JUDGMENT
1. On 21st November, 1946, the erstwhile Raja of Ramgarh executed a lease in favour of Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited in respect of 4299.84 acres of land for a period of 999 years for colliery purposes. The lease was to be effective from 1st March, 1946. Subsequently, on 23rd January, 1947, the lessee, Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited, granted a sub-lease of the demised lands to West Bokaro Limited on the same terms and conditions as contained in the head lease.
2. In 1950, the Bihar Land Reforms Act was enacted and the same came into force in the State of Bihar on 25th September, 1950. The said Act provided for transfer of estates and tenures in the State and Section 10, inter alia, provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, where immediately before the date of vesting of the estate or tenure there was a subsisting lease of mines or minerals comprised in the estate or tenure or any part thereof, the whole or that part of the estate or tenure comprised in such lease would, with effect from the date of vesting, be deemed to have been leased by the State Government to the holder of the said subsisting lease for remainder of the term of that lease and such holder would be entitled to retain possession of the lease hold property.
3. By virtue of the said provision, the right of the erstwhile Raja of Ramgarh as lessor stood eliminated and the State of Bihar became the lessor by operation of law.
4. Subsequently, the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act was enacted in 1964 and Section 10-A was incorporated in the parent Act. Section 10-A provided that the interest of every lessee of mines or minerals, which was subject to a sub-lease, would, with effect from such date as might be notified in that behalf by the State Government in the Official Gazette, vest in the State and thereafter the sub-lessee, whose lease was not subject to any further sub-lease, would hold his lease directly under the State Government and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 10 would mutatis mutandis apply to his lease. 5. The effect of such amendment was that the interest of the lessee, Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited, in the lease hold property, was extinguished and the sub-lessee, West Bokaro Limited, became a direct lessee under the State of Bihar.
6. While the aforesaid position was subsisting, in 1960 the State of Bihar filed a Title Suit against the erstwhile lessee, Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited, being T.S. No. 45/1960, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, for eviction of such lessee. While the suit was pending, West Bokaro Limited made an application for addition of parties and was added as a defendant to the suit. After the said company, which had become a direct lessee under the State by operation of law, was added as a party to the suit, a compromise was effected between the State of Bihar and the said company, which ultimately ended in execution of an agreement dated 29th March, 1973, whereby the said company was recognized as the lessee in respect of the demised properties with effect from 27th October, 1964, subject to payment of royalties with effect from 27th October, 1964, at the rate prescribed by law.
7. One of the conditions mentioned in the agreement was contained in paragraph 6, which provides as follows :–
“6. Subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder, the Government accepts the West Bokaro Limited, as direct lessee upon the terms as set out in the sub-lease and supplementary lease both dated 23rd January, 1957 (copies appended and marked Annexure “A” collectively), entered into between Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited, and West Bokaro Ltd. the lease in favour of Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd., having, in any view, been extinguished, i.e. either by reason of forfeiture, or if ultimately it is held that there was no forfeiture and that forfeiture did not take place, then by operation of Section 10-A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.”
By virtue of the said paragraph, subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and rules made thereunder, the Government accepted West Bokaro Limited as the direct lessee upon the terms as set out in the sub-lease and supplementary lease both dated 23rd January, 1947, entered into between Bokaro and Ramgarh Limited and West Bokaro Limited.
8. After the aforesaid agreement was entered into between the State of Bihar and West Bokaro Limited, two schemes of arrangement were filed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in the Bombay High Court and also before the Calcutta High Court for amalgamation of West Bokaro Limited with Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited. The Bombay High Court, by its order dated 25th September, 1974, and the Calcutta High Court, by its order dated 13th February, 1975, sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation and as a consequence, West Bokaro Limited came to be amalgamated with Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited together with all its assets and liabilities and properties with effect from 1st April, 1973.
9. At this juncture, it may be indicated that by memo No. 2102M dated 9th April, 1974, issued by the Mines Department, Government of Bihar, West Bokaro Limited was permitted to transfer its lease hold interest in the demised premises to Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited under the provisions of Section 37 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
10. Thereafter, as will appear from the materials on record, there was a good deal of correspondence between the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, wherein formal permission was granted under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for clearing of the forest lands held in the lease hold areas, including 468.62 acres comprised in villages Duni and Pundi. As will appear from the averments made in the writ application, such permission was said to have been given on 10th December, 1975, upon due payment of the value of the forest produce as adjudged by the Divisional Forest Officer. Thereafter, according to the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, they had, in fact, cleared the forest areas comprising the said land in villages Duni and Pundi and had also commenced mining operations thereupon, when sometime in the month of January, 1993, Forest Officials visited the site of the said two villages and seized trucks and dumpers belonging to Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and even arrested some of its employees. This compelled Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited to file a writ application before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, being CWJC No. 767/1993R, which was disposed of by order dated 24th February, 1993, with a direction upon the Chief Conservator of Forests to deal with and dispose of the representation made by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner and after passing a speaking order. A certain time period was stipulated within which such hearing was to be completed. Pending consideration of the matter by the Chief Conservator of Forests, the Court directed that since the petitioner was a holder of a mining lease, until and unless such mining lease was terminated in accordance with law and/or expired by efflux of time, the respondents and their officers would be restrained from interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner, but while carrying on such mining activities, the petitioner would not contravene any of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act and if they violated any of the said provisions, action under law could be taken against them.
11. Pursuant to the said order, the matter was considered by the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh and according to his findings, an area of 226.30 acres comprised in village Pundi was reported to have been cleared prior to 1980 and drilling was done for the purpose of mining estimates for coal mining. On the basis of the said finding, it was accepted that clearance and drilling work had been completed prior to 1980 but mining operation had been started after 25th October, 1980. As far as Duni is concerned, it was indicated that an area comprising of 10.90 acres was reported to have been cleared prior to 1980. On the basis of the finding of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Hazaribagh, it was held that an area of 517.43 acres had been broken prior to 25th October, 1980. On the basis of the above, the Officer further held that the said area comprising 127.97 acres in Duni and 226.30 acres in Pundi had been cleared and broken prior to 25th October, 1980 and that, as a result, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, would not be attracted to the said lands. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Hazaribagh, however, expressed his doubt that although the clearing and drilling of forest land had been done prior to 25th October, 1980, the area in question had not been exactly broken for mining purposes and that the same heeded to be clarified by the Government of India, but as such clarification would take considerable time, the company would in the meantime be permitted to continue its mining and other activities till such time as the clarification was received from the Central Government.
12. The said view of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Hazaribagh, was sought to be reviewed and a resolution was adopted by the Forest and Environment Department of the Government of Bihar on 7th August, 1993, on the basis of information having been received in respect of 466.90 acres of the forest areas, which was treated as disputed area and a further enquiry was felt necessary before the Government took a final decision in the matter. Thereafter, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited wrote to the Minister concerned and reiterated its stand that the area comprising the disputed lands had been cleared prior to 25th October, 1980 and as such, there had been no violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act. Despite the above, the petitioner company was supplied with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee and was asked to appear at a hearing fixed on 16th December, 1996, in the office of the Commissioner and Secretary, Forest and Environment Department.
13. The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited thereupon responded to the report of the enquiry and sought to explain its position through its General Manager by his letter of 19th December, 1994. Despite the above, the Conservator of Forests, by his letter dated 15th November, 1994, prohibited the company from carrying out mining operations in Duni and Pundi.
14. The said order was once again challenged by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited in a writ application in the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, being CWJC No. 3426/1994R, reiterating its stand that the lands in question had been cleared and were no longer within the purview of the forest land as claimed. The writ application was disposed of on 2nd July, 1996, by quashing the said order impugned in the said writ application though not on merit. The said order was quashed on the consideration that the same had been passed by an authority who was subordinate to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests and who did not, therefore, have the authority to override the decision of his superior officer.
15. On 21st November, 1996, pursuant to the decision in CWJC No. 3426/1994R, a further opportunity was given to Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited in connection with the alleged violation of the. provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in West Bokaro Colliery. The same was subsequently followed by the letter dated 2nd July, 1997, issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar, to the Senior Chief Manager, West Bokaro Collieries of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, informing the said officer of the decision taken by the State Government pursuant to the hearing conducted on the basis of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3426/1994R. By the said communication, the company was informed that since it had started the job of survey, exploration and drilling work in Pundi and Duni comprising a total area of 468.78 acres after 25th October, 1980, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, would be applicable to the said lands and that mining operations could be carried on thereupon after obtaining permission from the Central Government. It was also indicated that no relief could be granted on the basis of deposit of the compensation amount for utilizing the forest lands and for starting exploration, drilling job prior to 25th October, 1980. The company was, therefore, instructed to stop all mining work in village Duni and Pundi comprising a total area of 468.86 acres as otherwise considering the same to be in contravention of the aforesaid Act, action would be taken in accordance with law.
16. Aggrieved by the said decision of the State Government, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited has filed the present writ application.
17. Appearing in support of the writ application, Mr. Samaraditya Pal, learned Senior Counsel, urged that since the lands in question had been cleared by the writ petitioner-company prior to 25th October, 1980, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, would not apply to the said lands. Referring to the provisions of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act, Mr. Pal submitted that the said Act contained certain restrictions on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes. He pointed out that the said section provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority could make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. Mr. Pal indicated that in the Explanation, it had been indicated that “non-forest purpose” meant the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation. Mr. Pal urged that haying regard to the said expression, inasmuch as, admittedly as will appear from the report of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, the lands in question had been cleared prior to the cut off date (25th October, 1980) and drilling operations had also been commenced for exploration of coal, the said lands had ceased to be forest lands so as to attract the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. According to Mr. Pal, in that view of the matter, the Government had erroneously prevented the petitioner company from continuing its mining activities in the lands in question.
18. In addition to the above, Mr. Pal submitted that the order contained in the communication dated 2nd July, 1997, did not also amount to a speaking order since the same did not deal in detail with the explanation given on behalf of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited in respect of the enquiry which had been conducted after the report of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests. Mr. Pal submitted that even on such account, the impugned order was liable to be set-aside so that the matter could be reconsidered.
19. On behalf of the State, the learned Advocate General contended that though the lands in question might have been cleared prior to 25th October, 1980, pursuant to the permission granted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, no mining operations had been commenced thereupon and the lands had been allowed to revert to nature. Consequently, the lands could no longer be treated to be cleared lands and would, therefore, attract the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the writ petitioner-company would have to apply to the Central Government for permission to recommence and continue its mining operations in the said lands.
20. Apart from the above, the learned Advocate General also contended that the lease, which had originally been granted by the erstwhile Raja of Ramgarh in favour of the West Bokaro Limited, was no longer operative, since the rights of the erstwhile lessor had vested in the State of Bihar and subsequently in the State of Jharkhand by operation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The learned Advocate General also contended that by virtue of the provisions of Section 10-A of the aforesaid Act, the right of the sub-lessee, namely, West Bokaro Limited, came to be recognized for the first time and consequently, an agreement was entered into between the State of Bihar and the sub-lessee, which admittedly became effective from 27th October, 1964. According to the learned Advocate General, since the lease came to be recognized after enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, all its provisions came to apply with full force to the said lands, including the provisions of Section 8, which provides that the maximum period for which a mining lease may be granted should not exceed 30 years and the minimum period should not be less than 20 years. According to the learned Advocate General, if the starting point of the lease between the State Government and West Bokaro Limited, which subsequently became amalgamated with Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, is taken from the date of the agreement, namely, 29th March, 1973, then by operation of Section 8 of the aforesaid Act, even if the maximum period is taken, the lease had come to an end by efflux of time in the year, 2003. According to the learned Advocate General, in the absence of a subsisting lease, any further attempts on the part of the writ petitioner company to continue its mining operations in the areas in question was incompetent.
21. The learned Advocate General, however, reiterated his initial stand that whatever be the circumstances, when the permission of the Central Government under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was necessary, the petitioner company could neither commence, nor continue mining operations in the lands in question. 22. Dr. Gupta, appearing for the Union of India, did not go into the question regarding, subsistence of the lease but supported the stand taken by the learned Advocate General that if any mining operations were to be recommenced and/or continued in villages Duni and Pundi, clearance would have to be obtained from the Central Government under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.
23. As far as the submissions made by the learned Advocate General with regard to the subsistence of lease is concerned, we are not convinced that the same commenced on or became effective from 27th October, 1964. We are of the view that having regard to the stipulations contained in the agreement dated 29th March, 1973, the same would be subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder. Accordingly, in view of the notification dated 22nd May, 1996, issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, whereunder the Central Government declared that Sub-section (1) of Section 9 and Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the 1957 Act would apply to the area in relation to mining leases granted before 25th October, 1949, in respect of coal, with effect from the date of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, the lease may be brought in conformity with the provisions of the said Act under Section 16 thereunder.
24. On consideration of the -submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the fact scenario which emerges is that with regard to the lease comprised in the two villages namely, Duni and Pundi, the petitioner company had obtained permission under the Indian Forest Act from the competent authorities to clear land for mining purposes. It is also clear that drilling operations had been commenced as exploratory measures for coal mining operations. It is not clear as to whether the said lands after being cleared had actually been broken for the purposes of mining. While it has been asserted by Mr. Pal that on the strength of the various interim orders passed from time to time in different proceedings before the Court, mining operations had continued in certain portions of the lands which formed subject-matter of the present writ application, it has also been asserted by the learned Advocate General that the same required confirmation. In this state of affairs, we are inclined to direct the petitioner company to apply to the Central Government for necessary permission to commence mining operations in the lands comprised in villages Duni and Pundi under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. But keeping in mind the assertion made on behalf of the company that they had continued mining operation in portions of the lands which had been cleared prior to 25th October, 1980, we also feel that pending the disposal of the application to be made by the petitioner company it should be allowed to continue mining operations in the areas within the said disputed areas where it is stated that mining operations had continued. We, therefore, dispose of the writ application with leave to the petitioner company to apply to the Central Government within six weeks from date under the relevant provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for permission to commence mining operations in the areas in question and if such application is made, the same is to be considered and disposed of by the appropriate authority of the Central Government within the time prescribed under the rules.
25. For a period of six weeks and, thereafter, till such time as the Central Government does not take a final decision on the application that may be filed by the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, the petitioner company will be entitled to continue with mining activities in Duni and Pundi but the same will be strictly restricted to the areas where such activity is being currently undertaken by the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and no coercive steps will be taken against the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited or its officials or contractors, while carrying out such mining activity in the said areas. The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited undertakes to refrain from and is also restrained from engaging in any mining activities in the two aforesaid villages outside the areas where they are currently engaged in mining operations. If no application Is made within the aforesaid period, the respondents will be free to take steps in accordance with law.
26. There will be no order as to costs.