STATE OF BIHAR versus BANSHI RAM MODI & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 07-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. 
34S 
StATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
BANSHI RAM MODI & ORS. 
May 7, 1985 
[A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.) 
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, s. 2(ii)-lnterpretation of-Mining 
least granted prior to coming into force of the Act-Minerals not specified in least 
A 
B 
found in the area-Whdher permission of Central Government necessary for 
C 
winning new minerals from the same area. 
Clause (ii) of Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short, the 
Act) which came into force on October 25, 1980, provides that notwithstanding 
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no 
State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval 
D 
of the Central Government, any order directing that any forest land or any 
portion thereof may be usf'd for any non~forest purpose. E:xplanation to section 
2 of the Act defines ''non-forest purpo~e" as breaking up or clearing of any 
forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation. 
Respondent No, 1, who had been granted a mining lease in the year 1966 
for a period of 20 years for mining and winning mica in respect of 80 acres of 
land in accordance with Mining Concession Rules, 1960 came acress two other 
minerals, namely, felspar and quartz during the course of mining operations. 
Under the conditions of the lease, Respondent No. 1 applied to the State 
_.-,ernment to include the said minerals also in the earlier lease deed so that 
-
could win and dispose of those minerals also. Thereupon, the State Govern-
ment and the lessee executed a Deed of Incorporation on April 6, 1983 allowing 
the lessee to win and carry away felspar and Quartz after paying the required 
royalty from the area over which he had been granted lease for mining mica. 
On August 8, 1983 the Divisional Forest Officer wrote a Jetter to the lessee 
&tating that the impugned mining area was situated within the reserved 
forest area and that, since previous approval of the Central Government had 
not been obtained for inclusion of felspar and qllartz in the mining lease as 
required by the Act. Respondent No. I could not be permitted to win felspar 
and quartz even through the Deed of Incorporation had been executed. Aggri-
eved by the said letter, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court 
contending that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to a case where 
the lease had been entered into prior to the coming into force of the Act and 
that there was no need to break up or clear any forest land other than the area 
of only 5 acres of land where mining operations were being carried on. The 
Hish Court allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by the State. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
346 
SUPREME COUkT REPORTS 
(1985] SUPPL, .s.c.a. 
Disposing of the appeal, 
HELD: (I) It is clear from a reading <if clause (ii) of section 2 of the Act 
and the Explanation to that section that these two parts of the section mean that 
after the commencement of the Act no fresh breaking up of the forest land or 
no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State 
Government or any authority without the prior approval of the Central 
Government. But if such permission has been accorded before the coming into 
force of the Act and the forest land is broken up or cleared then obviously the 
section cannot apply. (350 D-FJ 
(2) In the instant case, it is not disputed that in an area of five acres out 
of eighty acres covered by the mining lease the forest land had been dug up and 
mining operations were being carried on even prior to the coming into force of 
the Act. If the State Government permits the lessee by the amendment of the 
lease deed to win and remove felspar and quartz also in addition to mica it 
cannot be said that the State Government has violated section 2 of the Act 
because thereby no permission for fresh breaking up of forest land is being 
given. The result of taking the contrary view will be that while the digging for 
purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting 
felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on miniog 
operations for winning mica. That would lead to an unreasonable result which 
would not in any way subserve the object of the Act. (350 G-H; 351 A] 
(3) While before granting permission to start mining operations on a 
vergin area section 2 of the Act has to be complied with, it is not necessary to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.