A.K. Sharma, J.@mdashThis second appeal has been filed u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/2003 by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Katni then District Jabalpur (M.P.) confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/92 by learned III Civil Judge-I, Katni. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants restraining the respondents from interfering into the right of mining over the land bearing Khasra No. 6/1 area 4.561 hectares and Khasra No. 6/2 of Village Haraia, Tahsil Vijayraghavgarh which was allotted to the plaintiff for mining work. Later on the Forest Department approached the Collector for cancellation of mining lease on the ground that the land is part of forest land as notified u/s 4 of the Forest Act, 1927 dated 4.7.1969 and final notification u/s 20 of the Forest Act, 1927 dated 9.5.1986. An objection was further raised by the Forest Department that no prior approval of the Central Government u/s 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was obtained. The Collector by letter dated 30.6.2000 intimated the plaintiff not to do the mining work over the land allotted on lease and further intimating that the authorities are moved for cancellation of lease. Against the said letter Ex. P-21, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 30.6.2000 is against the provisions of law and also prayed for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the mining work of the plaintiff.
2. The appellants/defendants in their reply justified their action and further submitted that the land is part of the forest and looking to section 20 of the Forest Act, 1927 and further considering the fact that no prior approval was not obtained from the Central Forest Department for allotment of lease.
3. Learned Trial Court allowed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 25.4.2001 against which the appellants/defendants have filed appeal u/s 96 of C.P.C. which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 10.5.2003 by the learned lower Appellate Court. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that the suit land is not a part of forest land. The appellants have preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the suit property being part of forest land, it cannot be allowed on lease and the Collector is justified in passing the order dated 30.6.2000 and further that there was violation of provisions of section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
4. This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 25.7.2007 on the following substantial question of law:
1. Whether the two Courts below rightly decreed the suit when as per section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 there is a bar for any activity other than forest activities and there is notification u/s 4 read with section 20 of the Indian Forest Act?
2. Whether the two Courts below could have decreed the suit on the basis of illegal proceedings of renewal of lease and renewal of lease is in contravention to decisions of Supreme Court in
3. Whether the two Courts below could have decreed the suit against the provisions of section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code?
5. The appellant and respondents have also filed separate applications under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. which are also being considered in this judgment.
6. I.A. No. 9245/2012 has been filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. for bringing on record the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Collector, Katni (Annexure A) and certified copy of the judgment dated 18.9.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/03 (Annexure B) rejecting the appeal filed by the present appellants and confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court on similar lines. Both the certified copies are copies of public documents which can be considered being necessary for disposal of appeal.
7. Appellants have filed I.A. No. 9244/2012 which is an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. for bringing on record the letters written by forest authorities to the Collector, Katni for furnishing updated proceedings for cancellation of mining lease of the respondent and Shri Abhay Kumar Goenka which include the letter dated 30.6.2000 which was not challenged before the Trial Court and Appellate Court which gave the cause of action to the plaintiffs to file a suit.
8. Before coming to the consideration of substantial questions of law, the main point which requires consideration earlier is what whether the suit land is part of forest land, if it is not a part of forest land notified by the Government itself no provision of section 20 of the Indian Forest Act or section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are attracted. Further, it is also necessary for considering the applicability of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court passed in
9. The learned lower Appellate Court also considered the documents Ex. D-7 and Ex. D-8 and there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the land allotted to plaintiffs/respondents is not the part of forest land and the notification of section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 does not include the land allotted to the plaintiffs/respondents for mining operations and the documents Ex. D-7 and Ex. D-8 are prepared by the authorities of Forest Department and Revenue Department, therefore, they are binding on them and the appellants are stopped from challenging them.
10. The provisions of section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are reproduced below:
20. Notification declaring forest reserved.--
(1) When the following events have occurred, namely:
(a) the period fixed u/s 6 for preferring claims has elapsed, and all claims, if any, made under that section or section 9 have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement-Officer;
(b) if any such claims have been made, the period limited by section 17 for appealing from the orders passed on such claims has elapsed, and all appeals (if any) presented within such period have been disposed of by the appellate officer or Court; and
(c) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement-Officer has, u/s 11, elected to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), have become vested in the Government u/s 16 of that Act, the State Government shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary-marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification.
(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest.
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:
(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;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
(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;
(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 reforestation.]
2. [Explanation.--For the purpose of this section "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or cleaning of any forest land or portion thereof for:
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants;
(b) any purpose other than reforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forest and wild life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, water holes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipeline or other like purposes].
11. Learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be given as u/s 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Mining Act, the Collector is empowered to inspect the land granted on lease for mining purpose, therefore, he cannot be restrained by temporary injunction. The injunction sought for by the plaintiffs/respondent is for restraining the Collector and Revenue Authorities from interfering in the mining work and the section 24 of the relevant Act given the Collector powers to inspect and not to interfere illegally in the mining operation, therefore, arguments of the learned Counsel for the State has no force. Since, the suit land involved in the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not a part of forest land looking to the concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts below, the provisions of section 20 of the Indian Forest Act and section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are not applicable and further the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court passed in the matters of
12. In the above circumstances, all the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants as there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the suit land is not a part of forest land which is different from forest land and is revenue land on which mining operation is not barred under any relevant provisions of law and it is further not covered under the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court passed in the matter of
