Mining leases and environmental clearance quashed for land earmarked under Aravalli plantation project; Supreme Court orders termination of similar leases across the region

M/s Satish Kumar Garg & Company obtained a 20-year mining lease on 29.04.2002 for extracting minerals, including quartz, felspar and barytes, from 79.32 hectares in Village Musnota, District Mahendergarh, Haryana, under Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

The Forest Department initially issued an NOC on 16.09.2002 stating that the relevant khasra numbers were not forest land.

Subsequently, during proceedings concerning the Aravalli Project and pursuant to this Court’s directions in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Deputy Commissioner identified the same khasra numbers as forming part of land earmarked for Aravalli plantation.

When the lessee sought a fresh NOC in 2016 pursuant to the environmental appraisal process, the Forest Department refused it on the ground that the subject land fell within the Aravalli Plantation area.

The High Court allowed the lessee’s writ petition, set aside the refusal to grant the NOC, permitted mining in accordance with the lease, and directed payment of dead rent once mining operations were permitted.

During the pendency of the appeals, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority granted environmental clearance on 08.08.2023, but this Court restrained tree-felling and further action pursuant to the clearance.

The appeals were filed by residents concerned about the ecological consequences of mining in the Aravalli region.

Whether the subject land, having been earmarked for plantation under the Aravalli Project, could lawfully be made available for mining merely because actual plantation over the entire area was not conclusively established?

Whether the Forest Department was justified in refusing the fresh NOC and whether the High Court erred in directing its grant?

Whether the environmental clearance granted on the basis of the proposed mining activity could survive once the refusal of the NOC was upheld?

Whether the mining lease and other mining-related rights over land earmarked for Aravalli plantation were liable to be cancelled or terminated?

The Court considered Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, governing the grant of mining leases, and Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, under which the environmental-permissibility regime for mining was revised through the notification dated 14.09.2006.

It applied the environmental-protection principle that land identified and earmarked for afforestation or reforestation must receive protection equivalent to land on which plantation has already been carried out, since afforestation is a continuing, long-term process.

The Court also relied on the directions in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118, and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2006) 11 SCC 582, recognising the ecological importance of the Aravalli region and restricting mining activities affecting Aravalli plantations.

The Court further took note of the continuing orders in In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 10 of 2025, requiring prior permission of this Court for mining in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges.

The Court held that the High Court’s reasoning incorrectly treated the absence of conclusive proof of actual plantation as sufficient justification for permitting mining.

Afforestation projects require identification of land in advance, followed by protection, plantation and the passage of time; therefore, land earmarked for plantation cannot lose its protective character merely because plantation has not yet been completed or because the extent of actual plantation is uncertain.

The subject land was expressly included in the Deputy Commissioner’s report as land identified for Aravalli plantation, and allowing mining would permit the lessee to undermine the State’s afforestation efforts by removing trees and excavating minerals.

In light of this finding, the Forest Department’s refusal to issue the fresh NOC was valid, while the High Court’s direction to grant it was legally unsustainable.

Since the environmental clearance was consequential upon the proposed mining activity and could not operate in the absence of a valid NOC, it too was liable to be quashed.

The Court also criticised the conflicting positions of the State’s Mines and Geology Department and Forest Department, and held that continuation of the mining lease after the land’s identification for Aravalli plantation was impermissible.

The refusal of the NOC dated 28.10.2016 was upheld, while the earlier NOC dated 16.09.2002 and its consequences were effaced.

The SEIAA decision dated 02.08.2023 and the environmental clearance dated 08.08.2023 were quashed.

The subject land and all other lands identified in the Deputy Commissioner’s report as earmarked for Aravalli plantation were declared unavailable for mining; subsisting mining leases or mining-related rights over such lands were directed to be terminated forthwith, subject to the final directions in the pending suo motu proceedings.

The State Government was directed to conduct a comprehensive survey, identify subsisting mining rights over Aravalli plantation lands, terminate them in accordance with law, and file a compliance report before this Court.

The States of Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat and the NCT of Delhi were directed to comply strictly with the Court’s ecological-protection orders, with violations liable to invite appropriate action.