Forest conservation laws prevail over mining leases granted on land utilized for afforestation purposes.

The Petitioner held two quarrying leases (QL 549 and QL 554) for building stone on land in Survey No. 23, Athiguppe Village, granted in 2012 and 2015 based on No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the Revenue and Forest Departments

In 2022, revenue records were mutated to reclassify the land as "Compensatory Afforestation Forest Area"

Subsequently, the Forest Department withdrew its NOCs, asserting that the land was part of the Kallabetta State Forest (as per a 1900 notification) and had been transferred for compensatory afforestation in 1978/1984

The Senior Geologist issued stoppage orders in March 2024, which were initially set aside by the High Court for breach of natural justice and remanded

Following a fresh hearing and an Enquiry Committee report which concluded the land belonged to the Forest Department, the Senior Geologist passed the impugned orders dated 30.11.2024 and 05.12.2024, directing the permanent stoppage of quarrying operations

Rule 8(5)(iii) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (KMMC) Rules, 1994, which mandates an NOC from the Forest Department as a prerequisite for a quarrying lease

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which prohibits the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without Central Government approval

The expansive definition of "forest" established by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, which includes not only statutorily recognized forests but any area recorded as forest in Government records, irrespective of ownership

Circular dated 17.09.1991 regarding the re-transfer of C and D class lands to the Revenue Department does not apply to lands utilized for afforestation

The Court reasoned that although the KMMC Rules do not explicitly grant the Senior Geologist power to interdict ongoing operations without a formal lease determination, the underlying illegality—quarrying on forest land without Central Government approval—overrode procedural technicalities

The Court found that while the petitioner relied on a 1949 release for cultivation, the land remained barren and was subsequently transferred back to the Forest Department in 1978 for a "land bank" and later used for compensatory afforestation

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that "failed" afforestation efforts in 1988 changed the land’s status, holding that once land is dedicated to forestry, its nature is not extinguished by the failure of a specific plantation cycle

Relying on the 2025 Enquiry Committee report, the Court concluded that the land fell within the Godavarman definition of "forest land" because government records and historical administrative control reflected its use for afforestation

The High Court upheld the impugned stoppage orders, concluding that because the mandatory forest NOC was withdrawn upon discovery of the land's true status, the petitioner had no legal right to continue mining