Allowed

M/S Narayan Stone Works v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018WRIC/35332/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the District Forest Settlement Officer to reconsider a Mining Officer's recommendation to demarcate 0.70 acres of land previously excluded from a mining lease, asserting it lies 100 meters from forest land.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 4 to consider the Mining Officer's recommendation dated 24.9.2015 and take necessary steps for fresh demarcation.

M/S Narayan Stone Works Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Environment and Pollution | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35332 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Narayan Stone Works Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

A mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner pertaining to minor mineral bolder (dolo stone) that came to be expired in the year 2009. The first renewal of mining lease was made for a term of 10 years from 9.5.2009 to 8.5.2019.

¶6

Suffice to mention that the mining lease at the first instance was awarded for an area of 1.470 acres but the same was reduced in the year 2007 by arriving at the conclusion that out of 1.470 acres, 0.70 acres of the leased area is part of forest land. After renewal of the mining lease the Mining Officer, Sonbhadra under a letter dated 24.9.2015 communicated to the Regional Forest Officer, Obra Forest Division, Obra to the effect that the area measuring 0.70 acres that was earlier reduced is at the distance of more than 100 meters from the forest land and certain other persons are making efforts to undertake illegal mining by having illegal possession thereon. A recommendation, thus, was made to demarcate the area afresh and to issue No Objection Certificate by reconsidering the entire matter afresh. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Regional Forest Officer, Obra Forest Division, Obra is not acting upon the recommendation made by the Mining Officer, Sonbhadra.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the petition for writ submits that much back in the year 2007 a conscious decision was taken to reduce the leased mining area as 0.70 acres of the leased area was found to be a part of forest land. According to learned Standing Counsel the entire exercise with regard to demarcation of forest land and the leased mining area has already been made and, as such, no useful purpose would be served by directing the respondents to undertake the entire exercise afresh.

¶8

On going through the averments contained in the petition for writ, document annexed thereto and also considering the argument advanced, we are of the opinion that a competent officer of the mining department has made a recommendation to the authorities of the forest department to undertake the entire

¶9

exercise of demarcation afresh with specific assertion that the land measuring 0.70 acres stands at the distance of more than 100 meters from the forest area then there is no reason to deny for considering the issue relating to re-measurement and demarcation of the forest land as well as mining area in question. After demarcation if the forest authorities arrived at the conclusion that the land in question is a part of forest land then they can very well refuse for grant of No Objection Certificate for having mining operations in that area but merely on the count that much back in the year 2007 or prior to that some demarcation was made and now that cannot be reopened would not served any purpose.

¶10

In view of whatever stated above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition for writ by directing the respondent no. 4 the District Forest Settlement Officer, Sonbhadra to consider the recommendation made by the Mining Officer, Sonbhadra under the letter dated 24.9.2015 and to take necessary steps accordingly.

¶11

All measurement given are to be made in consonance with the paragraph 3 of the writ petition.

¶12

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.10.2018 Shekhar

¶14

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.] [Govind Mathur, A.C.J.]

M/S Narayan Stone Works v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Narayan Stone Works v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunti Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramdhani Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nathuram Rajpoot and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwandas Singhal and 7 Others Vs State of U P and 6 Others