STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. versus M/S. KRISHNADAS TIKARAM

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 21-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MIS. KRISHNADAS TIKARAM 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.j 
B 
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 : Sections 2 and 3. 
Mining Lease--Renewal by State Government-Where approval of 
State Government was not obtained directions by High Court to grant renewal C 
held not justified. 
The respondent was granted mining lease to extract limestone in the 
forest area. Subsequently, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into 
force under which grant or renewal of lease by State Government was to . 
be made with the prior approval of the Central Government. After expiry D 
of the lease, the respondent applied for further renewal which was granted 
but later it was cancelled because it was objected to by the Forest Depart· 
ment. The respondent approached the High Court which directed grant of 
renewal. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the renewal of the lease E 
cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the Central Govern-
ment. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was not right in directing grant ofrenewal F 
of the lease. The grant or renewal is a fresh grant and niust be made 
consistent with law. Section 2 of the Forest Conserval;ion Act 1980 
prohibited the grant or renewal. In case the State Government decides to 
grant fresh !ease or renewal of the lease it is mandatory that it should 
obtain prior approval of the Central Government. Admittedly, no such G 
prior approval was obtained. The State Government thus had realised the 
mistake in directing renewal when the Forest Department had objected to 
the renewal of the lease. Therefore, the cancellation of the renewal order 
was properly made by the State Government. (749-C, A-B] 
State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Ors., A.I.R. (1985) S.C. 814; H 
747 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., A.i.R. (1988) SC 
2187 and Ambica Quarry Works etc. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., A.I;R. 
(1987) SC 1073, referred to. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3276 of 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.89 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Misc. P.No. 2758 of 1989. 
B.Y. Kulkarni and S.K. Agnihotri (N.P.) for the Appellants. 
C 
Ghanshiam Das Gupta for (NP) for the Respondent 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
D (Conservation) Act 69 of 1980 has come into force with effect from 
25.10.80. Under Section 2 of the Act grant or renewal after the Act has 
comP- 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 
E 
of the forest. It is also the object under Section 3 to regenerate the forests 
by planting trees and the 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 February 7, 
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 
F 
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 August 18, 1989 following the ratio in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram 
Modi and Others, (A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 814) directed to grant renewal on the 
ground that the part of the leased area had already been broken and, 
G therefore, renewal should be granted. 
The appellant contends that this Court in Rural Litigation and Entit-
lement Kendra v. State of U.P., (A.1.R. 1988 SC 2187) and Ambica Quarry 
Works etc. v. State of Gujarat a1J,d Others, (A.I.R. 1987 SC 1073) had held 
that even the renewal of the lease cannot be granted without the prior 
H occurrence of the C~ntral Government. We find force in tqe contention. It 
.. 
' 
STATE OFM.P. v. K. TIKARAM 
749 
-
is settled law that the gnmt 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 Ceri.tral Government. 
Admittedly, no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.