SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1324

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Divisional Forest Officer – Appellant
Versus
S. Nageswaramma – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. 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 Appeal No. 96/94. The admitted facts are, that the respondent had a mining lease granted by the Director of Mines on September 18, 1979 to extract 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 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 Government was not obtained.

3. Consequently, the Fo




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top