JUDGMENT : State have presented this writ appeal challenging order dated April 15, 2008 passed in W.P. No.3502/2006 whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has directed State Government to accept writ petitioner’s application and to issue permits to transport granite blocks. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Heard Shri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned AGA for the State and Shri.V.K.Narayana Swamy, learned Advocate for legal representatives of deceased writ petitioner. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, writ petitioner was granted a mining lease for quarrying granite on July 21, 1977 for a period of five years in Cowdally Reserve Forest, in Malai Mahadeshwara Forest in an area of 5 acres. The said lease stood expired on July 20, 1982. It was not renewed thereafter. Petitioner claiming that he had extracted granite mineral but not transported them, had filed W.P. No.2749/2001 and the same was disposed of on February 6, 2001 with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Department of Mines and Geology. On February 8, 2001, he got a notice issued to the Director of Mines and Minerals through his Advocate with a request to instruct the Senior Geologist of Chamarajnagar and the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kaveri Wildlife, Kanakapura Forest to issue permits to transport the granite blocks. He renewed his request with another notice on June 11, 2001. Subsequently, petitioner filed writ petition No.3699/2002 annexing the aforesaid legal notices. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider petitioner’s request made in the said two notices. Later, he filed another writ petition in W.P. No.6473/2005 with similar prayer. This Court rejected the said writ petition with liberty to move under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 5. On January 23, 2006, the Deputy Forest Conservator communicated to the petitioner that no forest produce can be removed from a Reserve Forest. Petitioner challenged the said communication in the instant writ petition. The Hon'ble Single Judge directed the respondents therein to accept petitioner’s application and to issue permits to move granite blocks. Feeling aggrieved, State have preferred this appeal. 6. Shri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned AGA arguing in support of this appeal submitted that petitioner’s lease granted in the year 1977 stood expired in the year 1982. The Hon'ble Single Judge directed the respondents therein to accept petitioner’s application and to issue permits to move granite blocks. Feeling aggrieved, State have preferred this appeal. 6. Shri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned AGA arguing in support of this appeal submitted that petitioner’s lease granted in the year 1977 stood expired in the year 1982. Petitioner has been claiming that he has ‘granite blocks’ extracted during the currency of lease and making attempts to remove them. The land in question is a Reserve Forest and Wildlife Sanctuary. Hence, no non-forest activity can be undertaken as per the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 7. He further submitted that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge are contrary to Rule 22 of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (for short ‘1969 Rules’), Rule 6(4) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘1994 Rules’); and Section 4, 4(1)(a) and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMRD Act’). 8. Shri. V.K.Narayana Swamy, for the writ petitioner argued in support of the impugned order. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 10. Indisputable facts of the case are, petitioner was granted mining lease in the year 1977 for a period of five years which stood expired on July 20, 1982. There was no extension of lease. 11. Rule 22 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 reads as follows: “22. Minerals left on the block after the termination of the lease. – Any mines mineral extracted from the quarry and not removed by the lessee before the date of termination of the lease shall be the property of the Government.” 12. Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 reads as follows: “2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. – Any mines mineral extracted from the quarry and not removed by the lessee before the date of termination of the lease shall be the property of the Government.” 12. Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 reads as follows: “2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing, – (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. [Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for, – (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation; but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.]” 13. In Divisional Forest Officer and others Vs. S.Nageswaramma, (1996) 6 SCC 442 , it is held as follows: “5.It is contended by Shri Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent, that what the respondent has been denied is not making any fresh extraction of the mines (sic minerals) in the forest area but only the removing of the stacked minerals from the surface of the earth, that too, with the permission granted by the authorities; the direction issued by the High Court in the impugned order, therefore, is correct in law. We find no force in the contention. The learned Judges have proceeded on the premise that the respondent is entitled to extract and remove minerals, said to be stacked on the ground that the lease is a valid lease; otherwise he does not get any right. The premise on which the Division Bench has proceeded is obviously illegal. Section 2 of the Act prohibits mining operations if the mines are situated within the forest area. It is a total prohibition, unless the State Government grants mining lease with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. Admittedly, the prior concurrence of the Central Government had not been obtained. Shri Subba Rao sought to place before us the guidelines issued by the Department of Environment and Forest, Government of India in relaxation of Rules/guidelines under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therein, the question is of the clearance of the projects by the State Government without obtaining the prior concurrence of the Department of Environment and Forest. In that behalf, it was mentioned that the renewal of the mining leases, if they are within a particular radius was directed to be done without any fresh breaking up of fresh area and felling of the trees but subject to reforestation. In this case that situation does not arise. This is a case of grant of renewal in a routine way. Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court is clearly illegal.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. In view of undisputed position of fact that lease was not extended beyond July 20, 1982, the property namely the granite blocks which the petitioner claims to have extracted but not removed from the mine became the property of the State. Further Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act prohibits any non-forest activity. The authority in the case of S.Nageshwaramma, relied upon by Shri.Bhanuprakash applies in full force to the facts of this case. 15. In the result this appeal merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. The order dated April 15, 2008 passed in W.P. No.3502/2006 is setaside and accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.