TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the District of Valsad in the State of Gujarat..The lease was granted on or about 8th November, 1971 for a period of ten years. The area comprised of 13 acres of land for quarrying purpose. Three persons were granted-2-1/2 acres of land each and the remaining-5-1/2 acres of land were placed at the disposal of Industries, Mines and Power Department for the purpose of granting quarry lease from the same. The case of the appellant was that the said lands were dereserved from the forest area from 1971. On or about 3rd August, 1981 when the appellant's term of lease was about to expire, the appellant applied for renewal of lease asper rule 18 of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the said Rules). The application of the appellant for renewal of lease was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Valsad, on the ground that the land fell under the Reserved Forest area and hence the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter called '1980 Act') applied to the forests. The forest department of State of Gujarat refused to give 'no objection' certificate. The contention of the appellant was that by the order dated 29th November, 1971, the forest depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that deforestation caused ecological imbalances and led to environmental deterioration. It recognised that deforestation had been taking place on a large scale in the country and it had thereby caused widespread concern. With a view to checking further deforestation, an Ordinance had been promulgated on 25th October, 1980. The Ordinance made the prior approval of the Central Government necessary for dereservation of reserved forests and for the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. The Ordinance had also provided for the constitution of an advisory committee to advise the Central Government with regard to grant of such approval. The 1980 Act replaced the said Ordinance. The Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu Kashmir, and came into force on 25th October,: 1980. Section 2 of the said Act is only relevant for our present purpose. It provides as follows: 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the procedure of granting renewals under the rules. On the other hand Shri Mehta, counsel for the respondents in the first appeal and Shri Poti, counsel for the respondents in the second appeal contended before us that after coming into operation of 1980 Act there was no question of renewal of the leases because this Act had prevented renewal of the lease without the approval of the Central Government. Shri Gobind Dass, however, placed strong reliance on State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal, [1965] 3 SCR 402. That was a decision dealing with Rajasthan Mines Minerals Concession Rules, 1958. This Court in that case was concerned with Rule 30 under Chapter IV under the said Rajasthan Rules. This Court observed that the word may' in the proviso in rule 30 in regard to the extension of the period by Government should be construed as 'shall' so as to make it incumbent on Government to extend the period of the lease if the lessee desired extension. The Rajasthan Rules provided, inter alia, as follows: Period of lease--A mining lease may be granted for a period of 5 years unless the applicant himself desires a shorter period; Provided that the period may be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and must be so decided by the courts in each case. Lord Blackburn observed in the said decision that enabling words were always compulsory where the words were to effectuate a legal right. Here the case of the appellants is that they have invested large sums of money in mining operations. Therefore, it was the duty of the authorities that the power of granting permission should have been so exercised that the appellants had the full benefits of their investments. It was emphasized that none of the appellants had committed any breach of the terms of grant nor were there any other factors disentitling them to such renewal. While there was power to grant renewal, and in these cases there were clauses permitting renewals, it might have cast a duty to grant such renewal in the facts and circumstances of the cases specially in view of the investments made by the appellants in the areas covered by the quarrying leases, but renewals cannot be claimed as a matter of right for the following reasons. The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation of 1980 Act. '1980 Act' was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy been utilised for non-forest purposes even before the Act came into force, the question for determination was whether prior approval of the Central Government under section 2 of 1980 Act in the facts of that case was necessary for the State Government for granting permission to win associate minerals also within the same area of 5 acres of land? This Court answered the question in negative and affirmed the judgment of the High Court. This Court observed at pages 647 and 648 of the report as follows: The relevant parts of Section 2 of the Act which have to be construed for purposes of this case are clause (ii) of and the Explanation to that section. Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act provides that 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 that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. Explanation to Section 2 of the Act defines non-forest purpose as breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reforestation. Reading t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said decision in the background of the facts of that case. It is true that this Court held that if the permission had been granted before the coming into operation of the 1980 Act and the forest land has been broken up or cleared, clause (ii) of section 2 of 1980 Act would not apply in such a case. But that decision was rendered in the background of the facts of that case. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem) [1901] Appeal Cases 495. But in view of the mandate of Article 141 that the ratio of the decision of this Court is a law of the land, Shri Gobind Dass submitted that the ratio of a decision must be found out from finding out if the converse was not correct. But this Court, however, was cautious in expressing the reasons for the said decision in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi Others (supra). This Court observed in that decision that the result of taking the contrary view would be that while digging for purposes of winning mica can go on, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
