Disposed

Heidelberg Cement India Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021WP/32104/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Heidelberg Cement petitioned for extension of forest clearance. The Court noted the lease extension was already granted by the State. The writ was disposed of citing the availability of an alternative remedy under the National Green Tribunal Act against the State's afforestation demands.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal; no order on merits.

Heidelberg Cement India Limited Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.32104/2019 (GM-MM/S)

¶8

BETWEEN HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY MYSORE CEMENT LIMITED) P.O AMMSANDRA TUMKUR, KARNATAKA-572 211 REPRESENTED BY MR GOPI RANGANATHAN

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY VIDHANASOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

2 . COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MINES DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJABHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001

¶14

3 . THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HASSAN CIRCLE HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

¶15

¶16

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, REGIONAL OFFICE (SOUTHERN ZONE) KENDRIYA SADAN, IVTH FLOOR, E & F WINGS, 17^TH MAIN ROAD, II BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 034

¶17

PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003

¶18

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, RAMAKRISHNANAGARA, TUMKUR 572 105

¶19

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, KUNIGAL MAIN ROAD, TUMKUR 572 105.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R7)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO AFFECT STATUTORY EXTENSION OF MINING LEASE TO THE PETITIONER BEARING M.L.NO.2024 FOR A PERIOD UPTO 31.03.2030 VIDE ANNX-R DTD.01.07.2019 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.8A(6) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present

¶26

petition for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction

¶27

¶28

directing the respondents to effect extension of the forest clearance already granted to make it co-terminus with the extension of ML No.2024 until 31.3.2030 having regard to the communication of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change bearing F No.11-51/2015-FC, dated 1.4.2015.

¶29

The aforesaid relief has already been granted to the petitioner by the State Government. The supplementary mining lease has been executed on 20.7.2021 by the Director of Mines and Geology and the period of lease has been extended up to 31.3.2030.

¶30

The petitioner is also aggrieved by the decision of the respondents and the consequential demand made towards compensatory afforestation and penal afforestation.

¶31

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1960,

¶32

reads as under;

¶33

"2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing,—

¶34

¶35

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

¶36

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

¶37

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;

¶38

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation.

¶39

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section ‘‘nonforest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for—

¶40

(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants;

¶41

(b) any purpose other than re-afforestation,

¶42

but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, water holes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes."

¶43

5. The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it

¶44

very clear that no State Government or any authority, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, may order the change of land use i.e., de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes.

¶45

¶46

In the present case, the forest land is being used for mining purposes and for the same compensatory afforestation, penal compensatory afforestation payment in respect of 19.38 hectares of forest land at Sy.No.34 of Mavinahalli and Sy.No.83 of Kondli village of Gubbi Taluk in Tumkur District, is being recovered from the petitioner. The payment has been demanded from the petitioner keeping in view Section 2 of the Forest (Preservation) Act, 1980.

¶47

Section 2A of the Forest (Preservation) Act, 1980

¶48

reads as under;

¶49

" 2A. Appeal to National Green Tribunal . —Any person aggrieved, by an order or decision of the State Government or other authority made under Section 2, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, may file an appeal to the National Green Tribunal established under Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in accordance with the provisions of that Act."

¶50

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is aggrieved by an order/decision of the State Government made under Section 2 of the Forest (Preservation) Act, 1980. Therefore, he is having an alternative remedy of approaching the National Green

¶51

¶52

Tribunal especially under Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶53

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal. It is made clear that this Court has not passed any order on merits. The petition is being disposed of on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

¶54

SD/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Heidelberg Cement India Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heidelberg Cement India Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S People for Animals Mysuru Animal Welfare Organisation Vs State of Karnataka

V T Dinesh Kumar Vs the Senior Geologist (M)

B v Mahesh Rai Vs the Sendior Geologist (M)

General Manager Bank of Maharashtra Vs Vijaya Parthasarathy

Sri Padmappa Poojary Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Gurunath Vadde Vs State of Karnataka