@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. A mining lease was granted to the appellant on 15.2.1995 for a period of 10 years. It is seen that the land was already notified as private protected forest under the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act. 1947. After the coming into force of the Bihar Private Forest Act. 1947 and the various decisions of the Supreme Court, it was apparently realized that the land in question could not have been leased out for using the land for non-forest purposes, namely, mining operations and that the lease could not have been granted on the coming into force the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore the lease was cancelled notwithstanding the fact that its term expired only by 22.11.2004. The appellant approached this Court challenging the cancellation of the lease. It was contended that, subsequently, the Bihar Land Reforms Act came into force and the land vested in the State and there was no illegality in granting the lease even if the land was recorded as Pahad in the revenue records and consequently the cancellation of the least: on the ground that it was forest land and the activity to be carried on by the lessee was not for a non-forest purpose is not justified or legal. The contention of the appellant was opposed by relying on the notification issued under the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act. 1947 and contending that since the land is a forest land it could not have been leased out for a non-forest activity. The appellant could not dispute the fact that the land had been notifieci as forest land under the Bihar Private Forest Act. 1947.
3. In this situation, the learned single Judge held that since the land was a private protected forest under the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 and by a notification, the land was notified as private protected forest, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to in that judgment, the State was not entitled to grant any lease or licence for using the forest land for a non-forest purpose. The learned single Judge, therefore, declined to interfere and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
4. Challenging the decision of the learned single Judge in this appeal, it is submitted that proceedings are still pending for deciding whether the land is held by the State Govt. or by the Forest Department and in this view of the matter, the cancellation of the lease before the expiry of the term was not justified. With respect to counsel, it has to be said that the dispute if any as to whether the land is under the control of the State Government or the Forest Department, has no relevance. That the lease has been granted for mining purposes a non-forest activity is admitted. That the land is forest land, is clear from the notification issued under the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947. The fact that the land is notified as Pahad in the revenue record does not make it not a forest. Nor can it prevail over the notification issued under the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947. After all most of the forests are hillocks or Pahads.
5. So long as there is a notification to the effect that the land is forest land and the Government had decided to manage and control the protected forest, the appellant cannot claim to carry on mining activities therein. Even otherwise, if it is forest land in common parlance, the use of it for any non-forest activity is prohibited in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court, irrespective of the ownership over the land or whether it has been notified as a reserved forest or not. Since we are satisfied that the learned single Judge was justified in declining relief to the appellant, we see no reason to interfere. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
