Mining activities on land previously designated as forest require strict compliance with legal procedures; failure to obtain necessary approvals renders the mining lease invalid.

JUDGMENT

1. Issue raised in this application is permission of mining of different land revenue number in different years while the re-number took place for diverting the land of reserved forest converting the land for the purposes of mining stone/gitti without following the procedure laid down by the Forest (Conservation) Act and guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC. It is alleged that in village Singot district Khandwa (M.P.) there are diversion of mining lease area and the forest land, it is recorded in 1985-86 as forest area and was allotted for mining lease though it is recorded as Bade Chotte Jhad Ka Jangal (forest). The contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is violation of the Section 2 of the Forest Act,1980 or directions and guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India in W.P. Civil No. 171/1996.

2. The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and a committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report that previously Khasra No. 893, 896 of village Singot was recorded in the year 1968 -69 under the head bade chhote jhad ka jungle (छोटे झाड़ का जंगल) but later on in 1985-86 it was recorded (changed as Khasra no. 1213) and registered as Pahad/Chattan. The Revenue Department has not verified the area, which requires the minimum distance 250 meters from the forest land, which is recorded as large small bush and forest items. The State PCB has directed the respondent not to operate the stone crusher and the mine without having valid consent of Board and EC issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. The contention of the applicant are that on the one hand the State Authorities/State Pollution Control Board/Mining Department has submitted the report that the mining is not operated at the time of inspection but the bills of the electricity which was used by the consumer shows that electricity was used for more than 2 lakhs per month which was used for mining and crushing purpose and it shows that the mining was in operation illegally, which was not counted by the authorities concerned and no environment compensation have been assessed by the State Pollution Control Board. It is further alleged that the nature of the land was changed without following the procedure established by law and crusher was in operation even after the inspection which is evident from the electricity bill.

3. The matter was considered by this Tribunal after the report of the committee and the State PCB was directed to send the report on the basis of electric consumption, and this Tribunal directed as follows:-

“Learned Counsel for the applicant has filed the objection and submitted that the joint committee has not taken due account on three points i.e. (1) change of nature of land (2) use of electricity which was used for mining but the committee/State PCB has not taken into account, the reading of electricity/power for mining and rather submitted the report that mining was not in operation.(3) The State PCB has to see where the energy was utilised and how much mining was done in accordance with the ratio the necessary steps as per law be taken by the State PCB against the violators of law.”

4. R eply by the respondent has been filed. Heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the aforesaid land was recorded as “बड़े छोटे झाड का जंगल” (forest land) till the year