Land Ownership Rights Judgement

In a recent landmark case, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgement on land ownership rights, emphasizing the protection of the environment. The case raised significant questions regarding resource distribution and ownership in tribal areas, impacting various stakeholders. Stay updated for insights on this pivotal legal ruling!

Facts

• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued several orders related to the illegal and unregulated coal mining in Meghalaya.
• The Tribunal directed the State of Meghalaya to stop rat-hole mining/illegal mining throughout the state and to halt illegal transportation of coal.
• Various applications were filed by the State Government seeking exemptions from certain regulations for coal mining.
• NGT permitted transportation of coal until a certain date and later refused to extend the deadline, directing that all extracted coal would vest in the State.
• The Tribunal highlighted serious pollution and health hazards caused by illegal mining in Meghalaya.
• Several committees were constituted to supervise the transportation of coal and address the environmental concerns.
• NGT noticed deficiencies in the State’s Mining Policy and the lack of regulation concerning rat-hole mining.
• Several civil appeals were filed challenging NGT’s orders regarding coal mining in Meghalaya.
• NGT directed the State to deposit a significant amount with the Central Pollution Control Board for environmental restoration.
• NGT emphasized the need for stringent measures to combat illegal mining in tribal areas and protect the environment.
• The Tribunal directed the collection of additional fees on coal mined for an environmental protection fund.
• NGT instructed coordination between the Central and State governments to address mining-related issues.
• NGT expressed concerns over persistent violations of environmental regulations and the impact on human health in the mining areas.
• The impugned order dated 04.01.2019 has been passed by the NGT without any assessment of environmental damage.
• State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal against the order directing Meghalaya to deposit Rs.100 crores for environmental restoration.
• Appeals filed by Coal Owners, Miners and Dealers Forum, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council were aggrieved by the perpetual ban on coal mining without considering its legality.
• Concerns raised about appointment of State Government receiver/custodian of extracted coal when ownership is not disputed.
• Garo Hills Autonomous District Council filed an appeal against the ban on coal mining impacting revenue sources and jurisdiction of the Council.
• The Tribunal observed huge environmental degradation and pollution in Meghalaya, calling for serious steps to clean polluted water bodies.
• NGT’s order of 04.01.2019 was passed without considering statutory provisions and responsible parties for mining and environmental laws.
• Concerns raised about restoration of the mining area and environment and implementation of ‘Polluter Pay Principle’.
• State Government directed to collect 10% of coal market value in addition to royalty for each consignment.
• Meghalaya filed appeals questioning various orders relating to ban on rat-hole mining, responsibility for pollution, and formulation of appropriate policies.

Also Read: Entitlement to Back Wages: Upholding Justice

Issue

• The issue of whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested in Autonomous District Councils is being considered.
• The sustainability of the National Green Tribunal’s order dated 17.04.2014 directing for a complete ban on mining is being examined.
• The question of whether the complete ban on mining of coal in Meghalaya, as directed by the NGT, should be vacated or modified in the interest of the State and Tribals is under review.
• The sustainability of the direction given to the State of Meghalaya to deposit Rs.100 crores by the NGT in its order dated 04.01.2019 is being evaluated.
• The legitimacy of NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016, which states that after 15.05.2016 all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya, is being examined.
• Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the mining of coal from privately owned or community-owned land in the hills districts of the State of Meghalaya is being analyzed.

Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Recruitment Rules Challenge

Arguments

• Shri Colin Gonsalves challenges the assessment made by the committees appointed by the State Government.
• He argues that the technical committee report seeks to undo the previous proceedings before the tribunal and the court.
• The jurisdiction of the NGT is questioned, asserting that it cannot grant mining leases to Tribals or frame mining policies.
• The State of Meghalaya’s limited revenue and economic concerns are highlighted, suggesting that a burden of Rs.100 Crores would be detrimental.
• It is contended that the NGT’s constitution of committees interferes with the Autonomous District Council’s jurisdiction.
• The ownership of minerals in Meghalaya is debated, with the Tribals being considered owners both of the land and the sub-soil minerals.
• The NGT’s order regarding unregulated and illegal coal mining in Meghalaya is critiqued as overreaching its jurisdiction.
• The applicability of the MMDR Act, 1957 in Tribal areas of Meghalaya is challenged, suggesting that the State lacks the power to issue mining leases.
• Various technical aspects of mining laws and regulations, as well as constitutional principles related to resource distribution, are discussed.
• The NGT’s decision to ban coal mining, impacting the livelihoods of many individuals, is contested along with the assertion that the State cannot distribute community resources at will.
• The Amicus Curiae, along with other counsel, presents arguments against the punishments and bans imposed on mining activities in Meghalaya.
• The State’s lack of control over coal mining due to Tribal ownership of minerals is a central point of contention.
• Reports and affidavits from various parties are referenced to support the arguments and challenges made against the NGT’s orders and jurisdiction.
• Illegal coal mining has been ongoing in Meghalaya despite a ban imposed in 2014.
• There are claims of transportation of coal by different applicants which is now being assessed.
• The State of Meghalaya is accused of being complicit with illegal miners.
• The National Green Tribunal orders are being challenged for possibly overstepping jurisdiction.
• The applicability of the Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act in tribal areas of Meghalaya is being questioned.
• State negligence in addressing pollution even after alerts from relevant authorities.
• Disputes over the assessment, pricing, and transportation of illegally mined coal.
• Concerns raised about the low pricing of auctioned coal causing revenue loss.
• The importance of proper disposal of extracted coal for various industries.
• Emphasis on the need for environmental restoration projects and financing.
• Controversy over the penalty imposed by NGT and the financial burden on Meghalaya.
• Arguments regarding the responsibility for granting mining leases on privately/community owned land.
• Suspicion of underhand dealings due to low coal pricing.
• Debates on the statutory requirements for mining leases in Meghalaya.

Also Read: Judgment by Supreme Court on Dismissal Order and Voluntary Retirement: Case of Sri Rathin Ghosh vs WBSBCL

Analysis

• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was enacted to provide for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources.
• The Act deals with jurisdiction, powers, and proceedings of the Tribunal, providing it with wide powers to settle disputes involving substantial questions relating to the environment.
• Rules under the Act empower the Tribunal to make orders, give directions, and secure the ends of justice.
• Various sections and rules outline the procedure for obtaining licenses and leases for mining operations, ensuring compliance with environmental regulations.
• The Act vests the State Government with the power to regulate mining operations, impose penalties for violations, and prosecute offenders.
• Certain provisions of the Act are in alignment with the Constitution’s Sixth Schedule, relating to the administration of tribal areas in specific states.
• The Act also incorporates provisions for relief, compensation, and restitution in cases of environmental damage, emphasizing the protection of public health, property, and the environment.
• Specific sections and rules define terms, grant powers, outline procedures, and establish penalties to ensure compliance with environmental and mining regulations.
• The Act and related rules empower the Tribunal to act independently, not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, to secure the ends of justice and protect the environment.
• In the case of Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, it was established that the owner of the surface of the land is entitled to everything beneath unless explicitly reserved.
• The NGT’s judgment and order were found to be erroneous as it implied the right to destroy the leased property by removing minerals without any consideration for the estate.
• Mining operations entail winning minerals, and the right to remove and utilize minerals is a form of enjoying immovable property under Section 105 of the Act.
• The right to carry out mining operations is synonymous with the right to enjoy immovable property, especially when coupled with the occupation or possession rights.
• The leasing of mineral land allows for exclusive possession for a specified period, aligning with Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act.
• The concepts of sustainable development and conservation of natural resources for future generations are emphasized by the courts and Parliament.
• The notion of a lease in mining activities is broad and may not strictly adhere to the technical definition, as confirmed by various court judgments.
• Mining leases serve the public interest by regulating the utilization of natural resources and ensuring their development.
• The NGT has jurisdiction to appoint committees or seek reports in relevant cases, demonstrating its authority in environmental matters.
• Ownership of subsoil and mineral rights typically follows land ownership unless legally transferred, as outlined by court precedents.
• Coal seized by the State in illegal transportation and mining not to be dealt with as directed for regular coal
• Different cases registered by the State regarding illegal transportation and mining of coal

Decision

• The Committee is authorized to requisition services of technical experts as needed.
• Seized coal will be managed by the State as per the Coal Mines Act, 1957.
• The State may decide to recover illegally raised coal without lawful authority.
• Orders will be sent to all concerned authorities via email for compliance.
• All pending matters will be resolved as per the terms mentioned.
• The Committee is empowered to conduct visits to sites when required.
• The Committee may prepare an Action Plan with compliance targets.
• The Chief Secretary of Meghalaya will determine the Chairman’s remuneration and provide logistical support.
• Technical experts can be engaged by the Committee for execution of orders.
• The extracted coal available will be handed over to Coal India Ltd. for disposal.
• The State of Meghalaya will act as custodian of the currently extracted coal.
• Restoration of environment and rehabilitation measures are to be undertaken.
• The Committee has the freedom to seek further directions from the Tribunal.
• The Committee is allowed to involve educational institutions for awareness and feedback.
• Periodical reports are to be sent to the Tribunal by email for filing.
• All authorities in Meghalaya are required to cooperate with the Committee.
• An independent Committee, led by Justice B.P. Katakey, is to be constituted.
• The Committee will work on an action plan for the issue and ensure its implementation.
• Technical assistance can be sought by the Committee from relevant authorities.
• Reports are to be submitted at least once every two months.

Case Title: THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE

Case Number: C.A. No.-010720 / 2018

Click here to read/download original judgement