Back
2014 Supreme(Chh) 236
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Yatindra Singh & PRITINKER DIWAKER, JJ.
Jiwanlal Jain
Versus
Union of India and Others
Writ Appeal No. 308 of 2013
Decided On : 13.8.2014
Shri Ratan K. Singh, Shri Vinod Chawda and Shri Amrito Das, Advocates for Appellant.
Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate for Respondent-1.
Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate for the State/ Respondent-2.
Shri GC Bharookha, Senior Advocate with Shri Dewashish Bharookha, Shri HS Patel and Shri Rahul Pande, Advocates for Respondent-3.
Headnote:
Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4 and 4(A) – Lease - Prospecting licence - Erstwhile state issued a notification under section 4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 reserving a large area as a reserved forest - It included 4969.46 hectares of land of forest division - It comprises of land of many villages including of village, where land in dispute is situate - Contesting-Respondent both are jointly referred to as the Parties as well as Appellant separately applied for prospecting licence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the Act) - Their areas were within reserve forest area of village as notified - contesting-Respondent and State Government are both opposing this appeal and are jointly referred to as Respondents - Contesting-Respondent filed an application for grant of prospecting licence for iron ore over 43.750 hectares of land in village - It was stated in application that land was in forest area - Appellant filed an application for grant of prospecting licence for hectares in village - This area was within area that was applied for by contesting-Respondent - However, Appellant applied stating that it was revenue land – Held, facts of this case show that Appellant suppressed material fact before obtaining the lease - It is true that his suppression was not pointed out by officials but it is not difficult to judge why it must have been done -Conduct of Appellant was not fair - He cannot take advantage of his own fraud – No man can take advantage of his own wrong - Appellant took advantage of agreement and acted upon same - He who seeks equity must do equity - Writ jurisdiction is equitable jurisdiction - It cannot be exercised in favour of such person - Appellant is not entitled to any relief - Writ appeal as well as writ petition filed by Appellant have no merit - They are dismissed.
1. This writ appeal arises out of the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the single judge dismissing Writ Petition (C) 1598 of 2012 filed by Jiwanlal Jain (the Appellant). The writ petition was essentially for the relief that he may be permitted to work and excavate the iron ore over 37.470 hectares of land situate in village Barbaspur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker instead of part of the same namely 17.930 hectares of land.
THE FACTS
2. The erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification on 04.07.1969 under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (the Forest Act) reserving a large area as a reserved forest. It included 4969.46 hectares of land of forest division, Kanker, Tehsil Bhanupratappur. It comprises of land of many villages including of village Barbaspur, where the land in dispute is situate.
3. M/s. Nagpur Alloys Casting Limited (now M/s. Jayaswal Neco Ltd.) (the contesting-Respondent) (both are jointly referred to as the Parties) as well as the Appellant separately applied for prospecting licence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the Act). Their areas were within the reserve forest area of village Barbaspur as notified on 04.07.1969.
4. The contesting-Respondent and the State Government are both opposing this appeal and are jointly referred to as the Respondents.
5. The contesting-Respondent filed an application on 25.07.1990 for grant of prospecting licence for iron ore over 43.750 hectares of land in village Barbaspur. It was stated in the application that the land was in the forest area.
6. The Appellant filed an application on 09.09.1993 for grant of prospecting licence for 37.595 hectares in village Barbaspur. This area was within the area that was applied for by the contesting-Respondent on 25.07.1990. However, the Appellant applied stating that it was the revenue land.
7. The application of the Appellant was processed and reports were submitted. In these reports, it was not disputed that the land was a revenue land. After obtaining prior approval of the Central Government, the prospecting licence was granted to the Appellant over the area applied for by him on 07.10.1994 .
8. The mining lease was also granted to the Appellant over the same area (namely 37.595 hectares of land) on 04.03.1996, after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government. Thereafter, a mining lease deed was also executed on 14.03.1996 for 20 years. This was done on the footing that the land was revenue land and not forest land.
9. The Appellant was also granted permit to enter upon the leased area on 27.03.1996 and he started working on the same.
10. The Appellant did some mining but at the end of 1996, it was realised that the land was within reserved forest area. The Divisional Forest Officer wrote a letter dated 21.01.1997 to the Collector, Bastar (the Collector) objecting that:
(i) The area leased out to the Appellant was within the reserved area and this was illegal.
(ii) Two criminal cases namely forest offence no.4151/17 dated 18.06.1996 and 4151/18 dated 20.09.1996 have been registered against the Appellant.
(iii) The lease being illegal be cancelled.
11. In view of the recommendations of the Forest Department, the Collector by his letter no.461, dated 30.01.1997 recommended to the State Government that the lease in favour of the Appellant be cancelled. He also by separate letter no. 462 of the same date restrained the Appellant from mining.
12. The contesting-Respondent had filed an application for prospecting licence on 25.07.1990 for 43.750 hectares of land. At that time, the Act contained a provision that if no order was passed on the application for prospecting licence then application would be deemed to be rejected.
13. The application of the contesting-Respondent was deemed to be rejected as no order was passed on the same. Against this deemed rejection, the contesting-Respondent filed a revision before the Central Government under section 30 of the Act alon
