded and thereafter, the seventh respondent who is the transferee of the mining lease from the fifth respondent got impleaded as a party respondent by an order dated 17.11.2008.
5. It is brought to our notice by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that as per the proceedings dated 24.03.2008, the impugned land is shown as 'Rajathadripura State Forest'. It is also brought to our notice that the seventh respondent filed four original suits in O.S. Nos. 124/2007, 125/2007, 1/2008 and 6/2008 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tiptur, seeking for an injunction restraining the Forest Department from interfering with the mining activity and the usage of the road.
6. Taking note of the above fact, this Court by an order dated 17.11.2008, called for the records in O.S. Nos. 124/2007, 125/2007, 1/2008 and 6/2008 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decision on the same issue and the fifth respondent and the seventh respondent transferee were restrained from carrying on with quarrying operations in the impugned land, ie., Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District.
7. Both the above writ petition and the above said Original Suits are heard together and perused the records.
8. Heard Sri D. Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Vinaya Keerthy, learned Counsel appearing for seventh respondent, at length.
9.1 It is not in dispute that as per the proceedings dated 24.03.2008, the impugned land, to an extent of 71.20 acres of land in Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, has been notified as 'Rajathadripura State Forest' by the Chief Conservator of Forests and even though the same is continued to be classified as revenue land in the revenue entries as alleged by the seventh respondent, in our considered opinion, once it is treated as a forest land, viz., 'Rajathadripura State Forest' Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act operates and, by operation of law, the seventh respondent is not entitled to carry on mining operation of iron ore in the impugned land, though the Government has granted mining lease in favour of the seventh respondent since 1976.
9.2 Of course, learned Government Advocate submitted that till the passing of the proceedings dated 24.03.2008, by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the impugned land was not considered as forest land.
9.3 Be that as it may, by virtue of proceedings dated 24.03.2008, the impugned land is not available for operation of mining lease as the same is a forest land, unless a clearance is obtained under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
9.4 As an alternate, Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel suggested that since the seventh respondent has already been granted mining lease in the adjacent land, ie., Sy. No. 150 and since he has no objection to take the said extent of land, in lieu of an extent of 71.20 acres located in Sy. No. 95, for which, the petitioners cannot have any objections.
9.5 In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that admittedly, right from 1976, it is the Government which has granted an extent of 71.20 acres of land in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, treating it as a revenue land and there was no fault on the part of the fifth respondent and thereafter, on the part of the seventh respondent-transferee whatsoever till date and that they have also been paying royalty, it is suffice to direct the Government to get instructions for grant of 71.20 acres of land in Sy. No. 150 in lieu of 71.20 acres of land in Sy. No. 95 in favour of the seventh respondent, provided, the area to an extent of 71.20 acres located in Sy. No. 150 is a revenue land and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests also certifies that it is not a forest land and the said land is available for grant of lease.
The matter is adjourned to next week.
3. Pursuant to the said interim order 06.08.2009, learned Government Advocate and based on instructions from the revenue authorities by their proceedings dated 11.08.2009, submits that the total area of an extent of 265.34 acres located in Sy. No. 150 in Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District classified as revenue land, and out of which the following lands have already been granted to various persons for the purpose as hereunder:
______________________________________________________________________________Name Extent Remarks______________________________________________________________________________1. B.D. Hanuman Singh 27.00 acres Lease (Granted to 5th respondentsubsequently transferred to 7th respondent)______________________________________________________________________________2. KLL Industries 15.00 acres Lease______________________________________________________________________________3. Thakur Singh Extent not mentioned______________________________________________________________________________4. Lakshmidevamma 0.33 guntas Granted______________________________________________________________________________5. Devarajamma w/o Narasingaiah 1.20 acres Granted______________________________________________________________________________6. Nanjundaiah s/o Halnanjaiah 1.20 acres Granted______________________________________________________________________________7. S.V. Nagaraj s/o Vinayak 1.20 acres Granted______________________________________________________________________________8. Gangadhariah s/o Nanjundaiah 1.20 acres Granted______________________________________________________________________________9. Nagaraj s/o Madaiah 1.20 acres Granted______________________________________________________________________________Total 50.13 acres______________________________________________________________________________
4. Even though the instructions of Tahsildar dated 11.08.2009 would read to the effect that in the remaining 215.21 acres, the Forest Department has planted trees, neither the Forest Department nor the learned Government Advocate are in a position to clarify under what circumstances and to what extent the trees have been planted in the remaining area.
5. On the other hand, Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for 7th respondent submits that land to an extent of 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripua forest area was granted by the respondents themselves treating the said land as revenue land and the 5th and 7th respondents were in possession of the same for the past 30 years and they are not at all at fault at any point of time. Therefore if the said area is claimed to be a forest land, respondents 5 and 7 are entitled for mining lease to the same extent of revenue land in different survey number and the respondents-mining authorities are under an obligation to provide alternative area of same extent, namely, 71.20 acres of revenue land in the neighbouring Sy. No. 150 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, where the respondents have already granted mining lease in favour of Respondent No. 7 herein or in any other revenue land. Accordingly respondents 5 and 7 have also agreed to make necessary representation for allotment of alternative revenue land of the same extent, namely, 71.20 acres, either in Sy. No. 150 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District or in any other such available area and also seek permission for approach road to carry the minerals and to transport the same.
6. We have given our careful consideration to the submission of all the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that an extent of 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District was treated as revenue land by the Revenue Department at the time of grant of mining lease to 5th respondent which was subsequently transferred to 7th respondent. But, the impugned area, namely 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District is now found to be a forest land. Therefore, the respondents-5 and 7 cannot be found at fault and hence they are entitled for grant of alternative land. Since respondents-authorities themselves have granted lease to respondents-5 and 7 in Sy. No. 150 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, which is admittedly a revenue land even as on date, respondents 5 and 7 are entitled to claim an alternative area of same extent ie., 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 150 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District; and respondents-authorities are under an obligation to consider the said representation, in preference to other applications for grant of lease which are yet to be taken into consideration by respondents-authorities, because the right of respondents 5 and 7 for grant of mining lease to an extent of 71.20 acres in the revenue lands has already been considered and granted by the respondents themselves 30 years back.
8. In the circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice, we pass the following order:
(i) Respondents 5 and 7 are given liberty to make representation to respondents-authorities to grant an alternate area of an extent of 71.20 acres in revenue land in Sy. No. 150 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District or any other revenue land available in any other survey number in Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, in lieu of an extent of 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, agreed to be surrendered by respondent No. 7 and also to grant permission to use the approach road for transporting minerals,
(ii) On receipt of the above representation, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate orders on the representation of respondent No. 7 and grant an alternate area of an extent of 71.20 acres in revenue land in Sy. No. 150 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District or any other revenue land available in any other survey number in or nearby Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, in preference to other applications for grant of mining lease which are yet to be taken up for consideration and also to grant permission to use the approach road for transporting minerals, and
(iii) With regard to the prayer seeking direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to take action against respondents-5 and 7 to compensate the environmental loss caused due to illegal mining activity in the forest area and also to take measure for afforestation and plantation in the 'said area, since respondents-authorities themselves have treated the extent of 71.20 acres in Sy. No. 95 of Rajathadripura village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District as a revenue land and neither the 5th respondent nor the 7th respondent could be found at fault for the same, we direct respondents-authorities themselves to take appropriate action for afforestation through the Forest Department.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
W.P. No. 12028/2008 (GM-MMS-PIL)
FOR