THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER AND ORS. versus S. NAGESHWARAMMA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 23-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER AND ORS. 
v. 
S. NAGESHW ARAMMA 
AUGUST 23, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ. 
Forest Conservation Act, 1980: Section 2. 
Mining lease-Renewal of-Forest area--Grant of licence for mining to 
responden~ln the meanwhile Forest Conservation Act coming into 
C f orc~Act requiring prior approval of Central Govemment for mining inf orest 
area-Lessee co11tinuing mi11ing operations within forest area-Required ap-
proval of Central Govemment 11ot obtained-Direction by forest department 
for cancellation of lease-Writ-High Court proceeding on the premise that 
lease was a valid lease and henc1~ issuing directions to carry on extractio11 of 
D stacked matedal from the forest area-Held direction issued by High Court 
was clearly dlegal-Renewal of a lease is not a vested right-Mining lease 
must be renewed in accordance with law in operatio11 on the date of 
renewal-Respo11de11t held not entitled to continue mi11ing operation. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11902 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. No. 96 of 1994. 
Ms. K. Amareshwari, A. Venkateshwar Rao and Anil Kr. Tandale 
F 
for the Appellants. 
A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
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 
H Appeal No. 96/94. The admitted facts are, that the respondent had a mining 
196 
[
i 
DIVNLFORESTOFFICER v. S.NAGESWARAMMA 
197 
lease granted by the Director of Mines on September 18, 1979 to extract A 
. 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 B 
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 C 
Government was not obtained. 
Consequently, the Forest Department in the joint irispection made 
on February 7, 1990 discovered that the respondent was extracting mines 
within the forest area and, therefore, they issued directions cancelling the D 
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. 
E 
It is contended by Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respon-
dent, 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 permis-
F 
sion 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 ~o 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 premises on which the Division Bench has proceeded is obvious-
G 
ly 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 C:entral 
Government. Admittedly, the prior concurrence of the Central Govern-
ment had not been obtained. Shri Subba Rao sought to place before us the H 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
guidelines issued by the Department of Environment and Forest, Govern-
ment of India in relaxation of Rules/Guidelines under Forest 

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