SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, November 23, 2023

Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

W.P.(C). Nos. 20532 of 2010

V.K. Velu v. Anil Kumar

2017 SCC OnLine Ker 3277

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(BEFORE A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.)

V.K. Velu Residing at Plot No. 101, Mukkuni Mala, Edakonam,

Pallichal, Thiruvananthapuram. [Expired].
Supplemental Petitioners 2 to 5
2. Omana, W/o Late V.K. Velu, Aged 68 years, Residing Atplot No.
101, Mukkunnimala, Edakkode, Pallichal, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Sajeev, S/o Late V.K. Velu, Aged 44 years, Residing at
“Sreeratnam”, Santhigiri P.O., Ananthapuram,
Thiruvananthapuram District.
4. Rajeev, S/o Late V.K. Velu, Aged 40 years, Residing at Plot No.
101, Mukkunnimala, Edakkode, Pallichal, Thiruvananthapuram.
5. Pradeep, S/o Late V.K. Velu, Aged 36 years, Residing at
Chinganthara House, Thuravoor P.O., Alappuzha District 688
532.
Supplemental Petitioners 2 to 5 Are Impleaded as Per Order Dated
6.7.2011 in I.A. No. 10564/2011 .…. Petitioner(s)
By Advs. Sri. K.P. Dandapani (Sr.), Sri. Millu Dandapani
v.
1. Anil Kumar S/o Narayana Panicker, Pankajavilas, P.P. No. 95,
Mookunnimala, Nemam Po, Thiruvananthapuram. Pin 695121.
2. Sureshbabu, S/o Soman, Contractor, Thekkummoodu,
Thiruvananthapuram. Pin 695101
3. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, District office,
Thiruvananthapuram.
4. The Village Officer, Pallichal Village, Neyyatinkara Taluk,
Thiruvananthapuram.
5. The Tahasildar, office of the Taluk office, Neyyattinkara Taluk,
Thiruvananthapuram.
6. The District Collector, Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram.
Addl. R7 Impleaded
7. M/s. Southern Granites and Industries, Mookkunnimala,
Edakkode, Nemom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by
its Managing Partner K.J. Thomaskutty.
Addl. R7 is Impleaded as Per Order Dated 7.9.2010 in I.A. No.
12230/10 .…. Respondent(s)
R, Addl. R7 by Adv. Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas
R, R1 & 2 by Adv. Sri. George Thomas (Mevada)(Sr.)
R, R1, 2 by Adv. Sri. T. Rajasekharan Nair
Rr3 to R6 by Sri. Ranjith Thampan, Addl. Advocate General
W.P.(C). Nos. 20532 of 2010, 17088 of 2011, 10212, 10238, 12101, 12116,
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12277, 14639, 15915 & 22237 of 2012, 32619 of 2015, 40532 of 2016, 610, 613
& 644 of 2017
Decided on April 25, 2017
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
Introduction:
1. These cases bring to the fore, yet again, the unending and vexed issue of striking
a balance between the development needs of human society and the ecological
necessity to preserve natural resources. The activity of granite quarrying is one that
has become so rampant in the State of Kerala that the time has probably come for the
State to review its existing policy with regard to grant of quarrying leases and permits
and ensure that quarrying activities in the State are effectively regulated through the
legislative measures that are already in place. A recent study (March, 2017) conducted
by the Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, finds that there are a total of 5924
Quarries in the State covering an area of 7156.6 Hectares. Central Kerala ranks the
highest, in terms of the number of quarries and the area quarried, with 2438 quarries
covering an area of 3610.4 Hectares. North Kerala has 1969 quarries covering an area
of 1871.97 Hectares, and South Kerala has 1517 quarries covering an area of 1675.21
Hectares. 50% of these quarries are in the 0.02-0.5 Hectare category, 35.7% in the
0.5-2 Hectare category, 73 granite quarries with an area above 10 Hectare and 19
Quarries having an area greater than 20 Hectares. There are 78 granite quarries within
1 Km proximity of the epicenters of recorded earthquakes in Kerala. Similarly, there
are 79 quarries with a total area of 85.83 Hectares within 500 metres from protected
forests and 1378 quarries functioning within 1 Km from the reserved forests. (See:
Paper titled “Mapping of Granite Quarries in Kerala, India: A critical mapping initiative;
by TV Sajeev and Alex CJ; Forest Health Division, Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi).
2. While the quarrying activities in respect of granite metal were being regulated
through the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, the latter Rules were superseded by the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, which brought in more stringent regulatory
measures to govern the grant of quarrying leases and permits. Notifications issued
under the Environment Protection Act and Rules also envisage that quarrying leases
and permits be granted only after a thorough audit of the environmental impact that
such activities can occasion. It is apparent, therefore, that there are adequate
legislative measures in place to regulate quarrying activities. Litigation in this area
has, however, revealed the shortcomings with regard to the implementation of these
regulatory measures.
Brief Facts:
3. In these writ petitions, save for W.P.(C). Nos. 14639/2012, 17088/2011,
20532/2010, 32619/2015 and 40532/2016, that are filed by neighbouring
landowners, the other writ petitions are preferred by persons who either own, or have
rights over, lands in Pallichal Village in Neyyatinkara Taluk, in an area that is locally
referred to as Mookunnimala, and hold quarrying leases for quarrying Granite metal.
The lands in question were originally assigned to the predecessors in interest of the
present owners, in terms of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960,
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘1960 Act’] read with the Special Rules for Assignment
of Government Lands for Rubber Cultivation, 1960. In their writ petitions, which
comprise of two sets - the first of which were filed challenging stop memos that were
issued by the respondents in 2012, and the second of which were filed challenging
stop memos that were issued by the respondents in the year 2016 - they are
aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with the working of the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quarries during the currency of subsisting leases, the terms of which are scheduled to
expire only during the period between 2018 and 2022.
4. The stop memos that were issued to the various writ petitioners in the year
2012, appear to have been pursuant to the directions issued by this court in the
judgment dated 13.08.2009 in W.P.(C). No. 9605/2008, where this Court found that
lands assigned to various quarrying permit holders in Malyattoor - Neeleeswaram
Grama Panchayat had, in fact, been issued under Patta's that contained a clause that
the assigned lands would not be used for purposes other than for rubber cultivation,
and hence the assigned lands could not be used for quarrying activities. The
observations of the Court are to be found in paragraph 5 of the judgment and read as
follows:
“5. In view of the specific contention raised by the petitioners that quarrying
undertaken by respondents 3 and 4 is in violation of the patta issued to them, I
directed the 5th respondent to produce a copy of the patta issued to the predecessor
-in-interest of respondents 3 and 4 as also the order of assignment of land on
registry. The same have been produced as Ext. P5(a). The patta is one issued to
one Uthuppu Simon, who is the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 and 4,
containing the caption that the same is issued under Rule 8-D(ii) of Special Rules
for Assignment of Government Lands for Rubber Cultivation. (In the present rules,
there is no Rule 8D and therefore, the form may have been printed under the
erstwhile rules, which have been replaced by the Special Rules for Assignment of
Government Lands for Rubber Cultivation, 1960). The order of assignment of land
on registry also contains the caption, ‘Form of Order of Assignment of Land on
registry for Rubber Cultivation”.
5. Clause 4 of the Order of Assignment reads thus:
“4. The land assigned will be about 1.41 hectares, in area of which 1.21 hectares
shall be put under rubber cultivation and the remaining area shall be used for the
construction of a dwelling house and for a domestic garden, if so desired by the
assignee.”
6. Clause 5 reads thus:
“The registry shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of conditions 1 to 3
above or the conditions specified in the patta.”
7. Clause 10 reads thus:
“The assignee shall not use the land or suffer it to be used except for the
purposes for which it is assigned.”
8. Clause 13 reads thus:
“The existing and customary rights of Government and the public in roads, Paths,
rivers, streams, channels through or bordering the land, and the right of
Government in mines and quarries subjecent to the said land reserved and are in no
way affected by the grant.”
9. Condition No. 1 of the patta reads thus:
“1. The assignee shall not use the land or suffer it to be used except for the
purpose for which it is assigned.”
10. Rule 20 of the Special Rules for Assignment of Government Land for Rubber
Cultivation, 1960, reads thus:
“20. (1) Non-compliance with or violation of any of the rules or condition of
licence shall entail the cancellation of the licence. The Government may resume the
land in such cases and no compensation shall be payable to such licensees.
(2) In the event of such resumption the Government may recover form the
original allottee the entire amount of the loans distributed to him with interest till
date, and the survey and demarcation charges including contour alignment charges
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and all other sums use from him in respect of the land resumed:
Provided, however, that if the land contains improvements made by the
original allottee and Government decided to take over the land with such
improvements, the Government may recover from the allottee the amount, if
any, by which the value of the improvements as assessed by the Director of
Agriculture falls short of the amounts due to the Government from the allottee:
Provided further that if the value of the improvements aforesaid is in excess
of the amounts due to the Government, the allottee shall have no claim for
such excess.
(3) Government shall also be at liberty to recover proportionate rental upto the
date of resumption at the rates applicable to similar lands.
(4) When the entire amount due to the Government from the allottee has been
recovered under sub-rule (1) aforesaid or the allottee has made alternate
arrangements for payment of such amounts to the satisfaction of the Director of
Agriculture the allottee may be permitted to dismantle and remove the buildings or
other structures, if any; constructed by him.”
Section 8 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act reads thus:
“8. Assignment to take effect with restrictions, conditions, etc. according to
their tenor.- All the provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained
in any Pattah or other document evidencing the assignment of Government land
or of any interest therein shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor,
notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any custom or contract to
the contrary.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression, “Government land” shall include
land under the control or management of the Government at the time of the
assignment.”
In view of the conditions of assignment and the above said provisions of law, I
have absolutely no doubt in my mind that respondents 3 and 4 could not have
undertaken any sort of activities in the property assigned to their predecessor-in-
interest other than cultivation of rubber. Respondents 3 and 4 have no case that the
property has been cultivated with rubber. On the other hand, their specific
contention is that the land is totally unsuitable for rubber cultivation. According to
me, if respondents 3 and 4 had a case that the land is not suitable for rubber
cultivation, they could not have on their own used the same for any other purpose,
especially quarrying, which has been specifically reserved for the Government, in
the said property. Therefore, even if respondents 3 and 4 could not have used the
land for rubber cultivation, they could certainly not have done quarrying, except
with prior permission of the Government and getting the conditions of grant
changed appropriately. The counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would contend that the
fact that the Village Officer had issued possession certificate pursuant to an
application submitted by respondents 3 and 4 for applying for quarrying permit and
the fact that the Geologist had issued a quarrying permit would go to show that it
was with the permission of the Government that respondents 3 and 4 had
undertaken the quarrying. I am unable to agree. Simply because a possession
certificate has been issued by the Village Officer for applying for quarrying permit
and a quarrying permit has been issued by the Geologist, the same do not absolve
respondents 3 and 4 from honouring the specific conditions of assignment
contained in Ext. P5(a). That would not also lead to an inference of permission from
the Government for quarrying also. The permission contemplated should have been
on an application for such permission submitted by respondents 3 and 4. The
permission cannot be inferred from the mere fact that respondents 3 and 4 had
obtained a quarrying permit on the basis of the possession certificate issued by the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Village Officer. Further when the assignment itself is with the condition that the
right of the Government in the quarries is reserved, by appropriating the granite
available in the property to themselves, actually respondents 3 and 4 have
misappropriated property belonging to the Government without permission.
Therefore, in view of Rule 20 of the Rules quoted above, the assignment itself is
liable to be cancelled. In view of the fact that respondents 3 and 4 have
misappropriated themselves the property belonging to the Government by
quarrying granite from the quarry which has been reserved to the Government,
respondents 3 and 4 are also liable to refund the entire value of the granite quarried
by them from the property in question to the State.
11. The writ petitions were thereafter disposed with the following directions to the
State Government;
“7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
(a) The 5th respondent shall take immediate steps to cancel the patta issued to
respondents 3 and 4 for violation of the conditions of assignment as well as
the rules under which the assignment has been granted. In view of the fact
that respondents 3 and 4 have appropriated the properties belonging to the
Government in the form of granite quarried from the property which was
reserved to the Government, the 5th respondent shall take immediate steps to
see that the value of the granite quarried by respondents 3 and 4 is recovered
from respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with law after complying with all
procedural formalities thereof.
(b) If, any similarly situated assignee has conducted quarrying in the properties
assigned to them for rubber cultivation, the 5th respondent shall take
appropriate proceedings against them also for cancelling of patta and recovery
of value of the granite quarried by them, after affording an opportunity of
being heard to them as in the case of respondents 3 and 4 as directed above.
(c) The above proceedings against respondents 3 and 4 and other assignees who
are guilty of violation of conditions of the grant shall be initiated and
completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and a report shall be
filed in this Court within two weeks therefrom. Post this case for that purpose
on 7.12.2009.
Before parting with the case, I note with distress that despite such illegality on a
large scale having been brought to the notice of respondents 2, 5 and 6 they have
not chosen to act on their own to protect the natural resources of the State which
belong to the people. In the counter affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 6, they
did not choose to take exception to the action of respondents 3 and 4 and instead of
taking appropriate action against them and other similar persons, they have taken a
stand favourable to respondents 3 and 4. The natural resources of the State belong
to the people and respondents 2, 5 and 6, who are duty bound to protect the same,
have taken a stand favourale to persons who have illegally appropriated the same
unto themselves, thus failing in their duties. I fervently hope that they would at
least act now with the urgency the situation demands and restore to the State what
is legitimately due to it, failing which the Government shall initiate appropriate
action in the matter against them also. The Secretary to the Government shall also
file a report in regard to the action taken in respect thereof. The Registry shall
forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to the Government for
appropriate action and report.
12. Although, an intra court appeal was preferred by the petitioners therein, the
Division Bench only allowed the appeal in part, and to the limited extent of setting
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aside the direction of the learned single judge that permitted a recovery, from the
appellants, of the value of the granite quarried by them. The Division Bench upheld
the other directions of the learned single judge. Dealing with the contention of the
appellants therein, with regard to the reservation by the Government of its rights in
respect of mines and quarries subjacent to the assigned lands, it was found that the
said clause would not come to the rescue of the appellants since it did not give a
licence to the appellants to carry on mining operations contrary to the purposes for
which the land had been assigned.
13. A Special Leave Petition [SLP], that was thereafter preferred before the
Supreme Court, also came to be dismissed by an order dated 22.01.2010. In the said
order, it was clarified that, if the lands in question, after resumption by the State
Government, were notified for the grant of quarrying leases, the petitioners therein
would not be barred from applying for the same.
14. It is, therefore, that in the first set of stop memos issued to the various writ
petitioners herein, the stand taken is that quarrying activities cannot be permitted in
lands that were assigned solely for rubber cultivation. It would appear, however, that,
in the said writ petitions, interim orders were passed, staying the operation of the stop
memos and, hence, the petitioners were carrying on their quarrying activities till the
second set of stop memos were issued to them in 2016. These latter stop memos were
issued, inter alia, on the ground that the quarrying activities were seen undertaken
without obtaining a prior environment clearance from the State Level Environment
Impact Assessment Authority. When these stop memos were separately impugned
before this court, this court felt that it would be in the fitness of things to decide all
the writ petitions together so that the issues covered by both the sets of stop memos
could be adjudicated together.
Submissions of Counsel:
15. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Bechu Kurien Thomas, as also
other counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions and the learned Additional
Advocate General Sri. Ranjith Thampan and learned counsel Sri. Suresh B.S for the
respondents.
16. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners can be summarised as
follows:
1. The lands in question, on which quarrying activities are being carried out, are all
lands that were assigned to the predecessors-in-interest to the petitioners
herein, under the Special Rules for assignment of Government lands for
cultivation of Rubber. The Patta that was granted, although contained a clause
that prohibited the use of the land for any purpose other than for what it was
assigned, also contained a clause that reserved a right in the Government to deal
with the minerals subjacent to the lands assigned. It was in exercise of the right
so reserved that the Government decided to grant quarrying leases in respect of
the lands in question and the said leases were executed by the State
Government in terms of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Thus, merely
because the lands had been assigned for rubber cultivation, it did not follow that
the State Government could not exercise its sovereign right to enter into
contracts for exploitation of the minerals subjacent to the lands in question.
2. As regards the issue of obtaining environmental clearance, the non-obtaining of
which was the basis for the stop memos issued to the petitioners in 2016, it is
stated that the quarrying leases in question were all issued prior to 2012 and
hence, going by the decision of a Division bench of this court in All Kerala River
Protection Council v. State of Kerala - [2015 (2) KLT 78], the issue of obtaining a
prior environment clearance for quarrying operations would arise only at the time
of approaching the Government for a renewal of the Quarrying lease.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Per Contra, the submissions on behalf of the respondents can be summarised
as follows:
1. It is stated that the lands forming part of Mookunnimala were notified as Reserve
Forests vide a Notification dated 08.08.1896, in terms of Section 18 of the
Trivandrum Forest Regulations of 1068 (M.E). The notification is produced as Ext.
R1(f) in a statement filed in W.P.(C). No. 40532/2016. The lands on which the
petitioners are carrying on quarrying operations are thus stated to be forest
lands, that were assigned for rubber cultivation in accordance with the Special
Rules for Assignment of Government Land for Rubber Cultivation. Relying on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
India - [(1997) 2 SCC 267], Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat - [1987
KHC 836] and Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala - [(2009) 5 SCC 373],
it is contended that, by virtue of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act,
the lands in question cannot be used for any non-forest use, and quarrying
activities would therefore have to be prohibited on the said lands.
2. Relying on a report of the Bio-Diversity Board, produced as Ext. R1(h) along with
the statement filed in W.P.(C). No. 40532/2016, it is pointed out that the lands
in Mookunnimala, where the quarrying operations are being carried on, lie close
to Naval and Air Force stations and hence such activities could not have been
carried on in the said area without first obtaining the consent of the said
authorities.
3. Rebutting the contention of the petitioners with regard to quarrying being
permitted in terms of the patta, it is pointed out that the issue was considered
by this court in the judgment dated 13.08.2009 in W.P.(C). No. 9605/2008. The
decision of the single judge was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court and
attained finality through the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court. It is
contended, therefore, that the petitioners could not be heard to say that they
could carry on quarrying activities on the land, in contravention of the express
terms of the grant.
4. Alternatively, it is contended that, since the quarrying lease was sought by the
petitioners in respect of a natural resource of the State, the doctrine of public
trust ought to have prompted the petitioners to disclose the restrictive covenants
that adhered to the land, consequent to the express terms of the Patta assigned
in respect of the lands, to the authorities at the time of applying for a quarrying
lease. The petitioners allegedly obtained their quarrying leases, fraudulently,
through such non-disclosure.
18. Responding to the contention with regard to Forest Lands, it is submitted by
the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that;
1. The issue as to whether or not the lands on which quarrying activities were being
carried on were forest lands is one that is urged only at the time of hearing of the
writ petitions.
2. Referring to the notification dated 8.8.1896 issued under the Trivandrum Forest
Regulations, it is contended that while it may be a fact that the lands were once
notified as forming part of a reserved forest, by efflux of time and subsequent
actions of the State Government, the lands had ceased to be forest lands.
3. Reliance is placed on the documents produced on behalf of the petitioners,
through I.A.'s filed during the course of hearing, to contend that the State
Government had permitted the use of the land for non-forest purposes, and it
was for non-forest purposes that the lands were assigned in the 1960's. It is
contended that the change in the user of the land, as also the ownership thereof,
ensured that the lands could not be seen as Forest Lands consequent to their
assignment and transfer of registry.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Issues:
19. On a consideration of the pleadings in these writ petitions, as well as the
arguments advanced before me by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find
that the following issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions:
(i) Whether the lands owned by the various quarrying leaseholders, and covered by
the quarrying leases, are to be treated as Forest Lands for the purposes of
applying the restrictions envisaged under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980?
(ii) If the lands in question are not Forest Lands, then whether, on account of the
conditions imposed in the original order of assignment of the lands, issued to the
predecessors in interest of the quarrying leaseholders, the quarrying activities
carried on by the said leaseholders can be seen as in violation of the terms of
assignment of the land concerned, and therefore illegal?
(iii) Whether the quarrying leases obtained by the leaseholders are liable to be
cancelled on the ground that they were obtained without a proper disclosure of
the nature of the lands in respect of which the leases were applied for and
obtained, and the restrictive covenants that applied to the said land?
(iv) Whether the quarrying leaseholders are required to obtain an environmental
clearance certificate for continuing with their quarrying activities?
Findings:
Re: Issue 1
20. The contention advanced on behalf of the official respondents of the State
Government, as well as the petitioners in W.P.(C). Nos. 14639/2012, 17088/2011,
20532/2010, 32619/2015 and 40532/2016, that the lands on which quarrying
activities are being carried on, are essentially lands that have been notified as
reserved forests, is premised on the Notification dated 08.08.1896 that declares the
areas in question to be reserved forests. The notification in question is one that is
issued in terms of Section 18 of the Trivandrum Forest Regulation of 1068.
Subsequent legislative measures have seen the enactment of the Kerala Forests Act, a
State Legislation, and the Forests Conservation Act, 1980, a Central Legislation, both
relatable to Entry 17A in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
A working plan prepared by the Forest Department of the State in 1968 reveals that
more than 2 Square Kilometers of land, that was notified as reserved forest, was clear
felled at the instance of the State Government and earmarked for allotment to landless
persons for rubber cultivation. Thereafter, the said lands were assigned in terms of the
Assignment Rules that were framed under the 1960 Act. The assignments, having
been effected to the predecessors in interest of the present land owners, also had the
effect of transferring the title over the said lands to the said persons. The question
then arises, as to whether, after a transfer of registry in respect of the land, whereby
the State Government relinquished its title over the land in favour of the assignee, the
notification declaring the lands as reserved forests would continue to apply in respect
of the said lands, so as to impose restrictions with regard to the manner of use of the
lands. In my view, the transfer of registry in respect of the land effectively divested
the title over the land from the State Government and vested it in the assignee. The
land in question, upon assignment and thereafter, ceased to be Forest land for the
purposes of the Kerala Forest Act and Rules, as also for the purposes of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. Consequently, the notification that once included the said
lands in the category of reserved forests, ceased to have any application to the said
lands after their assignment to the predecessors in interest of the present land
owners.
21. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980
was brought into force with effect from 25.10.1980. The scheme of the said Act was
explained by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat - [1987
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KHC 836] as follows:

“6. ………………… This was an Act passed by the Parliament to provide for the
conservation of forest and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. The
Statement of Objects of the said Act is relevant. It is stated 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 and Kashmir, and came into force on 25th October, 1980. S.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 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.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section “non forest purpose” means
breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other
than reafforestation.”
7. The said section makes it obligatory for the State Government to obtain the
permission of the Central Government for (1) dereservation of reserved forest and
(2) for use of forest land for non forest purposes. It is apparent, therefore, that the
two dual situations were intended to be prevented by the legislation in question,
namely dereservation of reserved forest, and use of forest land for non forest
purposes.”
22. In TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India - [(1997) 2 SCC 267], the
Supreme Court while examining the issue as to what constitutes a “forest” for the
purposes of the 1980 Act observed that the term “Forest” includes all lands
understood as Forests in the dictionary sense as also any area recorded as Forest in
the Government records, irrespective of ownership.
23. Given the stated objective of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, of checking the
further deforestation of Forests in the country, and the embargo placed on State
Governments, through Section 2 of the Act, against any de-reservation of forests,
assignment of such lands, utilization of forest lands for non-forest purposes, and
clearing of such forests, without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government, it
is clear that the provisions of the Act apply to lands that were “Forests” as on
25.10.1980. The provisions of the Act would also apply to Government lands that were
leased out for non-forest purposes, prior to 25.10.1980, but came up for renewal of
the lease after 25.10.1980. In the latter mentioned cases, the possibility of reclaiming
areas where deforestation had taken place was seen as sufficient to achieve the
objective of checking further de-forestation, and bringing the said lands also within
the ambit of the 1980 Act [See: Ambica Quarry Works case (Supra)].
24. In the instant cases, however, the assignment of lands, that were earlier forest
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lands, took place in the 1960's and the assignment was for the purposes of rubber
cultivation, admittedly a non-forest activity. The affidavit filed by the Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, on 09.02.2017, in W.P.(C). No. 40532 of 2016,
states as follows @ paragraphs 8, 9 and 10:
“8. Forest land in Mookkunnimala was permanently diverted for rubber
cultivation during 1960-61, well before the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came
into existence. Rubber Plantation Scheme was intended to be taken up in 1,00,000
acres of land of which 50,000 acres was to be obtained by dis-reserving the
Government reserve forest and the remaining 50,000 acres were to be handed over
after the State acquired the private forest land of Malabar.
9. The Government file on the subject (Page 37 of File No. 52495 of Director,
State Archives) has several references to the effect that the initial proposal of
1,00,000 acre was reduced to 50,000 acres, to 20,000 acres and finally only 14,742
acres could be earmarked due to unsuitability of the identified land as well as due
to the delay on the part of Chief Conservator of Forests to clear fell the forest land
and make it available, which was the only role expected of him.
10. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the majority of the area of
Mookkunnimala reserve was handed over to Revenue Department for assignment
under the rubber cultivation scheme, the Forest Department has initiated
proceedings for dis-reserving the Mookkunnimala reserve. This procedure
commenced after transfer of land from the Forest Department to Revenue
Department. From the files, it is clear that during 1975, the proposal for dis-
reserving several such forests was proceeding. As regards Mookkunnimala reserve
as well as certain other reserve forests which were given assignment to the
Revenue Department. However, the department was not able to trace out a
notification under Section 26 of the Kerala Forest Act formally dis-reserving this
forest. It is submitted that after the commencement of Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 such a notification can be issued only after sanction from the Central
Government.
25. The said averments in the affidavit of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests, find corroboration in the working plans, prepared by the Forest Department
of the State Government, for the Trivandrum Forest Division, for the years 1964-65 to
1973-74 and for the years from 1990-91 to 1999-2000. While the former plan shows
an area of 2 Square Kilometers and 12.25 Hectares as the area covered by
Mookunnimala, an area of 34.26 Acres is seen kept as sandalwood area and the
remaining area as clear-felled for rubber plantation. Similarly, the latter plan also
refers to an extent of 212.250 Hectares as forming part of “Mookunni
Reserve” (erroneously mentioned as “Kokunni Reserve), as having been diverted for
non-forestry purposes prior to 1962. Thus, it is evident that the lands within the
extent shown in the working plans ceased to be Forest Lands, in the true sense of the
term. That apart, the documents produced by the petitioner in W.P. 610 of 2017, as
Exts. P13 to P15 indicate that there were land acquisition proceedings initiated in
relation to properties forming part of erstwhile Mookunnimala forest land, for the
purposes of setting up an Air Force base and a Military Firing Range. Ext. P18
produced in the same writ petition is a copy of the base note prepared by the Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition) that refers to an order issued by the State Government in
1962 to assign lands in Mookunnimala to various persons. In the land acquisition
proceedings that followed, compensation is also seen paid to various claimants in
connection with the said proceedings. The said documents clearly indicate that the
lands, in respect of which the petitioners trace the title to the assignments effected in
the 1960's, and on which the quarrying activities are now being carried on, are lands
that do not belong to the State Government any more and further, are not Forest lands
for the purposes of the 1980 Act.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. It is also significant to note, in this regard, that the Supreme Court had, in its
judgment dated 12.12.1996 in W.P.(Civil) 202/95, directed the State Governments to
constitute, within a period of one month, a committee to identify “Forests, areas which
were earlier forests but subsequently degraded, denuded or cleared and areas covered
by plantation trees”. The committees were directed to give their report within a month
of being constituted. Acting on the directions of the Court, the State Government
through a notification G.O.(Rt) 15/97/F&WLD dated 10.01.1997, constituted an expert
committee with Sri. V. Gopinathan, Conservator of Forests, Working Plan and Research
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram as the Chairman-cum-Convenor. In the report submitted
by the said committee before the Supreme Court, the Mookunnimala area does not
find a mention.
27. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the lands, in respect of
which the quarrying leases covered by these writ petitions have been granted, cannot
be seen as Forest Lands for the purposes of invoking the provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. This issue is answered accordingly, in favour of the said
petitioners.
Re: Issues (ii) & (iii):
28. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P(C). Nos. 14639/2012, 17088/2011,
20532/2010, 32619/2015 and 40532/2016, that the lands, on which quarrying
activities are being carried on, are lands that were originally assigned in terms of the
Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, read with the Special Rules for Assignment
of Government Lands for Rubber Cultivation, 1960. It is contended, placing reliance on
the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 9605/2008, which was affirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court, as well as by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the
SLP preferred against the Division Bench judgment, that the quarrying activities on
the assigned lands virtually amount to a breach of the terms of assignment, which is
not permissible. To appreciate the said contention it would be necessary to notice the
relevant clauses in the order of assignment issued in respect of the assigned lands.
They read as under:
“1. On assignment the assignee shall be liable to pay:—
(i) Value of the land at 16% of the rate per acre fixed by Government subject to
a minimum of Rs. 40 per acre.
(ii) 25 per cent of the land value arrived at 16 percent as mentioned in condition
(i) above as a premium in consideration of the loss of Forest Revenue to
Government;
(iii) Survey and demarcation charges of the assigned land as fixed by
Government.
2. All amounts due to Government under rule 1 above shall also be a charge on the
land.
3. The assignee or his successor in interest shall ordinarily reside in the land
assigned.
4. The land assigned will be about 1.41 hectares, in area of which 1.21 hectares
shall be put under Rubber cultivation and the remaining area shall be used for
the construction of a dwelling house and for a domestic garden, if so desired by
the assignee.
5. The registry shall be liable to be cancelled for contravention of conditions 1 to 3
above or the conditions specified in the parra.
6. …………..
7. …………..
8. …………..
9. …………..
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. The assignee shall not use the land or suffer it to be used except for the
purposes for which it is assigned.
11. …………
12. …………
13. The existing and customary rights of Government and the public in roads,
Paths, rivers, streams, channels etc. through or bordering the land, and the right
of Government in mines and quarries subjecent to the said land are reserved and
are in no way affected by the grant.”
29. The assignment of the lands, in the instant cases, was pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 8 of the 1960 Rules, which reads as under;
“8. On the expiry of the period of licence, the Government may assign such lands
to the licensee by public auction or on registry subject to such conditions and
restrictions as they may deem fit to impose. The procedure laid down in Sections 4
and 5 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act shall be followed in making such
assignments.”
30. Sections 4 and 5 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, read as
follows:
4. Procedure to be followed before Government lands are assigned:- (1) When
any Government land is proposed to be assigned by the prescribed authority,
otherwise than by way of lease or licence, the Tahsildar of the taluk in which the
land is situate or any officer empowered by the Government in this behalf shall
notify in the prescribed manner that such land will, by public auction or otherwise,
be assigned, and call upon those who have got any claim to such land to prefer to
him their objections, if any, in writing, within a time which shall be specified in
such notification.
(2) If any objection is preferred within the time specified in the notification, the
Tahsildar or such other office shall enquire into the same and pass an order in
writing either accepting or rejecting the claim in full or in part and intimate in
writing the fact of such disposal to the claimant.
(3) For the purposes of the enquiry under sub-section (2) the officer making the
enquiry shall have all the powers conferred upon the Collectors and Tahsildars by
the law for the time being in force regarding summoning of persons for disposal of
matters connected with revenue administration.
5. Order of assignment:- (a) when the time fixed in the notification under sub-
section (1) of Section 4 has elapsed and no objection has been preferred; or
(b) when any objection preferred is rejected and-
(i) the time for preferring an appeal from the order has elapsed and no appeal
has been preferred;
or
(ii) when an appeal has been preferred and the appeal is, rejected by the
appellate authority the land may, subject to such rules as may be made by
the Government in this behalf, be assigned by the prescribed authority.”
31. It is not in dispute in these cases that the land was validly assigned to the
predecessors in interest of the present landowners. The only issue to be considered is
whether the use of the land for quarrying activities could be seen as a violation of the
conditions of the assignment, leading to a cancellation of the assignment itself. It can
be seen from a perusal of the relevant clauses of the order of assignment extracted
above that clause 5 contemplates a cancellation of the Registry only for contravention
of conditions 1 to 3 in the order of assignment or the conditions specified in the Patta.
Condition 1 of the Patta reads as follows:
“1. The assignee shall not use the land or suffer it to be used except for the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

purposes for which it is assigned”

32. If one views the assignment as solely for the purposes of rubber cultivation,
perhaps it could be contended that the use of the assigned land for any other purpose,
including quarrying activities, would entail a cancellation of the Registry. One cannot,
however, ignore clause 13 of the order of assignment that expressly reserves to the
Government its existing and customary rights, including its rights in mines and
quarries subjacent to the land. In my view, this express reservation, by the
Government, of its rights in mines and quarries, enables the Government to grant
leases and permits for exploitation of minerals subjacent to the land, the ownership of
which vests with the Government. Through the grant of quarrying leases, therefore,
the Government must be seen as exercising its sovereign rights over the minerals
subjacent to the assigned land, a right that it had reserved to itself while assigning
the land in question. It is also relevant to note that the quarrying leases in the instant
cases were all signed for and on behalf of the Governor of the State and are, therefore,
Government Contracts that satisfy the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution
of India. In the decision of this court in W.P.(C). No. 9605/2008, the learned single
judge did not have to consider the effect, of the grant of a quarrying lease, on the
assignment of land. The said case involved the grant of a quarrying permit by the
Geologist, based on a possession certificate issued by the Village Officer, and the court
found that the mere obtaining of a quarrying permit did not imply that a permission
had been obtained from the Government to undertake quarrying activities by ignoring
the specific conditions of assignment. In my view the facts in the instant cases are
clearly distinguishable and further, in view of the Government having exercised its
executive power while granting the quarrying leases, the quarrying activities cannot be
seen as violative of the conditions governing the assignment of the lands in question.
For the same reasons, I also do not find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of
the State Government that the quarrying leases obtained by the leaseholders are liable
to be cancelled on the ground that they were obtained without a proper disclosure of
the nature of the lands in respect of which the leases were applied for and obtained,
and the restrictive covenants that applied to the said land. The Government having
exercised its executive power while granting quarrying leases, pursuant to an express
reservation of the power at the time of assignment of the lands, cannot be heard to
say that it was not aware of the basic purpose for which the lands were assigned.
Thus, I answer issues (ii) and (iii) in the negative and in favour of the quarrying
leaseholders.
Re: Issue (iv):
33. The issue of whether the holder of a quarrying lease issued prior to 18.05.2012,
and covering an extent of less than 5 Hectares, is required to obtain an environmental
clearance certificate for continuing with his quarrying activities, has already been
decided by a Division Bench of this court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State
of Kerala - [2015 (2) KLT 78], where it was held that such quarrying lease holders
need obtain the environmental clearance certificate only when the lease comes up for
renewal. Accordingly, following the said decision of this court, issue (iv) is answered in
the negative and in favour of the quarrying leaseholders.
In the result:
(1) W.P.(C). Nos. 10238/2012, 12116/2012, 10212/2012, 12277/2012,
12101/2012, 15915/2012, 22237/2012, 610/2017, 613/2017, 644/2017 are
allowed by quashing the stop memos impugned therein, and answering the
issues framed in favour of the petitioners therein. Further, taking note of the fact
that the petitioners were forced to stop their quarrying activities pursuant to the
stop memos issued to them, I make it clear that the period for which the
petitioners had to stop their quarrying activities during the pendency of these
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

writ petitions shall be added to the validity period of their existing quarrying
leases, and the validity period of the quarrying lease extended accordingly by the
State Government.
(2) W.P.(C). Nos. 20532/2010, 17088/2011, 14639/2012, 32619/2015 and
40532/2016 are dismissed.
(3) The Court places on record its appreciation for the efforts taken by the learned
senior counsel Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, the Additional Advocate General Sri.
Ranjith Thampan and the Amicus Curiae Sri. Hareesh Vasudevan, all of whom
made available abundant literature on the subject matter of these writ petitions.
While a perusal of the said material greatly aided this Court in arriving at its
findings, a reference to all the material referred to has been avoided in this
judgment in the interests of brevity.
Post Script:
34. Before parting with these cases, and taking note of the findings of the study
done at the instance of the Kerala Forest Research Institute, the salient points of
which have been adverted to in the introductory paragraph of this judgment, this court
is of the opinion that the time has probably come for the State Government to
reconsider its policy with regard to grant of mining/quarrying leases and permits. The
State Government has to remind itself of its role as a guardian of the natural resources
within the State and introduce measures to check the indiscriminate grant of
mining/quarrying leases and permits. While the present system of grant of
mining/quarrying leases relies, to a large extent, on the mining plan and other
documents submitted by the project proponent, with the State Government's role
being limited to approving the said plan and granting mining leases/permits, the
increasing instances of environmental degradation, and pollution related issues, that
are voiced by the citizens of the State ought, in my opinion, to spur the State
Government into adopting a pro-active role while granting mining leases and permits.
It must keep in mind the doctrine of Public Trust, which was developed as a legal
theory by the ancient Roman Empire, and was founded on the idea that certain
common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by the
Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public.
These resources were deemed to be of such great importance to the people as a whole
that it was seen as wholly unjustified to make them the subject of private ownership.
The said resources being a gift of nature, it was felt that they should be made freely
available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine therefore enjoins
upon the Government to protect the resources for enjoyment of the general public
rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. In
Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois - 146 US 387: 36 L.Ed
1018 (1892) the US Supreme Court articulated the principle that, when a State holds
a resource which is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look
with considerable skepticism upon any governmental conduct that is calculated either
to relocate that resource to more restricted uses or subject public uses to the self-
interest of private parties. Taking cue from the said decision, the doctrine of public
trust was declared, by our Supreme Court, to be part of the law of the land, in M.C.
Mehta v. Kamal Nath - [(1997) 1 SCC 388]. It was held that;
“The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for
public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore,
running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is
under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for
public use cannot be converted into private ownership.”
35. The public trust doctrine has been used, over the years, to forge a number of
allied principles through which courts have, to a significant extent, checked
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Thursday, November 23, 2023
Printed For: Akshay Ravindra Kolle
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

environmental degradation, as also large-scale depletion of precious natural resources,

while at the same time ensuring that developmental activities are not completely
curtailed or prohibited. Some of these principles are;
(i) The principle of sustainable development, which advocates the striking of a
balance between the need for protection of environment and the competing need
to engage in developmental activities;
(ii) The precautionary principle, that requires the State to take environmental
measures to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment
degradation, and further clarifies that lack of scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
The principle also lays the onus of proof on the actor to establish that its actions
are environmentally benign;
(iii) The polluter pays principle, that penalizes a person who has caused pollution
and;
(iv) The principle of inter-generational equity, that holds that the present
generation has no right to deplete all the existing resources and leave nothing to
the next and future generations.
36. The aforesaid principles are not, in my opinion, to be treated as entries in a one
-time checklist maintained by the State Government, prior to the grant of permission
to exploit mineral resources, or undertake any activity that has serious environmental
implications, but are to be applied periodically, during the implementation stages of
the permitted activity as well, so that any act, that has the potential to cause damage
to the environment or destruction/depletion of the natural resource, is arrested at the
earliest stage after its detection. Only through such constant supervision, of permitted
activities in relation to natural resources, will the State be able to discharge its duty as
a trustee of the natural resources for the benefit its people. Ideally, therefore, the
State Government should examine, on a case-to-case basis, whether there is a need to
grant a quarrying lease/permit in the area or to renew such leases/permits, taking into
account the availability of natural resources, the report of the Bio-Diversity Boards, the
impact that such activity would have on the ecological balance of the region and other
environmental factors. The data required for such a scrutiny should also be collected
and analysed by the Government itself, rather than depending on a report submitted
by the project proponent, which could well be a self serving one.
37. I conclude by observing that, while this court is aware of its constitutional
limitations and does not propose to advise the State Government on policy issues, it
does hope that the State Government will take serious note of the dangers that can
result from an indiscriminate grant of mining leases and permits, and adopt pro-active
measures to avoid such eventualities in future.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.