MADAN, J. - (1.) IN all aforesaid seven revision petitions the controversy involved is one and the same, hence it has been thought proper to deal with and decide these petitions by way of this common order after they are heard for being finally disposed of.
(2.) ALL these revision petitions have been preferred against order dated 22. 1. 2000 (impugned) passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Jaipur District Jaipur on the respective application filed by the plaintiffs (who are respondent No. 1 in these revision petitions) (for short `plaintiffs') in their respective civil suit. The suit for permanent injunction & declaration alongwith application for temporary injunction was filed on the averments inter alia that mining lease had been created by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur (proforma respondent herein) in respect of the land within jurisdiction and ambit of forest area and as per covenants of the said lease, plaintiffs were permitted to carry on mining activity for a period of two years subject to the terms and conditions besides payment of dead rent as stipulated in the lease for carrying out excavation of minerals over the area in question. It has been prayed in the plaint that the defendants be restrained by issuing permanent injunction from interfering in the broken up area and from creating obstacles in operation of mines, and further that operation of orders dated 4. 1. 2000 and 10. 1. 2000 be also stayed. A declaration was also sought. To the above effect temporary injunction was also sought in the application. It is the case of the petitioners that after service of the notices upon the defendants, the learned trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction on 22. 1. 2000 but thereafter another application was moved by the plaintiffs at the back of the defendants, whereupon defendant petitioners were not issued any notice of that application but the learned trial Court passed an order on 22. 1. 2000 directing the defendants petitioners to allow the plaintiffs to remove machinery used in mining activity and minerals already excavated but lying on the mining land in dispute within seven days. However, it was directed that the plaintiffs shall not carry on any further mining activity over the land in question. Hence these revision petitions have been filed by the State Government against the aforesaid order dated 22. 1. 2000 passed in each of the respective applications of the plaintiffs. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the State petitioners assailed the sustainability of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court on the grounds inter alia that as per the decision of the Apex Court in T. N. Godavarman vs. Union of India (1) having regard to the significance of the points involved in respect of the matters relating to the protection and conservation of the forests throughout the country, it was considered necessary that the Central Government as well as the Governments of all the States should be given certain specific direction. Accordingly the Apex Court issued notice and decided matter finally by its judgment dated 12. 12. 1996 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 202 of 1995 with 171 of 1996 at interim stage. Having regard to the meaning of the word, `forest' in the Forest Conversation Act, 1980, which was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance, the Apex Court observed that the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof, and the word `forest' must be understood according to its dictionary meaning which covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2 (i) of the Act, 1980. From the perusal of term, `forest land' in Section 2, it has been defined to include not only `forest' as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. The Apex Court then observed as under: " We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay. " " 5. We further direct as under:- I. General 1. In view of the meaning of the word `forest' in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any `forest'. In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. " Apart from the above, it was further directed that the felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the Working Plans of the State Governments as approved by the Central Government. In the absence of any Working Plan in any particular State, such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system exists, the felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest Department of the State Government or the State Forest Corporation. It has also been directed by the Apex Court that there shall be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to any other State of the country either by rail, road or water-ways. The Indian Railways and the State Governments were also directed to take all measures necessary to ensure strict compliance of this direction. This ban was directed not to be applied to the movement of certified timber required for defence or other Government purposes and affected to felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest.
(3.) THE Apex Court also directed as under:- " 5. Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to: (i) identify areas which are "forests" irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest; (ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and (iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. 6. Each State Government should within two months, file a report regarding: (i) the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills actually operating within the State, with particulars of their real ownership; (ii) the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing; (iii) their proximity to the nearest forest; (iv) their source of timber. 7. Each State Government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess: (i) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State quo saw mills and timber based industry; (ii) the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State; (iii) the optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, at which the saw mill should be located. " Each State Government was directed to constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee compliance of this order and file status report. In T. N. Godavarman vs. Union of India (supra) when writ petitions came up for hearing before the Apex Court on 4. 3. 1997 (reported in AIR 1997 SC 1233 = 1997 (3) SCC 312), the directions already given by the Apex Court on 12. 12. 1996 (supra) were confirmed on the ground that no substantial variation is required to be made. However, a High Power Committee was directed to be constituted by respective State Governments to oversee strict and faithful implementation of the orders of the Court. All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh were directed to be closed forthwith. The timbers held by the private parties in their stock purchased from the J & K State Forest Corporation were permitted to be moved and the stocks of kail, chir and fir in the depots of the Forests Corporation were permitted to be disposed of by the Forest Corporation. The Apex Court in mining matters directed in para 9 (p. 315) as under: (1) where the lessee has not forwarded the particulars for seeking permission under the FCA, he may do so immediately; (2) the State Government shall forward all complete pending applications within a period of 2 weeks from today to the Central Government for requisite decisions; (3) applications received (or completed) hereafter would be forwarded within two weeks of their being so made. (4) the Central Government shall dispose of all such applications within six weeks of their being received. Where the grant of final clearance is delayed, the Central Government may consider the grant of working permissions as per existing practice. ;