IMPORTANT POINT
The prohibitions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land, Transfer Regulation, 1959, with regard to transfer of land in favour of a non-tribal will not apply to the transfer of land made by the Government for the purpose of mining lease.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.- Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 27.8.1993 in writ petition No. 3734 of 1993. The present appellant was respondent No. 6 before the High Court. SAKTI, a voluntary social organisation for the upliftment of tribals in East Godavari District filed the writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying therein that the mining activities which are carried on by the respondents 6 to 10 in the said writ petition should be immediately stopped as the grant of mining leases in their favour is in contravention of Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land, Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation ) as well as Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Conservation Act ). It was averred in the writ petition that the villages where the mining activities are being carried on were notified as protected forests under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 with effect from 8.9.1975 and within the said forest area it is not permissible to continue any mining activity in view of the provisions of the Conservation Act which prohibits user of forest land for non-forest purpose.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 before the High Court, who were the public officers of the State Government supported the case of the petitioner and took the stand that a joint inspection report had been conducted after surveying the area over which the mining activities are being carried on by the respondents 6 to 10 and the said report reveals that mining leases leave have been granted over the forest area which is prohibited under the Conservation Act without prior approval of the Central Government.

4. Respondent No. 6, the present appellant took the stand that the lease having been granted much prior to the area in question was included as a protected forest, the embargo contained in the provisions of the Conservation Act will not apply and in this connection reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram1. It was also contended that Section 3 of the Regulation has no application to a transfer by the Government in respect of its land in favour of a non-tribal and the word person in Section 3 of the said Regulation will not include the Government. It is not necessary for us to examine the stand taken by other private respondents, namely respondents 7 to 10.

5. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the transfer of any land in schedule area to a non-tribal is void under Section 3 of the Regulation, and therefore, the lease in favour of respondent No. 6 within the scheduled area is void. The High Court came to the conclusion that the word person in Section 3 of the Regulation includes the Government, and therefore, leases granted by the State Government in scheduled area to a non-tribal is void. On the question of applicability of the Conservation Act the High Court also relied upon the decision of this Court in the Banshi Ram s case (supra) and came to the conclusion that for grant of mining lease in a protected forest area for non-tribal purpose the prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory and since the Government did not obtain the approval of the Central Government, leases are in contravention of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Having considered the judgment of this Court in Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat2, and taking into account the fact that respondent No. 6 had completed the mining operation over 42 acres the High Court permitted the said respondent No. 6 to remove the dug up mineral in the presence of Joint Collector of the District, Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and the District Surveyor of Forests. Respondent No. 6, the present appellant was prohibited from mining operation in the area with the aforesaid conclusion and thus the appeal by special leave.

6.