Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2413

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member
Mohammad Ilyas – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Appeal No.24/2023/EZ|I.A. No.50/2024/EZ

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Upadhyay, Paushali Banerjee
For the Respondents: Aishwarya Rajyashree, Ashok Prasad, Dipanjan Ghosh, Apurba Ghosh

Environmental Clearance cancellation invalid absent notified siting criteria for mining-forest proximity; operations beyond permitted plots violate EC terms, warranting fresh review excluding title disputes.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Clause 8(vi); Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2; Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Environmental Clearance for stone mining - Cancellation by SEIAA on ground of zero distance from forest land - Mining lease and clearance granted for specific plots based on prior certifications of >500m distance from forest - Subsequent report claiming zero distance - No notified siting criteria by Forest Department/State Government mandating 250m distance from notified/demarcated forest - Encroachment and illegal mining confirmed on adjacent forest plot without clearance, violating EC condition restricting operations to lease area - SEIAA must consider violation of EC terms but lacks jurisdiction over title disputes - State directed to notify siting criteria. (Paras 45, 58, 61, 64-65, 67-68)

(B) Natural Justice - Show cause notice and hearing provided post-abeyance order - Opportunity given before final cancellation - No violation where procedural safeguards followed. (Paras 7-8, 19, 42)

(C) Siting Criteria - Absence of state-specific guidelines for mining proximity to forest - Uniform national criteria inapplicable without state adoption - Expert study required balancing sustainable development and precautionary principle. (Paras 27-28, 64-65)

Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged SEIAA order cancelling 2014 Environmental Clearance for stone mining on specific plots, alleging zero distance from adjacent plot notified as protected forest (part of 81 acres, 49.90 acres notified). Prior DFO certificate confirmed >500m distance; subsequent contradictory report. Illegal mining/encroachment alleged on adjacent plot used for access road; title claimed via purchase but no clearance for that plot.

Findings of Court:
No valid basis for cancellation on distance grounds absent notified siting criteria; illegal activities on adjacent plot confirmed, violating EC scope. SEIAA order set aside; fresh consideration directed. State to notify siting criteria within 2 months.

Issues: Validity of EC cancellation for alleged zero forest distance; violation via encroachment/illegal mining on adjacent plot; need for state siting criteria; SEIAA jurisdiction over EC violations vs. title disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: EC cancellation unsustainable without established siting criteria from Forest Department/State; confirmed EC violation via operations beyond permitted plots requires fresh SEIAA review. Title/ownership disputes outside NGT/SEIAA purview; expert notification of proximity rules essential for environmental compliance.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; SEIAA to reconsider within 2 months.

Table of Content
1. background of mining lease and initial ec grant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appellants challenge ec suspension due to forest proximity. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. dispute over plot no.01 forest status and ownership. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 29 , 30 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 57 , 60 , 66)
4. evidence of illegal mining encroachment on plot no.01. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 58)
5. respondents affirm zero distance and ec violation. (Para 31 , 34 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45)
6. court rejects appellants' title defenses as irrelevant. (Para 44 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
7. siting criteria for mines near forests requires notification. (Para 59 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
8. appeal allowed; seiaa to reconsider ec cancellation. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)

ORDER

1. Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel are present for the Appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh and Mr. Apurba Ghosh, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2. The Appellants in the present Appeal are seeking quashing of the Order dated 08.08.2023 passed by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand, cancelling the Environmental Clearance of the Appellants dated 31.12.2014, inter- alia, on the ground that the distance of the Appellants’ Plot from the forest land is Zero.

3. It is stated that the Appellant No.3, Arun Kumar Ladia, was granted mining lease of stone minor mineral over 1.81 acres of land situated in Mouza – Lakhanpur, Police Station – Bengabad District-

Giridih, bearing Cadastral Survey No./Thana No.349 over Khata Nos.02 & 04, Plot Nos.04 & 05 (P) under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 05.02.2015 after fulfilment of all statutory criteria. The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the present lease holders to whom the lease had been stated to be transferred by the Appellant No.3 vide registered Lease Deed dated 26.11.2021.

4. It is further stated that prior to the grant of the aforesaid mining lease, the Project Proponent, Appellant No.3, had submitted application on 07.11.2014 for grant of prior Environmental Clearance of the Stone Mining Project on Plot Nos.4 & 5 (P), Village – Lakhanpur, Block – Bengabad, District – Giridih, Jharkhand, along with all statutory documents like - NOC given by the Gram Sabha and certificates issued by Circle Officer, Bengabad, District Mining Officer, Giridih and Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih East Division etc.

5. It is also stated that the Circle Officer, Bengabad forwarded letter No.786 dated 23.10.2013 to the Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih, stating specifically therein that the Plot in question is not forest land. It is stated that thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih East Division, issued letter dated 25.02.2014 to the Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih regarding distance of the applied area for mining lease from the forest boundary which is more than 500 meters. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the proposal was appraised by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in its 24^th Meeting held on 15-18th December, 2014, and the Project was recommended for grant of Environmental Clearance and ultimately the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Jharkhand, in its 28th Meeting held on 30.12.2014 decided to grant Environmental Clearance to the Project of the Appellant No.3 and in pursuance thereof Environmental Clearance was granted on 31.12.2014.

6. It is also stated that in 2021, the Appellant No.3 transferred the lease of the land in question to the Appellant Nos.1 and 2. However, the Appellant Nos.1 and 2 thereafter received an order from SEIAA vide Memo No.319 dated 22.12.2022 keeping the Environmental Clearance in abeyance in view of the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih, dated 15.12.2022 stating that the lease area is situated at Zero dis