JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - Writ Petition No.16450/2011 Departmental communication No.11/ [kfut /3/6/2011/1476, Tikamgarh dated 05.09.2011 is under challenge. 2 . Vide impugned communication, Collector, Tikamgarh has apprised the Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, as regard to the action proposed for cancellation of mining lease of a land forming part of forest land. 3 . Events leading to issuance of impugned communication are : Land bearing Khasra No.475/6 admeasuring 35.950 hectares (88.86 acres) situated at Mouza Ahar Tahsil Baldeogarh District Tikamgarh consist of Forest and Revenue Land. 4 . Petitioner on 20.08.1991 applied for mining lease over 3.642 hectare of said Khasra for mining pyrophyllite and diaspore. That, by order dated 08.11.1994, the petitioner was granted mining lease of 3 hectares. Remaining 0.642 hectare was found to be appurtenant to water body, therefore, declined. The lease was granted for a period of 20 years. The lease deed was executed on 26.07.1995. Working permission was granted on 03.08.1995. 5 . That, objections were raised by the Forest Department that, forest land has been subjected to mining lease. The objection taken by the Forest Department appears to be on the basis of Notification No.10306-3041 - nl -Indian Forest Act, 1927 dated 25.09.1967 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 26.01.1968, where certain land of Mauja Ahar was notified as Reverse Forest. The Notification reads thus : e0iz0 jkti= fnukad 26 tuojh 1968 ou foHkkx Hkksiky fnukad 25 flrEcj 1967 dzekad&10306&3041&nl&Hkkjrh ou vf/kfu;e 1927 dz-&16 lu~ 1927 dh /kkjk&4 ds }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; 'kklu us ;g fu.kZ; fd;k gS fd fuEufyf[kr Hkwfe;ksa ftudh lhek;sa vkSj fLFkfr uhps nh x;h vuqlwph eas n'kkZ;h x;h gS ^^vkjf{kr ou fjtoZ QkjsLV fufeZr gksxhA vkxs jkT; 'kklu mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 41 ds iz;kstu ds fy, jh ,l0ds0nqcs dks ou cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrk gSA &vuqlwph& 70& xzke dk uke o i-g- uEcj &vgkj & 67- Cykd dk uke & vgkj ^v* jdok 134-00 ,dM mRrj & lhekadu js[kk xzke vgkj eq-dz- 3 ls 14 rd iwoZ & lhekadu js[kk xzke vgkj eq-dz- 14 ls 23 rd nf{k.k & lhekadu js[kk xzke vgkj eq-dz- 23 ls 24 rd if'pe & lhekadu js[kk xzke vgkj eq-dz- 24 ls 37 ls 1 vkSj lksjnk unh eq-dz- 3 rd 6 . Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3732/1995 against the enquiry ordered on the objection by the Forest Department. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3732/1995 against the enquiry ordered on the objection by the Forest Department. The petition was disposed of on 11.01.1996 with the direction to the State Functionaries to conclude the enquiry about the issue whether the land in question falls within the Forest Area, if yes, then, the Authority would be at liberty to cancel the lease, otherwise permit the petitioner to operate the lease. 7 . The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Forest Settlement Officer, Tikamgarh vide communication No.Q/R/ LFkk- /SDO/T/96 dated 27.02.1996 informed the Collector, Tikamgarh that the land bearing Khasra No.475/6 is a Revenue Land. However, the text of said communication reveals that the conclusion drawn by the Sub- Division Officer (Revenue) was on presumption. This will be evident from the said communication. Be that as it may. It appears that after the communication dated 27.02.1996, the petitioner was permitted to operate the lease. However, later, on an objection raised by Divisional Forest Officer that the area in question falls within Forest Compartment No.P/101/A, Collector Tikamgarh vide order dated 12.05.2004 stayed the mining operations. Thereafter, Collector Tikamgarh, vide communication No.11 / [kfut /rhu- 6/2006/207, Tikamgarh dated 07.10.2006, forwarded the matter to State Government for necessary action, proposing cancellation of lease in view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union Of India : WP (C) No.202/95 with WP (C) No.171/96 decided on 12.12.1996. Against said communication, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16320/2006; which was disposed of on 22.08.2008 on the finding that 'there are conflicting reports on record as regards the location of the land and it is in dispute if the land is in revenue or forest area. The survey which was conducted in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court by order dated 11.01.1996 in W.P. No.3732/1995, the land in question was found to be in the revenue area. In the subsequent survey of 22.07.2005, again it was found to be the revenue land but in the survey report which has been filed by the respondents along with their reply, it has been found to be in the forest area. Therefore, in such a case serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if any action is taken by the respondents without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without disclosing all the material on the basis of which action is taken against her. Therefore, in such a case serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if any action is taken by the respondents without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without disclosing all the material on the basis of which action is taken against her. Thus, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to disclose all adverse material to the petitioner and to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any action of stopping the mining operations or cancelling the mining lease." 8 . Consequent whereof, joint inspection team comprising of Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baldeogarh, Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest), Superintendent, Land Records and Tahsildar, Baldeogarh was constituted by Collector vide order dated 09.11.2010. And, though a joint report is said to have been prepared; however, it appears from record, more particularly, communication dated 02.05.2011 by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Forest Settlement Officer, Baldeogarh District Tikamgarh that in place of Sub- Divisional Officer (Forest), Assistant Forester and Forest Guard were asked to sign the report. The reasons, best known to the said SDO(R). Be that as it may. That, a report was submitted on 02.05.2011. The reasons, best known to the said SDO(R). Be that as it may. That, a report was submitted on 02.05.2011. The report was contradicted by the Conservator of Forest, Tikamgarh vide D.O. No. ekfp0 ./ 2011/47 dated 16.07.2011 in the following terms: ^^fuosnu gS fd fo"k;karxZr vkids lanfHkZr i= ls izkIr Jhefr dqlqe yrk HkVukxj fuoklh flfoy ykbZu jksM Vhdex<+ ds vkosnu i= ds laca/k esa oLrqfLFkfr dh tkudkjh fuEukuqlkj gSA Jhefr dqlqeyrk HkVukxj iRuh Jh vkfnR;ukjk;.k HkVukxj fuoklh Vhdex<+ dks xzke vgkj] rglhy cYnsox<+ ds [kljk uEcj 475@6 esa jdok 3 gs0 {ks= esa [kfut ik;-@Mk;- ds mR[kuu gsrq e0iz0 'kklu [kfut lk/ku foHkkx }kjk i= fnukad 3-11-1994 ls [kfut iV~Vk Lohd`r fd;k x;k FkkA Oku e.My Vhdex<+ ds vfHkys[kkuqlkj mDr Lohd`r {ks= ou[k.M vgkj ^v* d{k dzekad ih- 101 ,- ds varxZr vkrk gSA Ikzfrosfnr gS fd vksjNk fj;klr orZeku Vhdex<+] ftyk ,oa ou e.My ds le; ls gh ou [k.M vgkj lajf{kr ou jgk gSA vksjNk fj;klr ds foy; ds mijkar jhok jkt njokj ds vkns'k dzekad 124 fnukad 8-2-1937 esa jhok jktnjokj ds xtV fnukad 20-2-1937 esa lajf{kr ou ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA xtV dh Nk;k izfr layXu gSA e0iz0 jkT; ds xBu ds mijkar o"kZ 1967 esa Hkkjrh; ou vf/kfu;e 1927 dh /kkjk 41 ds varxZr lajf{kr ou[k.M vgkj ^v* ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA vf/klwpuk dh izfr layXu gSA o"kZ 1977&78 esa Jh ,l0ds0 HkkfV;k Hkk-o-ls- }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ dk;Z vk;kstuk ofdZax Iyku esa lajf{kr ou[k.M vgkj ^v* d{k dzekad ih- 101 ,- jdok 16760 ,dM+ ou ntZ gSA ofdZax Iyku ds mDr Hkkx ,oa ou[k.M ds uD'kk dh Nk;k izfr layXu gSA ou[k.M ds uD'kk esa iz'ukafdr Hkwfe dks yky jax ls rFkk ou lhek gjs jxa ls n'kkZ;k x;k gS Jhefr dqlqeyrk HkVukxj dks Lohd`r [kfut iV~Vk {ks= ou {ks= ds vanj ik;s tkus ds dkj.k ou foHkkx ftyk Vhdex<+ }kjk fnukad 15-8-1995 dks mR[kuu ij jksd yxkbZ xbZA iV~Vk/kkjh }kjk foHkkx dh dk;Zokgh ds fojks/k esa ek- mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj esa fjV ;kfpdk dekad 3732@95 nk;j dh xbZA mDr ;kfpdk ij mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj }kjk fnukad 11-1-1996 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; esa dysDVj Vhdex<+ dks 6 lIrkg esa ;g lR;kfir djus gsrq funsf'kr fd;k x;k ^^fd iz'ukafdr Hkwfe ou Hkwfe gS vFkok jktLo Hkwfe** rFkk jktLo Hkwfe ik;s tkus ij mR[kuu dk;Z u jksdus ,oa ou Hkwfe ik;s tkus ij fu;ekuqlkj [kfut iV~Vk fujLr djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;sA mDr ifjizs{; esa dysDVj Vhdex<+ }kjk ou Hkwfe dh vf/klwpuk dks vuns[kk djrs gq, vius i= dzekad@11@[kfut@rhu&6@71@91 fnukad 28-2-96 }kjk mDr {ks= dks jktLo {ks= ekurs gq, [kfut iV~Vk/kkjh ds mR[kuu dk;Z esa gLr{ksi u djus gsrq ys[k fd;k x;kA dysDVj Vhdex<+ ds mDr vkns'k ds fo:) dfe'uj dk;kZy; lkxj esa fnukad 5-8-97 dks vihy dh xbZ rFkk eq[; ou laj{kd Hkw&losZ e0iz0 Hkksiky ls ekxZn'kZu pkgk x;k FkkA dfe'uj lkxj }kjk muds i= fnukad 7-9-99 ls bl dk;kZy; dks lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd [kfut laca/kh ekeyksa esa vihy lquus dk vf/kdkj vk;qDr dks ugha gSA rnksijkar bl dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad@ek-fp-@63 fnukad 21-1-2000 ls izeq[k lfpo e0iz0 Hkksiky [kfut lk/ku foHkkx ea=ky; Hkksiky dks mDr ou{ks= esa Jhefr dqlqe yrk HkVukxj dks Lohd`r [kfut iV~Vk 'kh?kz fujLr djus gsrq ys[k fd;k x;k rFkk dysDVj Vhdex<+ dks Hkh mDr [kfut iV~Vk 'kh?kz fujLr djus gsrq ys[k fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr dysDVj Vhdex<+ }kjk muds i= dzekad@1011 fnukad 12-5-2004 ls ek- loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr varfje vkns'k fnukad 12-12-96 ds n`f"Vxr mDr Lohd`r [kfut {ks= ij vkxkeh vkns'k ds fy;s [kuu dk;Z ij jksd yxkbZ xbZ rFkk [kfut iV~Vk fujLrh gsrq e0iz0 'kklu [kfut lalk/ku foHkkx dks fy[kk x;kA mDr dk;Zokgh ls {kqC/k gksdj vkosfndk Jhefr dqlqe yrk HkVukxj }kjk ek- mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj esa iqu% ;kfpdk dzekad@1630@06 nk;j dh xbZ ftlesa 'kklu dh vksj ls izHkkjh vf/kdkjh mioue.Mykf/kdkjh Vhdex<+ }kjk fnuakd 24-9-2007 dks tckonkok izLrqr fd;k x;kA ek- mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj }kjk fnuakd 11-9-2008 dks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k fd 'kklu dksbZ Hkh fu.kZ; ysus ds iwoZ vkosfndk dks lquus dk ekSdk fn;k tk;sA rRlaca/k esa vkosfndk }kjk dysDVj Vhdex<+ dks vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k x;k A dysDVj [kfut Vhdex<+ }kjk i= dzekad 177 ,- fnukad 22-9-08 ls vkosfndk dk vkosnu i= Hkstdj iqu% tkap dj vfHker pkgk x;kA ou e.My Vhdex<+ }kjk izdj.k dh iqu% tkap djok;h tkdj izfrosnu bl dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad@ek-fp-@1814 fnukad 28-4-2009 ls dysDVj Vhdex<+ dks izsf"kr dj ys[k fd;k x;k fd [kljk ua 475@06 dk 3 gs0 [kfut iV~Vk {ks= lajf{kr ou d{k dzekad ih- 101 ,- ou[k.M vgkj ^v* vkrk gSA dysDVj Vhdex<+ }kjk v)Z 'kklu i= dzekad 260 fnukad 31-8-2010 ls iqu% tkap izfrosnu pkgk x;k FkkA bl dk;kZy; }kjk v)Z 'kklu i= dzekad 104 fnuakd 6-9-2010 ls mDr Hkwfe dks ouHkwfe gksus okor~ iqu% iwoZ dh vf/klwpuk vfHkys[kksa dh izfr nsrs gq;s voxr djk;k x;k fd iz'ukafdr Hkwfe ou Hkwfe gSA orZeku esa izdj.k dysDVj Vhdex<+ ds ikl fopkjk/khu gSA mijksDr fooj.k ls Li"V gS fo"k;karxZr ou Hkwfe ftlesa Jhefr dqlqeyrk HkVukxj dks dysDVj }kjk o"kZ 1994&95 esa [kfut iV~Vk Lohd`r fd;k x;k Fkk og Hkwfe ou Hkwfe gS] tks ou[k.M vgkj ^^v** ds varxZr ?kksf"kr gSA vkosfndk }kjk ckj&ckj mDr ou Hkwfe ij [kfut iV~Vk izkIr djus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gS] tks fu;e fo:) gSA mDr ou {ks= ij ;fn [kfut iV~Vk Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS rks ou laj{k.k vf/kfu;e 1980 dk iw.kZr% mYya?ku gksxkA eku~uh; loksZPp U;k;ky; Hkkjr ds vkns'k fnukad 12-12-96 dk mYya?ku gksxk rFkk ekUk~uh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh voekuuk gksxhA izfrosnu vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq lEizsf"krA* 9 . These facts led Collector Tikamgarh to resolve to cancel the lease in question vide impugned communication. 10 . It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the questioned area was duly demarcated several times before the grant and subsequent thereto and every time, it was found that mining lease area is not a part of forest land and is a revenue land. To substantiate the contention, reference is made to Communication No.2105/ Hkw- vfHk- v-Hkw-v- 2010] Vhdex< da ted 29.11.2010 by the Superintendent, Land Records and Panchanama dated 28.11.2010 appended therewith. The petitioner also placed reliance on the enquiry report dated 22.02.1996 & 28.02.1996 to substantiate the contention that Collector, Tikamgarh has misguided himself in respect of physical location of the questioned land leased out to the petitioner. However, as evident from the order dated 22.02.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.16320/2006 that earlier reports were not clear. Whereafter, in the joint inspection carried out, the Collector, after analysing the facts, the notifications, threadbare, has conclusively held that the land in question falls within the territory of Protected Forest. 11 . Further, cogent material on record reveals that in the preindependence time, the area in question came within the territory of Orchha State, whereunder by Order No.124 dated 08.02.1937 by the Ruler, the area was declared as Protested Forest. Thereafter, in 1948, the area in question came within the Vindhya Pradesh which came to be constituted. Thereafter, by another Gazette Notification dated 07.08.1948 of the Rewa Princely State by which all Laws, Acts, Codes and Ordinances etc. and all legal rules which were prevalent in the Rewa State were made applicable in toto to Vindhya Pradesh. As a result whereof, Rewa Forest Act brought in vogue by Order No.124 dated 08.02.1937, published in the Rewa State Gazette on 20.02.1937 came to be made applicable to the newly formed Vindhya Pradesh. Later, in the year 1952, Vindhya Pradesh Jagirdari system came to an end and Land Revenue Code enacted in which all the earlier Jamindari and Jagirdari as well as Forest Areas were transferred to the control of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. 12 . Furthermore, vide Notification No.10306-3041- nl -Indian Forests Act, 1927 dated 25.09.1967 published in the M.P. Gazette on 26.01.1968, area in question Aahar A admeasuring 134 acres was declared as Protected Forest. 12 . Furthermore, vide Notification No.10306-3041- nl -Indian Forests Act, 1927 dated 25.09.1967 published in the M.P. Gazette on 26.01.1968, area in question Aahar A admeasuring 134 acres was declared as Protected Forest. The Topography : Part of Sheet No.54L/14 N.E. Section brought on record and not disputed by the petitioner, reveals that area in question is part of Compartment PF/101/A. 13 . These facts leave no iota of doubt that the area in question falls within the Protected Forest; mining lease whereof could not have been given. 14 . The impugned communication when tested on the anvil of the above analysis, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 15 . Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed . Interim order stands vacated. No costs. Contempt Petition No.1130/2012 16 . Petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of interlocutory order dated 25.04.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.16450/2011, and seeks action against the respondents. 17 . That, by order dated 25.04.2012, Interlocutory Application No.15102/2011 was disposed of, directing that in case the minerals are extracted (prior to order dated 12.05.2004 when the petitioner was stopped from carrying out mining operations), the petitioner be permitted to remove the material from the lease area after fulfilling all the requirements as contemplated under law. 18 . That, by a separate order passed supra in Writ Petition No.16450/2011, we have upheld the resolution by the Competent Authority of cancelling the mining lease as the land in question is a forest land forming part of Protected Forest Compartment No.PF- 101A . 19 . In view whereof, as there is no right in the petitioner to carry out mining operations, we do not perceive any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents. 20 . Consequently, contempt petition fails and is dismissed . No costs.