- (1.) BY the Court.: - Heard Sri H.R. Misra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri N.L. Srivastava for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.1.2007, passed by Divisional Forest Officer, by which order the Divisional Forest Officer has refused to issue no objection certificate for grant of mining lease witrr regard to plot No. 454 which was applied by the petitioner as well as the order dated 24.4.2007, passed by the State Government, by which order the State Government has held that plot No. 454 is in the nature of Forest (Van Swaroop). Brief facts necessary for deciding the present writ petition are: that the petitioner made an application for grant of mining lease under Chapter II of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 of plot No. 454 situated at Village. Visaundha, Tahsil Mau, District Chitrakoot. The availability notice for grant of mining lease under Rule 72 was issued on 7.2.2006. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his application for grant of mining lease in respect of plot No. 454, area 3 acres Village Bisaundha, Tahsil Mau, District Chitrakoot on 10.3.2006. After receiving the applications, reports were called from Forest Officials and ultimately the Divisional Forest Officer vide his order dated 18.1.2007 refused to issue no objection certificate for grant of mining lease to the petitioner, taking the view that the plot in question is undisputedly Vanswaroop (in the nature of forest) on the basis of an inspection made by team of the Forest Department. It appears that thereafter a joint inspection was made by the Officers of Forest Department, Revenue Department and Mines Department on 6.4.2007 and the inspection report was sent to the State Government. The State Government after noticing the joint inspection report dated 6.4.2007 issued a letter dated 24.4.2007 to the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot opining that from inspection report, it is clear that the land in question is "Vanswaroop". The said letter was written with regard to filing of the counter affidavit in the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in this petition supporting the orders impugned.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders impugned raised following submissions: (i) The inspection made by the team of Forest Department on the basis of which the order dated 18.1.2007 was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer as well as joint inspection dated 6.4.2007 were made without associating the petitioner hence, the principles of natural justice were violated and the said materials cannot be relied for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. (ii) Even from the joint inspection report dated 6.4.2007, copy of which has been filed alongwith counter affidavit as Annexure C.A. 2, it is clear that most of the trees found in the plot in question are root stocks and shrubs hence, they are not to be taken into consideration while determining the nature of forest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the letter of the Chief Conservator of Forest dated 20.12.2007, copy of which has been filed asAnnexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit, in which a recommendation has been made that while computing the number of trees, shrubs and root stocks should not be included. ;