Disposed

Veera Vaishnavi Granites, v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Telangana HC10 Mar 2011WP/3695/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondents to process a quarry lease application for black granite without insisting on registration of alternate land for compensatory afforestation until Stage-I clearance is obtained from the Central Government, pending furnishing of other required information.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to process the application without insisting on registration of alternate land for compensatory afforestation before Stage-I Central Government clearance.

Veera Vaishnavi Granites, Vs The Principal Chief… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3695 of 2006

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to process the petitioner’s application, for grant of quarry lease of black granite in respect of an extent of 4.00 hectares in the Reserve Forest Compartment No.1148 (Revenue Survey No.204/1) of Ingurthi East Block and Section, Ingurthi Range, Mehaboobabad, Kesamudram Mandal, Warangal District and other survey numbers, and forward it to the Central Government seeking prior approval under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶5

The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed an application for grant of quarry lease of black granite in respect of an extent of 4.00 hectares in the Reserve Forest. It is their case that on 16.01.2004 the third respondent had asked them to furnish information, in statutory proformas, in respect of the forest areas for which they had applied for a quarry lease, to the first respondent. The petitioner claims to have furnished the required information in statutory proformas to respondent Nos.1 and 3. It is their case that a mining plan, as per the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, was furnished on 24.10.2003; and an undertaking was given by them to pay the cost of compensatory afforestation as required under Rule 3(2). It is their case that, in the areas in a Reserved forest the State Government is empowered to grant quarry lease only after obtaining prior approval from the Central Government; and the Central Government would grant conditional approval on the applicant providing alternate land to the forest department to compensate them for the loss of the forest land. The petitioner

¶6

would submit that, on 09.09.2003, the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Surveyor of the Mines Department had called upon them to be present at the lands for which quarry leases were applied for, and that survey of the land was subsequently completed. The petitioner’s grievance is that the forest department was asking them to register the compensatory land, in favour of the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal South Division, Warangal, (second respondent), even before their application was processed.

¶7

In the proceedings dated 30.12.2005, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the compensatory land had to be alienated to the forest department in correlation with the concerned Forest Divisional Officer; an action plan had to be drawn up for the identified area, and approved by the concerned Local Divisional Forest Officer; and until then the proposals could not be processed. By the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner was asked to get the land registered in favour of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nalgonda and action plan be got approved. The petitioner, vide letter dated 30.01.2006, was informed that the registered deed of the proposed land be produced before the second respondent for processing their application.

¶8

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted three proposals through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad for grant of mining lease for extraction of black granite for, approximately, an extent of 7.00 hectares falling in the Reserve Forest, Ingurthy East and Dhansari Reserve Forest; there were certain proformas to be complied with under the Act; under Part-I, the user agency was required to furnish information; Part-II pertained to the Deputy Conservator of Forests; Part-III pertained to the Conservator of Forests; and Part-IV pertained to the recommendations of the

¶9

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for acceptance or otherwise of the proposals. Respondents would state that proposals were furnished to the Conservator of Forests, Warangal by the petitioner duly filling up Part-I; the said proposals had been returned, vide letter dated 21.04.2005, for want of certain information; the information as sought for by the Conservator of Forests was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.05.2005; the petitioner was requested to resubmit the proposals duly attending to the discrepancies pointed out by the Conservator of Forests; and the petitioner had not furnished the said information. Reference is made to Rule 6 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules), whereunder the user agency is required to submit the proposals in Form-A for grant of permission and de-reservation of the forest area for nonforestry purposes. The appendix to part-II of the Rules consists of the following details of compensatory afforestation scheme.

¶10

a. Details of non-forest area/degraded forest area identified for compensatory afforestation, its distance from adjoining forest, number of patches, size of each patch.

¶11

b. Map showing non-forest/degraded forest area identified for compensatory afforestation and adjoining forest boundaries.

¶12

c. Detailed compensatory afforestation scheme including species to be planted, implementing agency, time schedule, cost structure etc.

¶13

d. Total financial outlay for compensatory afforestation scheme.

¶14

e. Certificate from competent authority regarding suitability of area identified for compensatory afforestation and from management point of view.

¶15

The second respondent further states that the petitioner was requested to submit details of the alternate land identified for the purpose of compensatory afforestation; obtain the approval from the local Divisional Forest Officer; submit the comprehensive afforestation scheme on the basis of Rule 3.1; registration of land

¶16

in favour of the second respondent was a compulsory requirement; and, therefore, it did not amount to harassment of the petitioner. Sri V.Rajagopal Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the rules do not require registration of alternate land for the purpose of compensatory afforestation even before approval is granted by the Central Government; the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 30.12.2005 and 05.01.2006, are patently illegal; and, as such, this requirement of the petitioner registering alternate land, for compensatory afforestation, in favour of the second respondent, even before the State Government obtains prior approval of the Central Government, is ex facie illegal.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Forests would draw attention of this Court to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 08.12.2005, whereby he had returned the proposals for the following lapses:

¶18

1. User agency has not shown the road in the map.

¶19

2. Survey sketch of the area proposed for mining including road with field has not been furnished by the user agency.

¶20

3. Map of Non forest land identified/selected for C.A. has not been furnished by the user agency which is essentially required for the following proposal.

¶21

4. Certificate for non-commencement of the work in the proposed area by the user agency has not been furnished.

¶22

5. Certificate to bear the cost of exploitation of trees in the proposed mining area has not been furnished by the user agency.

¶23

6. The undertaking stating that the non-forest land selected for C.A. is pending with Government furnished by the user agency will not serve the purpose.

¶24

Learned Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner’s application could not be processed in as much as the information sought for was not furnished by them. He would take this Court through the Forest Conservation Rules, and the formats appended

¶25

thereto, to submit that the requirement of registration of alternate land for compensatory afforestation would arise only after Stage-I approval is granted by the Central Government; and the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.12.2005 and 30.01.2006, insisting on registration of alternate land even before Stage-I clearance was obtained from the Central Government, is not in accordance with the rules. Learned Government Pleader would, however, reiterate that, unless and until the aforementioned information is furnished by the petitioner, their application for lease of the forest land, for non-forestry purposes, cannot be considered.

¶26

Sri V.Rajagopal Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, dispute the assertion of the Learned Government Pleader that the information as sought for by the second respondent dated 08.12.2005 was not furnished. It is his case that the information as sought for has already been furnished. It is, however, not clear from the material placed before this Court whether the information sought for by the second respondent in his letter dated 08.12.2005, had, in fact, been furnished, and, if so, when.

¶27

In view of the submission of the Learned Government Pleader for Forests that the requirement of registration of alternate land for compensatory afforestation would arise only after Stage-I clearance is granted by the Central Government, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents, in case the petitioner furnishes the information as sought for by the second respondent in his letter dated 08.12.2005, to process their application in accordance with law without insisting on registration of alternate land for compensatory afforestation even before Stage-I clearance is granted by the Central Government. It is made clear that this

¶28

Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement or otherwise for grant of forest land for non-forestry purposes. It is for the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s application on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶29

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶30

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶31

Date:10.03.2011 usd

Veera Vaishnavi Granites, v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veera Vaishnavi Granites, v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

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

Bandlamudi Koteswara Rao, Vs The District Collector

Dr. Ambedkar Sc, St and Retd, Employees Vs Sri V.N. Vishnu

Gorle Atchannaidu S/o Appala Naidu Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

B. Ramulu, Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Mr.S.P.John Wesley Vs The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education

M. Krishna Reddy , Rama Krishna Reddy Vs The Govt. of A.P.