STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.versusM/S. KRISHNADAS TIKARAM

            STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.                                    A
                             v.
                 MIS. KRISHNADAS TIKARAM

                          SEPTEMBER 21, 1994

         [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.j                                B

      Forest Conservation Act, 1980 : Sections 2 and 3.

      Mining Lease--Renewal by State Government-Where approval of
State Government was not obtained directions by High Court to grant renewal     C
held not justified.

      The respondent was granted mining lease to extract limestone in the
forest area. Subsequently, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into
force under which grant or renewal of lease by State Government was to .
be made with the prior approval of the Central Government. After expiry D
of the lease, the respondent applied for further renewal which was granted
but later it was cancelled because it was objected to by the Forest Depart·
ment. The respondent approached the High Court which directed grant of
renewal.

      In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the renewal of the lease   E
cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the Central Govern-
ment.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1. The High Court was not right in directing grant ofrenewal       F
of the lease. The grant or renewal is a fresh grant and niust be made
consistent with law. Section 2 of the Forest Conserval;ion Act 1980
prohibited the grant or renewal. In case the State Government decides to
grant fresh !ease or renewal of the lease it is mandatory that it should
obtain prior approval of the Central Government. Admittedly, no such            G
prior approval was obtained. The State Government thus had realised the
mistake in directing renewal when the Forest Department had objected to
the renewal of the lease. Therefore, the cancellation of the renewal order
was properly made by the State Government. (749-C, A-B]

      State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Ors., A.I.R. (1985) S.C. 814;       H
                                    747
    748                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., A.i.R. (1988) SC
    2187 and Ambica Quarry Works etc. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., A.I;R.
    (1987) SC 1073, referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3276 of
    1990.
B
         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.89 of the Madhya Pradesh
    High Court in Misc. P.No. 2758 of 1989.

            B.Y. Kulkarni and S.K. Agnihotri (N.P.) for the Appellants.

C           Ghanshiam Das Gupta for (NP) for the Respondent

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          The respondent was initially granted Mining lease in the year 1966
    for a period of 20 years to extract limestone in the forest area. The Forest
D   (Conservation) Act 69 of 1980 has come into force with effect from
    25.10.80. Under Section 2 of the Act grant or renewal after the Act has
    comP- into force shall be made, in the event of the State Government
    deciding to grant lease or renewal, with the prior approval of the Central
    Government. The object of the Act is to maintain ecology and preservation
E   of the forest. It is also the object under Section 3 to regenerate the forests
    by planting trees and the forest growth. In 1986 after the expiry of the lease
    the respondent had approached the Government for renewal. Though the
    Government had taken the decision and passed an order on February 7,
    1986 to grant further renewal for a period of 20 years in terms of the
    original grant, it was objected to by the Forest Department Consequently
F   it was cancelled. The respondent had approached the High Court in
    Miscellaneous Petition No. 2758 of 89 and the Division Bench by its order
    dated August 18, 1989 following the ratio in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram
    Modi and Others, (A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 814) directed to grant renewal on the
    ground that the part of the leased area had already been broken and,
G   therefore, renewal should be granted.

          The appellant contends that this Court in Rural Litigation and Entit-
    lement Kendra v. State of U.P., (A.1.R. 1988 SC 2187) and Ambica Quarry
    Works etc. v. State of Gujarat a1J,d Others, (A.I.R. 1987 SC 1073) had held
    that even the renewal of the lease cannot be granted without the prior
H   occurrence of the C~ntral Government. We find force in tqe contention. It
                          STATE OFM.P. v. K. TIKARAM                        749    -

     is settled law that the gnmt or renewal is a fresh grant and must be made A
     consistent with law. Section 2 prohibited the grant or renewal. In case the
     State Government decides to grant fresh lease or renewal of the lease it is
     mandatory that it should obtain prior approval of the Ceri.tral Government.
     Admittedly, no prior approval of the Central Government had been ob-
     tained under Section 2 of the Act. The State Government thus had realised
     the mistake in directing renewal when the Forest Department had objected B
     to tjie renewal of the lease in favour of the respondent". Therefore, the
     cancellation of the order, before it came into effect by registering, had been
     proper]y made by the appellant. The High Court was, therefore, not right
     in directing grant of renewal of the lease.

           It is brought to our notice that under contempt proceedings the leas~   C
..   deed was directed to be registered and it was according]y registered. It is
'    declared that the registration is illegal and is invalid.

          The appeal is according]y allowed. No costs.

     T.NA                                                      Appeal allowed.