BENGALURU:
Rejecting the contention of the authorities that the earlier lease holders had not fulfilled compensatory afforestation and other conditions, the High Court has directed the Forest Clearance (FC) issued to earlier lessees be transferred to the new lease holders.
The HC was hearing three petitions; two of them jointly by MSPL Limited and Rahulkumar N Baldota and the third by Sri Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Narasingadas Pvt Ltd, and gave a common judgement.
”The contentions urged by the respondent authorities that the transfer of FC is subject to certain conditions, such as fulfillment of the conditions by the erstwhile lessee with regard to compensatory afforestation, production of 50 per cent of notional ore after expiry of 18 months and requirement of payment of 50 per cent production to be condition precedent for transfer of FC in favour of the petitioners, in our considered opinion, is innovative and do not find place either in the order of the Apex Court or in the terms of the notification,” a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal said in their September 27 judgement.
In the case of MSPL and Baldota, they had won the quarry lease in a public auction for 30.08 hectares of forest land in Ramanadurga village, Sandur, Ballari and 60.66 hectares in Dharamapura village of the same taluk. Similarly, Narasingadsa Ltd had participated in a bid for 74.86 hectares of KK Kaval, State Forest in Hosadurga in Chitradurga.
The earlier lease holders of these forest lands had obtained FCs. After winning the lease in the public auction, the new lease holders managed to obtain all clearances except the FC. They contended that as per the Supreme Court judgement in Samaja Parivartana Samudaya Vs State of Karnataka, and amendment to the Mines and Minerals Act, permissions and licences had to be transferred to subsequent lessees.
However, when the FC was not transferred within 30 months, the Department of Mines issued a show-cause notice to cancel the Letter of Intents. This promoted them to approach the HC.
Allowing the petitions and directing the authorities to transfer the FCs, the HC said, ”It may be that the subsequent transferee of the Category ‘C’ lessees would be bound by the conditions of FC and fulfillment of terms thereof, but to say that non-fulfillment of such conditions by the previous lessees would be a bar to seek transfer of said FC by the subsequent lessee cannot be accepted.”
