1997 (7) TMI 600 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Regulation would apply to transfer of Government land to a non-tribal? Whether the Government can grant mining lease of the lands situated in scheduled area to a non-tribal? Whether the leases are in violation of Section 2 of the FC Act? Whether the leases are in violation of Environment Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the EP Act )? Held that - It is an admitted position that five enclosures comprise of 426 acres of land occupied by the tribals in those villages. Re-survey started in 1990 jointly by Revenue, Forest and Mining Departments and was completed and the report was made on August 2, 1990. Though 14 villages with five enclosures were notified as Borra reserved forest in GOMs No. 2997 F & A dated October 31 1,1966, they stood excluded from reserved forest area. Therefore, the lands in the enclosures being cultivated by the tribals are their patta lands and are entitled to get pattas by the concerned officers. It is conceded on behalf of the respondents that the Government have no power to grant mining leases for these lands situated within the enclosures. It is seen from the evidence that the mining leases were granted by the State Government or were transferred and retransferred with the sanction of the State Government from private individuals to juristic persons, the partnership firms or companies. The lands with mining area are situated either in the reserved forest or forest land or within the scheduled area. Therefore, all the mining leases or renewals thereof are in violation of the Fifth Schedule. Equally, mining leases/renewals of mining leases by the, State Government are in violation of Regulation 3(1)(a) read with Section 3(2) of the Regulation and F.C. Act. Therefore, they are all void. The State Government, therefore, is directed to ensure that all concerned industrialists, be they natural or juristic person stop forthwith mining operations within the scheduled area, except where the lease has been granted to the State Undertaking, i.e., A.P.S.M.D. Corporation; they should report compliance of this order to the Registry of this Court within six months of the receipt of this judgment. The lessees of mining leases are directed not to break fresh mines; however, in the meanwhile, they are entitled to remove the minerals already extracted and stocked in the reserved forest area within four months time from today. All concerned authorities are directed to ensure compliance thereof. Even the State Undertaking carrying the mining operations, would be subject to the regulations under the FC Act and EPA. It would be open to the State Government to organise Co-operative., Societies composed solely of the Scheduled Tribes to exploit mining operations within the scheduled area subject to the compliance of the FC Act and EPA. The appeal of Samatha are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside and directions are issued accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Regulation applies to the transfer of Government land to a non-tribal?
2. Whether the Government can grant mining leases of lands situated in scheduled areas to a non-tribal?
3. Whether the leases are in violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act (FC Act)?
4. Whether the leases are in violation of the Environment Protection Act (EP Act)?

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Regulation applies to the transfer of Government land to a non-tribal?

The primary question is whether the Regulation would apply to the transfer of Government land to a non-tribal. The Court concluded that the word 'person' in Section 3 of the Regulation includes the Government. Therefore, any lease to non-tribals, even of Government land situated in a scheduled area, is in violation of Section 3 and is void. The Court emphasized that the Regulation aims to prevent exploitation and preserve the land for tribals, thus prohibiting the State from transferring its land to non-tribals.

2. Whether the Government can grant mining leases of lands situated in scheduled areas to a non-tribal?

The Court held that the State Government is prohibited from transferring its lands in scheduled areas to non-tribals for mining purposes. The Regulation, as interpreted, includes the Government within the definition of 'person,' thereby restricting the transfer of Government land to non-tribals. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional objective of protecting tribal autonomy and preventing exploitation by non-tribals.

3. Whether the leases are in violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act (FC Act)?

The Court held that mining leases in forest areas for non-forest purposes or their renewal without prior approval of the Central Government violate Section 2 of the FC Act. The FC Act prohibits the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without such approval. The Court emphasized that the FC Act applies to all forest lands, including reserved forests and other categories, thereby necessitating Central Government approval for any non-forest activities, including mining.

4. Whether the leases are in violation of the Environment Protection Act (EP Act)?

The Court acknowledged the importance of the Environment Protection Act (EP Act) in maintaining ecological balance and preventing environmental degradation. However, the Court did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the mining leases in question violated the EP Act. The Court directed the State Government to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and take necessary measures to protect the environment in scheduled areas.

Conclusion:

The appeals by Samatha were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Court issued directions to ensure that all concerned industrialists, whether natural or juristic persons, stop mining operations within the scheduled area, except where the lease has been granted to the State Undertaking, i.e., A.P.S.M.D. Corporation. The lessees were directed to remove the minerals already extracted and stocked in the reserved forest area within four months. The State Government was directed to organize Co-operative Societies composed solely of Scheduled Tribes to exploit mining operations within the scheduled area, subject to compliance with the FC Act and EP Act. The appeal of Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals was dismissed as their license had already expired, and the grant of renewal was prohibited under the FC Act and Section 11(5) of the Mining Act.