Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 893 (MP)

NANDLAL RAJAK v. COLLECTOR, DAMOH

2002-09-25

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. Petitioner is assailing the orders passed by the Collector and Dy. Director, P/8 and P/9. The quarry lease granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner submits that the area in question does not fall within the forest. Petitioner has not violated any conditions of lease-deed. Show-cause notice has not been given prior to cancellation of lease-deed and action has been taken ex parte on the basis of enquiry report. Thus, order is bad in law. The report is also not conclusive on the point whether the area in question falls within the forest area or not. In the return, the respondents No. 1 to 4 contend that before the Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) 202/95, T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India an interim application I.A. No. 257 was filed making certain allegations in respect of large scale illegal mining in the forest area of Damoh Forest Division. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2-8-1999 observed that the allegations should be looked into by an impartial agency, Mr. M.K. Sharma, Addl. I.G. Ministry of Forest and environment, New Delhi. This agency was directed to investigate the facts and to give report with regard to the allegations. The order passed by the Supreme Court is as under: We are dealing here with a State while was full of teak forests which is now fast dwindling. In the reply to the application the State of Madhya Pradesh has justified the action of allowing trucks laden with cut wood to be taken away on the plea that wood belonged to bhoomiswamis. How such a plea could be taken in the face of this Court's order dated 12-12-1998, is beyond comprehension. Furthermore, no details have been given as to who the bhoomiswamis are to whom the land belonged and what is the extent of the trees which have been taken out. Our attention has also been drawn to a case where a crane was apprehended in this forest area along with two trucks carrying timber. Our attention was also drawn to the order dated 2nd June, 1999 passed by one Anil Shrivasan, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh. We are surprised that despite this well considered and correct order, how the counsel for the State before the High Court conceded and did not oppose the handing over of the same to the owners thereof. Our attention was also drawn to the order dated 2nd June, 1999 passed by one Anil Shrivasan, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh. We are surprised that despite this well considered and correct order, how the counsel for the State before the High Court conceded and did not oppose the handing over of the same to the owners thereof. If the State finds out that the concession was made by the counsel on instructions by the State, the State will give an explanation to this Court as to why these instructions were given. If the counsel acted without instructions, then no further cases relating to forests should be entrusted to him. In order to know the correct State of affairs with regard to the allegations made in IA No. 257/97, we feel that the same should be looked into by an impartial agency. Mr. N.K. Sharma, Addl. I.G. (Forests), Ministry of Environment New Delhi, is directed to investigate the facts and give a report to this Court with regard to the matters contained in IA No. 257/97. Papers of this IA as well as any other relevant document including reply, affidavits, etc., should be given to Mr. Sharma who should file his report within four weeks. The State of Madhya Pradesh is also at liberty to file any affidavit which it may choose to do so. In the meanwhile, we direct the State of Madhya Pradesh not to allow any movement of cut trees whether belonging to bhoomiswamis or anybody else. We further direct that Shri Dharamveer Kapil, Shri Srinivas Sharma, Shri Ashok Vayas, Shri Asok Rai, Dr. A.K. Shrivastava and Shri D.P. Dwivedi should immediately be relieved of/shifted from their duties/charge in connection with the Forest Department. The State of Madhya Pradesh/Forest Surveyor of India will render all assistance and co-operation to Mr. Sharma so as to enable him to complete his task. It is also pointed out that the inspection team conducted an enquiry and submitted report R/2. In para 3.4 it has been opined that area in question definitely falls within in the category of 'forest'. Thus, the action has been taken pursuant to the direction of this Court. Shri P.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard before passing impugned order P/8 by the Collector. The report is not final with respect to area in question being forest area. Thus, the action has been taken pursuant to the direction of this Court. Shri P.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard before passing impugned order P/8 by the Collector. The report is not final with respect to area in question being forest area. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that in report it is mentioned that the area in question definitely falls within the forest area. 'Forest' is defined by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others, to mean that it must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forest, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of section 2(i) of 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. A reading of the report R/2 para 3.4 makes it clear that the area in question is definitely in the forest area. It is mentioned in the report that the inspection of Shri S.P. Yadav, reveals that mining is going on in Survey No. 1/1 of village Riyana in Damoh Tehsil and Survey No. 192/1 and 189/1 of village Sagori Kala and Survey No. 25 of village Baddegaon in Zabera Tehsil. The inspection also reveals that these sites definitely fall in the category of 'forest' as per order of the Apex Court dated 12-12-1996 in W.P. No. 202/95. However, in the absence of boundary pillars, it could not be finally ascertained whether these sites fall in Reserve, Protected or Unclassed forest. The finding is that these sites definitely fall in the category of 'forest', but the category of 'forest' could not be ascertained. Thus, in my opinion when the area in question falls within the forest, no mining operation is permissible. The respondent has acted rightly and forest cannot be permitted to be exploited. The action taken is in accordance with the direction issued by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra). No interference is called for in the impugned order by this Court. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.