1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) Government of Maharashtra in Gaukhani 51/1020/PK 244/Kh-2.

3. The facts as can be seen from the petition are as under:

The petitioner is a proprietary concern, which is a firm engaged in the business of mining, potteries, etc. for the purpose of mining of laterite. The petitioner firm was granted a piece of land on lease admeasuring 33.03 H.R. of Khasra No. 111 and 115 of village Markagondi, Taluka Jiwati, District Chandrapur, by the State of Maharashtra vide order dated 21.03.2003 issued under Section 8(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. In compliance with the said order of the State Government, the Collector, Chandrapur, executed a lease deed in favor of the petitioner on 12.06.2003 for a period of thirty years. It is stated in the petition that earlier one Abdul Kadar was the proprietor of the petitioner, and after his demise on 19.12.2019, he was replaced by his son Mohammad Aamir. The petition further states that before execution of the mining lease, Forest Round Officer of Wanasadi Forest Area, through its report dated 21.01.2002, had submitted that the land in question does not come within the forest area.

4. In the backdrop of these facts, in the year 2009, the Forest Department asked the petitioner to produce all documents regarding the land in question. Accordingly, all such documents were produced before the Forest Department. But however, since the Forest Department was not permitting the petitioner to continue with the excavation, the petitioner filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 179/2009 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. In the said matter, the State Government filed a written statement that the land in question was allotted after following all the procedures. The Forest Department also filed a written statement and admitted the report of its Range Forest Officer of 21.02.2002, but stated that the said officer was not authorized to submit such a report. The parties went on trial, and the Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit vide its judgment dated 06.02.2012.

5. Meanwhile, since the office of respondent No. 3 refused to issue transit passes, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P. No. 5846/2017. The said petition was allowed by this Court vide its judgment dated 14.02.2018.

6. In the backdrop of these facts, the petitioner received a notice dated 09.02.2021 by way of an email asking him to remain present before the respondent No. 1 for a hearing about cancellation of the mining lease. In pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 1 and submitted an application for dropping the proceedings and for supply of relevant documents relied upon by the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, on 25.11.2021, the respondent No. 3 published a notice inviting applications for grant of mining lease, including the village of Markagondi, which was granted to the petitioner.

7. Thereafter, in the last week of November, when the petitioner inquired about the hearing before the Minister, he was informed that the order is passed against him and mining lease is cancelled. The petitioner immediately rushed to obtain a copy of the order. Said order, which is purportedly passed under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, is impugned in the present petition.

8. I have heard Shri Firdos Mirza, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, and Ms M.A. Barabde, learned AGP appearing for the respondent/State.

9. Learned Senior Counsel points out to me that the entire exercise of passing the order by the Minister is without any jurisdiction vested in him, since he failed to appreciate that the order of granting mining lease was passed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short ‘MLR Code’), do not have any application to the matter in hand. He further points out to me that powers under Section 257 of the MLR Code can only be invoked if an order was of any subordinate revenue or survey officer. It is his submission that admittedly this was not the present case, and therefore, the jurisdiction ought not to have exercised. He further submits that the Minister, i.e. the respondent No. 1, has cancelled the lease executed by the State in the name of His Excellency the Governor of Maharashtra, who undisputedly is not subordinate to the Minister who has passed the impugned order. He also submits that there has been an unexplainable delay, since the order impugned in the petition cancels the lease executed on 21.03.2003. He submits that before passing such order, no show cause notice or proper opportunity of hearing was granted, thereby infringing the principles of natural justice.

10. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondent/State, supports the impugned order. She submits that the land in question is a reserved forest, and therefore, the mining permission ought not to have been granted. She places reliance on Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act to submit that notification dated 25.09.1953, issued by the State of Hyderabad was specifically saved, and legal status of the said land of Manikgarh Reserved Forest continued to be a reserved forest. As far as the judgment of the Civil Court is concerned, she states that an appeal is already filed before the Competent Court along with an application for condonation of delay. It is, therefore, her submission that the judgment of the Civil Court has not attained finality, and the challenge to it is pending before the appropriate Court of law. As far as the impugned order is concerned, she supports the same and states that admittedly the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing and a notice was issued to him.

11. Rival contentions fall for my consideration.

12. The impugned order, which is at page No. 111 of the petition, basically proceeds on a premise that the land in question is in the forest area. It therefore records a finding that the provisions of the Forest Act would be applicable. However, it conveniently ignores that judgment of the Civil Court which was in operation where a categorical finding is recorded in favor of the present petitioner. Furthermore, a perusal of the order would reveal that it refers to an order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2258/2018, wherein it was specifically directed to make an inquiry regarding the mining operations being carried out. However, what skipped the attention of respondent No. 1 is that the Division Bench of this Court had directed to make an inquiry into the aspect of mining lease on forest lands etc., which were carried out without authority of law. The respondent No. 1 has not taken into consideration that a mining lease was executed after following due procedure of law in that regard, and therefore, it cannot be said that the mining operations being carried out by the petitioner were without any authority of law.

13. Furthermore, as can be seen in the present matter that the Ministry of Industries and the Ministry of Forests are not on the same page, since the Ministry of Industries, through the office of Collector, has issued an auction notice specifically putting on auction the land of Markagondi, where the petitioner has been granted mining lease. Learned Senior Counsel has rightly relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard reported in (2016) 1 SCC 560 Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. He points out to me paragraph No. 14 of the said judgment to submit that the State Government cannot speak in two voices. What is given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand. The Government should speak only in one voice and has only one policy. The departments are to implement the Government policy and not their own policy.

14. In the present case, unfortunately, on one hand, when the Ministry of Industries is putting up an auction notice, the Forest Department says that the said land is a reserved forest, and therefore, no mining operations can be carried out thereupon. This seems to be a very unfortunate state of events and cannot be countenanced.

15. Furthermore, as can be seen from the impugned order that an order sheet (Roznama) is seen at page No. 109 of the petition, wherein the respondent No. 1, i.e. the Minister, records that written submissions are received from the respondent, i.e. the present petitioner, and a time of seven days is granted to the Forest Department and the matter is closed for order. It is, therefore, clear that no adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner of putting forth his submissions. This is more so in view of the fact that the petitioner had only asked for dropping the proceedings, and if the said proceedings are not dropped, documents on which reliance is placed are to be supplied. Therefore, no effective opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, and the matter was closed for orders in an unexplainable hurry.

16. Looking at the entire facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order is unsustainable in law. The same is liable to be quashed and set aside. In that view of the matter, following order is passed:

                   ORDER

                   i) The petition is allowed.

                   ii) The impugned order dated 29.09.2021, passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) Government of Maharashtra in Gaukhani 51/1020/PK 244/Kh-2, is quashed and set aside.

17. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.