Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, J.
India Cements Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Environment and forest Department and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 21518 of 2007
Decided On : 03-03-2017
For the Petitioner: G.R. Lakshmanan
For the Respondents: M. Santhanaraman
Headnote:
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rules 27(1 )(d), 27(1 )(t) & 72 - Mining Lease – Limestone - Leased - Possession and Mining operations - Forest land - Payment of Compensation to owner of surface right, etc – Conditions - Petitioner was given Mining Lease for prospecting Limestone since 1952, is not in dispute - Limestone was classified as a Major Mineral by Act, 1957 and Limestone mining is governed by Rules, 1960 - Petitioners Lease period was extended from time to time - Petitioner was initially given on Lease, which is admittedly a Reserve Forest area - After exploiting leased portion, Petitioner surrendered 907.39 acres to Forest Department and retained 538.40 acres - When penultimate Lease period was to expire, Petitioner started negotiations with Government for renewal of Lease and at that time, Petitioner agreed to retain only 96.71 hectares of Reserve Forest land and handed over rest to Forest Department - Held, It would have been an ideal situation had that been done - Just because it was not done, it cannot be stated that present demand, based on objections of Accountant General, is invalid - Court view that claim of Lease Rent by State Government in terms of G.O.Ms. cannot be said to be illegal - However, levy of interest on Petitioner for said amount cannot be sustained, for simple reason that, for failure of Authorities of the State to incorporate the terms of G.O.Ms. in Lease Deed that was executed and for their act of waking up only after Accountant General had pointed out the mistake, Petitioner cannot be penalised with Interest - Accordingly, demand of Lease Rent is sustained and demand for payment of Interest thereon for alleged belated payment is set aside - Writ Petition partly allowed.
P.N. Prakash, J.
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated Nil-20.1.5 of the District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli Division, the Third Respondent herein, signed on 1.7.2005 and confirmed by the very same Authority by subsequent correspondence dated 28.5.2007, signed on 1.6.2007 and for a direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and Mining operations of the Petitioner in 96.71 hectares of Thalaiyuthu Reserve Forest area covered under G.O.Ms. No. 148, Environment and Forests Department, dated 18.6.1999 (for brevity "G.O. No.148").
2. A vignette of the facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition is hereunder :
2.1. That the Petitioner was given Mining Lease for prospecting Limestone since 1952, is not in dispute. Limestone was classified as a Major Mineral by the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and therefore, Limestone mining is governed by the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for brevity "the Rules"). The Petitioner's Lease period was extended from time to time. The Petitioner was initially given on Lease, an extent of 1,445.79 acres in Thalayuthu Village, Tirunelveli District, which is admittedly a Reserve Forest area.
2.2. After exploiting the leased portion, the Petitioner surrendered 907.39 acres to the Forest Department on 24.8.1978 and retained 538.40 acres. When the penultimate Lease period was to expire on 26.2.1988, the Petitioner started negotiations with the Government for renewal of the Lease and at that time, the Petitioner agreed to retain only 96.71 hectares of Reserve Forest land and handed over the rest to the Forest Department. Concededly, the Petitioner handed over 96.71 hectares of their own Patta land to the Forest Department for compensatory afforestation in lieu of retaining 96.71 hectares of forest land for mining. This exchange was in compliance with the mandates of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Forest Department also demanded Rs.20 lakhs as Compensation for Afforestation, which was incontrovertibly paid by the Petitioner.
2.3. While the Petitioner was continuing with their mining operations, the District Forest Officer issued an Order dated 18.2.1997, calling upon the Petitioner to stop the Mining operations. The Petitioner paid Rs.16.50 lakhs towards Cost of Afforestation and by G.O.Ms. No.148, the Petitioner was granted Mining Lease for 10 years from 4.5.1998 to 4.5.2008 over an area of 96.71 hectares in Thalayuthu Reserve Forest. The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Petitioner entered into a Lease Deed dated 1.9.1999, in which, Royalty and Surface Rent payable by the Petitioner to the Government of Tamil Nadu were determined.
2.4. While so, the Petitioner received a Letter dated 1.7.2005 from the District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli, calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.35,87,953 towards Lease Rent for the periods from 1998 to 2003. The Petitioner contended before the authorities that they are not liable to pay any Lease Rent in respect of Major Minerals, as they are already paying Royalty and Surface Rent stipulated by the Central Government, as mentioned in the Lease Deed, dated 1.9.1999.
2.5. The Office of the Principal Accountant General, Civil Audit, issued a Communication dated 7.4.2006 to the Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu. Forest Department, stating that the Government should have collected Rs.59,64,062 towards Lease Rent and Rs.50,11,840 towards penal Interest from the Petitioner for the periods from 1989 to 2005. Based on the said Communication, the District Forest Officer passed the impugned Order dated 28.5.2007 calling upon the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,75,902, challenging which, the Petitioner is before this Court, besides challenging the Letter dated 1.7.2005 as well.
3. At the time of admission on 25.6.2007, this Court passed the following Order:
"Mr. S.N. Kirubana
