JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing
the letter No. 2508 dated 6.7.2001 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad whereby he has intimated the Deputy Commissioner recommending for cancellation of the mining lease granted to the petitioner in respect of the land in question in the year, 1994.
2. Petitioner’s case is that he was granted mining lease for mining minerals by the Mining Department, Government of Bihar in respect of plot No. 2947 corresponding to plot No. 2598 under khata No. 23 of mou/a Paharpur, Baliapur, Dhanbad by virtue of a lease deed dated 23.11.1994. The lease was for a period of 10 years commencing from 23.11.1994. It is contended that the land in question was recorded as Gair Abad Malik land and the nature of the land was entered as pahar. The report of the Circle Officer supports the fact it is a Gair Abad Malik land and in spite of that the department of Forest, Government of Bihar, illegally entered the name of forest department showing the land in question as forest land in the revenue records and on the basis of that sent a letter recommending for cancellation of the lease of the petitioner.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Forest department, it is stated that the plot in question on which the petitioner was given mining lease, had been notified as private protected forest under the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 vide notification dated 28.1.1948. It is contended that when the zamindars had not applied to manage and protect the forest the Government decided to take up the management of forest and consequently the land of mouja Paharpur was notified vide notification dated 22.5.1947 under Section 14 of the Bihar Forest Act, 1946. A copy of the said notification has been annexed as An-nexure A to the counter affidavit. Respondents’ further case is that after declaration of the land as private protected forest under the provisions of the Bihar Forest Act, 1947, the Forest department took up the management of the land as private land under Section 34 of the said Act. Thereafter during the revisional survey settlement the plot in question was recorded as Government land and it has been settled in the
name of the Forest department. A copy of the khattan has been annexed as Annexure B to the counter affidavit. The respondents have also annexed a photo copy of the notification dated 10.6.1998 declaring the said forest as protected forest.
4. The notification of the year, 1947 whereby the land declared as private protected Forest and the subsequent notification of the year, 1948 whereby the Government decided to manage and control the protected forest, have not been disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply to the counter affidavit. These notifications are the conclusive proof that the nature of the land was notified as private protected forest long back in the year, 1947. Merely because the Mining department. Government of Bihar granted mining lease in the year, 1994, that will not change the nature and character of the land. Prima facie, it appears that the land is a forest land admittedly the lease was granted by the Government for using the land for non-forest purposes. In my opinion, therefore, the forest department rightly recommended for cancellation of the mining lease in respect of the land which was declared as private protected forest. Time and again the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Ors., reported in 1985 (3) SCC 643. Vijay Kuraar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Karnatka and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 2072 and in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thir-mulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 1228 and 1233 has issued directives to all the States not to grant any lease or licence for using forest land for non-forest purposes. In my opinion, therefore, merely because the Circle Officer on the basis of certain inquiry has come to the conclusion that it is not forest land, that will not entitle the petitioner to carry on mining activities till 2004, the date of expiry of the lease.
5. For the reasons aforesaid I do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.