Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21634

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, J
H.K. Lakshman Gowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 35420 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION NO. 35424 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakshith B.V.M., Suresh T.S.
For the Respondents: Niloufer Akbar

Mining leases on land determined to be forest are void if granted without mandatory prior approval from the central government. The status of land as forest is determined by its usage and government records, and failure in afforestation efforts does not change the legal classification of the land.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 - Rule 8(5) - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Mining lease operations - Stoppage of quarrying - Withdrawal of No Objection Certificate (NOC) - The court held that the Competent Authority is empowered to determine a lease if the lessee fails to remedy breaches or if the underlying land is found to be forest land diverted without prior approval of the Central Government. (Paras 45, 46, 50)

(B) Forest Land - Definition and Status - The definition of 'forest' under the Act covers all statutorily recognized forests, irrespective of ownership or classification - Any non-forest usage within such areas without prior Central Government approval is impermissible and subject to immediate cessation. (Paras 61, 62)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the stoppage of quarrying operations on lands originally classified as government category land, which were subsequently claimed to be forest lands due to records indicating their use for compensatory afforestation. The authorities withdrew the previously issued No Objection Certificates, leading to the cancellation of mining activities. The petitioner argued that the subject lands were not part of any reserve forest and had been re-transferred to the revenue department.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the available records indicated the subject lands had been under the administrative control of the forest department and were utilized for compensatory afforestation. It was held that failure of specific afforestation efforts does not alter the nature of the land, and the provisions regarding mandatory prior approval for non-forest use apply to all forests, regardless of official notifications or ownership records.

Issues: Whether the authority has the power to direct the stopping of quarrying operations and whether the subject lands are vested with the forest department, thereby necessitating prior approval for any non-forest activity under the relevant conservation legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that if land is determined to be a forest, even in terms of dictionary definition or government records of usage for afforestation, it cannot be diverted for mining without prior central statutory approval; the validity of a lease cannot be sustained if the land is forest-classified, regardless of any earlier issuance of temporary clearance.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning the grant and subsequent withdrawal of quarrying leases on disputed lands. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
2. procedural history and the validity of the administrative orders directing the cessation of mining activities. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
3. authority of the state to intervene when public land is erroneously diverted for non-forest usage. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
4. definition of forest land under the fc act and the non-applicability of re-transfer circulars to afforested lands. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
5. final determination based on findings that the lands were effectively utilized for forest conservation purposes. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION MORE SPECIFICALLY A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTERS DATED 19.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-B-1) AND 15.03.2024 (ANNEXURE-B-2) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 WHERE BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 WITHDREW THEIR NO OBJECTIONS CERTIFICATE (NOC) GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TO UNDERTAKE AND CARRY ON HIS MINING ACTIVITIES ON THE SUBJECT LAND AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, MORE SPECIFICALLY A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE LETTERS DATED 19.02.2024 (ANNEXURE B-1) AND 15.03.2024 (ANNEXURE B-2) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WITHDREW THEIR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TO UNDERTAKE AND CARRY ON HIS MINING ACTIVITIES ON THE SUBJECT LAND AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

INTRODUCTION

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, W.P.No.35420/2024, impugning the order dated 30.11.2024 [hereinafter, 'the first impugned order'] passed by respondent No.1 (Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Mysuru) bearing No. DMG/SGM/SQL/A No-1/2024-25/1630, directing that the quarrying operations under Lease No. MYSNS549 (QL 549) in respect of 4 acres of land in Survey No.23 of Athiguppe Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District be stopped.

2. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.35424 of 2024 impugning the order dated 05.12.2024 [the second impugned order], bearing No. DMG/SGM/SQL/A No-2/2024-25/1663, passed by respondent No.1 directing that quarrying operations under Lease No. MYSNS554 (QL 554) in respect of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in Survey No.23 of the same village be stopped. Both the impugned orders are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the impugned orders'.

3. Both writ petitions arise from a common factual matrix. The petitioner holds two quarrying leases for quarrying ordinary building stone on land bearing Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject lands’]. The core dispute pertains to whether the subject lands constitute forest land, and whether the impugned orders stopping the quarrying operations were validly passed, particularly in light of the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.15865/2024 (GM-MM-S) and W.P.No.15692/2024 (GM-MM-S), whereby the matter was remanded to Respondent No.1 for de novo consideration.

4. Before examining the reliefs sought by the petitioner and the challenge to the impugned orders, it is necessary to set out the factual context in which the controversy involved

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21634

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAVibhu Bakhru, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, JH.K. Lakshman Gowda – AppellantVersusState Of Karnataka – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 35420 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION NO. 35424 OF 2024

Mining leases on land determined to be forest are void if granted without mandatory prior approval from the central government. The status of land as forest is determined by its usage and government records, and failure in afforestation efforts does not change the legal classification of the land.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C.M. Poonacha, J
H.K. Lakshman Gowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 35420 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION NO. 35424 OF 2024