Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Sri Prakash Chandra Vs Forest

¶1

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.828 of 2017

¶3

------

¶4

M/ Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Sariadhella, District-Dhanbad through Sri Prakash Chandra, General Manager, BCCL, Lodna Area, P.O-Jeenagora, P.S. Jora Pokhar, District-Dhanbad. …. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O and P.S Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶7

The Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad Forest Division, Combined Building, Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, P.O, P.S and DistrictDhanbad. ..... .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶9

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Pratyush, Advocate Mr. Shovit Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. S.C.-II ------ 04/Dated: 08.09.2025

¶10

Prayer

¶11

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs:-

¶12

(A) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order passed by the respondent No.2 contained in notice No.2528 dated 22.11.2016 in BPLE Case No.2/2007 whereby and where under the said respondent has been

¶13

¶14

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶15

pleased to direct the petitioner not to carry out any work of any kind on the lands falling under Plot Nos.605 and 611 under Mouza Suranga, P.S Jharia, P.S No.155, District Dhanbad measuring 2.51 Acres as the said land is a forest land which falls under the category of Public land.

¶16

(B) Upon quashing letter/notice No.2528 dated 22.11.2016 to issue a further writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondents to forbear from interfering in mining and other activities being carried out by the petitioner over lands situated on Plot Nos.605 and 611 measuring 2.51 Acres in Mouza Suranga, P.S Jharia, District-Dhanbad.

¶17

(C) For issuance of any other writ/order/direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing justice to the petitioner.

¶18

Factual Matrix

¶19

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under: -

¶20

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is a Central Government Company under the Ministry of Coal and a company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. South Tisra Colliery of M/s

¶21

¶22

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶23

BCCL comprises of 5 collieries of different erstwhile colliery owners. These 5 collieries are Golden Jeena Gora, Diamond Tisra, Tisra (AG), Bengal Jharia and South Tisra Colliery.

¶24

(ii) By way of Policy decision taken by the petitioner for smooth running of the mine, the above mentioned 5 collieries were amalgamated and are presently known as South Tisra Colliery under the project North-South Tisra Colliery headed by the Project Officer under Lodna Area of M/s BCCL.

¶25

(iii) It is the further case of the writ petitioner that after becoming the owner of the aforesaid coal mine, M/s BCCL has developed the work shop and the work shop is functional even on this date and therefore, much prior to coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the lands in question were already broken up and therefore there was no existence of any forest or a protected forests in terms of the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Forest Act. The lands over which the workshop is in existence falls within the lease hold area of the Colliery being part and parcel of the registered indenture of lease bearing no.6959 of 1947 registered on 10.09.1947.

¶26

(iv) The repair and maintenance work at the workshop

¶27

¶28

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶29

which was being carried out ever since 1962 for a period of more than 50 years without any objection whatsoever. All of a sudden, vide letter no.60 C dated 07.05.2016, the respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that while constructing workshop at South Tisra Colliery Forest lands have been wrongly utilized by M/s BCCL. Vide said letter, it has also been informed by the said respondent that prior to carrying out any non-forest work prior permission of the Central Govt. is required and having not taken the prior permission, the same would mean that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 have been violated. Vide said letter, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why appropriate legal action be not initiated against the officers of the company.

¶30

(v) On receipt of the letter of the respondent no.2, the petitioner vide letter dated 24.05.2016, submitted his reply stating that the lands in question are the vested lands of the petitioner company and a workshop has been constructed by Golden Jeena Gora Colliery in the year 1962 and the said workshop is coming in existence since then, i.e., much prior to coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and as such, there is no contravention of the provisions of the said Act as the

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶33

lands in question had already been broken up prior to coming into force of the 1980 Act.

¶34

(vi) Again, vide letter no.63 dated 13.09.2016, the petitioner was called upon by the Forest Extension Officer, Dhanbad to explain the position and in response thereto, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 29.09.2016, once again explained the position stating that the work shop is in existence since 1962 and there has been no objection whatsoever regarding the working of the workshop on the lands in question.

¶35

(vii) In spite of the petitioner submitted detailed reply and explanation regarding the existence of the work shop since more than 50 years on the lands in question, the respondent no.2 vide notice no.2528 dated 22.11.2016 informed the petitioner that a proceeding has been initiated for unauthorized occupation of M/s BCCL and a direction has been issued upon the petitioner company not to carry out any work on a piece of land falling under Plot No.605 and 611 of Mouza Suranga, P.S Jharia, P.S No.155, District Dhanbad. The petitioner’s company has also been advised to maintain status quo over the lands in question.

¶36

(viii) It is the further case that now more than 50 years have passed since the issuance of the Gazette notification

¶37

¶38

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶39

dated 10.10.1964, yet no enquiry or survey as contemplated in Section 29(3) and Section 83 of the CNT Act, has been carried out.

¶40

(ix) The mandatory requirements of Section 29(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 have not been complied with the right of the petitioner, has not yet been extinguished and as such, the declaration of lands mentioned as protected forests has not come into existence to the exclusion of the petitioner and therefore, the direction issued by the respondent no.2 restraining the petitioner from carrying out mining activities therefore liable to be set aside. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶41

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶42

3. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that identical matters have been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12^th November, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.5423 of 2016 along with W.P.(C) No.5149 of 2010, as also, W.P.(C) No.263 of 2006 decided, vide judgment dated 14^th January, 2025.

¶43

4. Mr. Mehta, on the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the instant writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the said judgments by interfering with the order impugned dated 22.11.2016 as contained in notice no.2528 passed in BPLE Case No.2/2007.

¶44

¶45

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶46

Submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent-State

¶47

5. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned AC to Sr. S.C.-II appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 12^th November, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.5423 of 2016 along with W.P.(C) No.5149 of 2010, as also, W.P.(C) No.263 of 2006 decided, vide judgment dated 14^th January, 2025, since, identical issues have been taken into consideration by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶48

Analysis

¶49

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated their arguments.

¶50

7. We have also gone through the factual aspect as pleaded in the writ petition and found therefrom that the land encroachment proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of notice no.2528 dated 22.11.2016 passed in BPLE Case No.2/2007, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been restrained from carrying out any work of any kind on the lands falling under Plot Nos.605 and 611 under Mouza Suranga, P.S Jharia, P.S No.155, District Dhanbad measuring 2.51 Acres as the said land is a forest land which falls under the category of Public land.

¶51

8. It is evident from the pleadings as also the prayer made in the instant writ petition that the issue involved in this writ petition is

¶52

¶53

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶54

the action initiating the land encroachment proceeding against the writ petitioner on the ground that the land in question is a forest land.

¶55

9. We, after going through the factual aspect as reflected in the judgment dated 12^th November, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.5423 of 2016 along with W.P.(C) No.5149 of 2010 as also W.P.(C) No.263 of 2006 decided, vide judgment dated 14^th January, 2025, have found that the identical issues are involved in the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶56

10. This Court has decided the issues in the judgment dated 12^th November, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.5423 of 2016 along with W.P.(C) No.5149 of 2010 by framing the issues, as under paragraph-26 and all the issues have been answered in the said judgment, for ready reference, para-26 is being referred as under:-

¶57

“26. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts this Court is of the view that following issues are required to be answered for proper adjudication of the present lis:

¶58

(I) Whether Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 will be applicable in the factual aspects of the instant case?

¶59

(II)Whether by virtue of notification dated 28.04.1947 since the State of Bihar has taken decision to bring the private forests also under the fold of protected area, hence the provision of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 will be applicable herein?

¶60

(III) Whether the private forest is to be brought under the fold of proviso to sub-section (3) to Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927?

¶61

(IV) Whether the mining operation as being carried out by virtue of Coal Nationalization Act,

¶62

¶63

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶64

1973 in particular area, then the State without determining and without getting the report in view of provision of section 29(3) of the Act, 1927, can pass such restrainment orders.”

¶65

11. This Court, after having answered the issues, has come to the conclusion that the State authority without conducting the enquiry and coming to the conclusion of fact finding based upon the aforesaid provision of Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, passed the impugned orders, hence, the same has been quashed. However, the impugned orders of restrainment dated 25.08.2010, 17.08.2016 modified vide order dated 03.09.2016 as also the orders dated 03.09.2016, have been quashed and set aside, reference of the relevant paragraphs is being quoted as

¶66

under:-

¶67

“97. This Court, having answered the issues framed by this Court, is of the view that it is the State authority which without conducting the enquiry and coming to the conclusion of fact finding based upon the provision of Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, passed the impugned orders which requires interference by this Court.

¶68

98. Accordingly, the impugned orders of restrainment dated 25.08.2010; 17.08.2016 modified vide order dated 03.09.2016 as also the orders dated 03.09.2016 whereby show cause notices were issued upon the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶69

99. However, the State is at liberty to raise the issue of title, if the State so wishes by ventilating the grievance before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

¶70

100. Such liberty is being granted since the State has raised the question of title/vesting of the land by virtue of the effect of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶71

101. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand

¶72

¶73

2025:JHHC:27073-DB

¶74

allowed.”

¶75

12. It is further evident that the restrainment order passed in the present writ petition is based upon the notification dated 23.09.1964, wherein, on the basis of the same notification, as has been referred at paragraph-93 of the judgment dated 12^th November, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.5423 of 2016 along with W.P.(C) No.5149 of 2010, the present proceeding of initiation under the BPLE Act, has been initiated.

¶76

13. This Court, considering the fact that the identical issue has already been dealt with, hence, is of the view that the present writ petition is also to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments.

¶77

14. Accordingly, the order impugned as contained in notice no.2528 dated 22.11.2016 passed in BPLE Case No.2/2007, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶78

15. In the result, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

¶79

16. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if

¶80