JUDGMENT 1. :- By this petition, the petitioner prayed that respondents be directed to grant the mining lease to petitioner as applied by it vide application dated 12.10.1995 and letter dated 13.2.1996 of non-petitioner No.2 be declared illegal and invalid and the same be quashed. 2. On 12.10.95, an application No. ML 176/95 for grant of mining lease for marble mineral (minor mineral) was submitted by the petitioner in the office of Mining Enginner, Jaipur (non-petitioner No.3) for 9722.5 sq. meters area. That area falls within the khasra No. 80 in village Rasawala, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh which is Khatedari land of father of one of the partners of petitioner firm. The Mining Engineer, Jaipur vide letter dated 29.11.1995 along with khasra girdawari and jamabandi and map etc. relating to the said khasra number has written to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jaipur (West) mentioning inter alia that the petitionef had applied for grant of mining lease vide application 12.10.95 and after examining the position of the applied land it was found that the applied area did not fall in the forest area and has further requested the Dy. Conservator of Forest to ascertain that the area is non-forest area so that mining application may be disposed of. 3. The Patwari has also issued a certificate dated 14.10.95 countersigned by the Tehsildar Jamwaramgarh certifying that Khasra No. 79 & 80 in village Rasawala is khatedari land of Shri Surjan Meena which is cultivated by him and a mining lease No. 115/90 in khasra No. 80 has been allotted by the Mines Department on the ground that that does not fall within the forest land. The Dy. Conservator of Forest. Jaipur (West) vide his letter dated 16.6.90 has also certified that the ML No. 115/90 is not falling in the forest area. But mining lease has not been granted to petitioner, therefore, petitioner filed this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the area applied for mining does not fall within the forest area nor that is part of the wild life sanctuary, the Mining Department should grant the mining lease in the area applied for. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that though the part of the area does not fall within the forest but falls within the wild life sanctuary, therefore, lease cannot be granted. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 Mr. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that though the part of the area does not fall within the forest but falls within the wild life sanctuary, therefore, lease cannot be granted. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 Mr. Sharma submitted that the matter is under consideration. They first require the no objection certificate from forest department, that is yet to be received, therefore, it is pre-mature to say that petitioner is not entitled for mining lease. 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for mining lease or not, it i to be seen whether the area applied for falls within the forest area or is a part of wild life sanctuary within the meaning of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, and if so, whether the mining lease can be granted in the sanctuary area. For the purpose of deciding this question, we have to go in the definition of 'forest'. In fact, under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, no definition of the 'wild forest;' has been given, but in the case of T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1235, . in para 5, some idea of 'forest' has been given by the Apex Court, which reads as under 'The word 'forest' must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or.otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(1) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term 'forest land', occurring in Section 2 will not only include 'forest' as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pareek submitted that so far the area applied for is concerned, it has neither been declared by the statutory notification as a forest land nor it is a forest land in the dictionary sense nor it is recorded as forest in the Government record and several mining leases have been granted to different persons in the nearly area and around the area. He further submitted that a notification dated 15.10.1947 was issued under the provisions of the Jaipur Forest Act, 1939 whereby certain land was proposed to be declared as forest land. He further submitted that a notification dated 15.10.1947 was issued under the provisions of the Jaipur Forest Act, 1939 whereby certain land was proposed to be declared as forest land. Thereafter, necessary formalities were completed by the Forest Settlement Officer of the then Jaipur State. Meanwhile, the Rajasthan Forests Act, 1953 came into force and certain Khasra Nos. of village Jamuaramgarh were declared as the forest land including certain khasra Nos. of village Rasawala. 7. The present khasra No. 80 in village Rasawala is comprised of earlier khasra Nos. 391, 392, 394, 395 and 396 which have been consolidated in one single Khasra No. 80 after the settlement. Therefore, it is evident that none of Khasra Nos. from 391 to 396 was declared as the forest land and, thereafter, the present Khasra No. 80 is not a part of the forest land. Mr. Pareek also disputed the map Annexure-R/2 submitted by the non-petitioners along with their reply. 8. Now the question remains whether the area applied for has been recorded as forest land in the Government record. Mr. Pareek submitted that the list of Khasra Nos. included in the notification of the State Government which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 26-A and 76 (sic) of the Rajasthan Forests Act. 1953. The area of reserved forests or protected forests were ultimately sent by the Forest Settlement Officer to the Divisional Forest Officer and Collector for making necessary entries in the revenue records. In that notification also, the area applied for does not form part of the proposed forest land. When the area does not all in the forest land in the Government record, that should not be treated as forest land. 9. The next question is whether it is part of the wild life sanctuary within the meaning of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Section 18 of the said Act provides that the State Government may, by notification, declare its intention to constitute any area other than the area comprising within any reserved forest as a sanctuary. Non-petitioners claimed that the notification dated 31.5.1982 has been issued under section 18 of the Act of 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 18 the State Government may declare its intention for constituting sanctuary other than the forest area. Non-petitioners claimed that the notification dated 31.5.1982 has been issued under section 18 of the Act of 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 18 the State Government may declare its intention for constituting sanctuary other than the forest area. Even in that notification, the village Rasawla has (sic not ?) been included for the purpose of making it a part of wild life sanctuary but after declaring the intention of State Government under section 18, a final notification under section 26-A of the Act of 1972 has to be issued. Without that notification, it cannot be said that the area declared in the notification under section 18 of the Act of 1972 is sufficient to hold that it forms the part of wild life sanctuary. No such notification under Section 26-A has been issued by the Government. 10. Mr. Pareek also brought to my notice a decision of Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kishan v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2040 wherein the view has been taken that unless there is a notification under section 26-A of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the restrictions provided in the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 are not attracted. Mr. Pareek also brought to my notice that in that area, some mining leases are granted. 11. To cut-short the controversy, learned counsel for the respondents were directed to file affidavit that how many mines are in operation within the area of village Rasawala and how many mines are in operation with the permission of Central Government. In pursuance of direction, they filed the affidavit and admitted that the Mining Department has granted mining lease to Nidesh Agrawal, Ballabh Maheshwari, Suraj Kumar, Dinesh Bajaj and Mrs. Bela Dholia. They are within the revenue area of village Rasawala. On 28.8.97. Mr. Mittal was further directed to prepare a map showing the exact location of the area applied for mining lease by the petitioner and also the area of leases granted to aforesaid persons. In pursuance of that direction, the map has also been prepared of revenue village of Rasawala showing the mining leases granted to different persons and also area has been shown in red ink which fall outside the forest area. In yellow colour, the land of petitioner has been shown. In pursuance of that direction, the map has also been prepared of revenue village of Rasawala showing the mining leases granted to different persons and also area has been shown in red ink which fall outside the forest area. In yellow colour, the land of petitioner has been shown. The major part of that land falls outside the forest area though small part of area applied for mining lease falls in the forest land. 12. The limited controversy remains when land applied for mining lease does not fall within the forest land in the surrounding area mining leases have been granted how the similar treatment can be denied to petitioner. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that those leases were granted earlier prior to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kishan (supra). 13. I do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Mittal. The leases granted in any area prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court or after the judgment of the Supreme Court does not make any difference. Mining activities if allowed affects the wild life in both the cases. If in a particular area, the lease cannot be granted in accordance with law in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the mining operations should not be allowed to continue even though Mining leases are granted prior to the decision of the Supreme Court. If they are being allowed to continue, then the similar treatment cannot be denied to petitioner only in the name of forest land or area fall within the wild life sanctuary. 14. Their own admission and map submitted by them, the major part of the petitioner's land does not fall within the forest land area therefore, it is directed that the mining lease should not be denied to petitioner only on the ground that mining land of petitioner applied for falls within the forest area or within the area of wild life sanctuary. The petitioner should be treated at par with the mines owners, whose lands are around the land applied for by the petitioner or are situated in that area. The petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed. *******