Lands Earmarked For Afforestation Must Get Same Protection As Existing Plantations: Supreme Court Bars Mining In Aravalli Plantation Areas

The Court, while making this observation, also quashed the environmental clearance granted to the mining lessee, and directed that lands earmarked for Aravalli plantation shall not be made available for mining activity.

The Court was hearing appeals challenging a High Court order which had allowed a writ petition filed by a mining lessee, set aside the Forest Department’s refusal to grant an NOC for mining, and permitted mining in accordance with the mining lease.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana observed: “Afforestation and reforestation are undoubtedly ongoing and long-term projects. That being so, in our considered opinion, the lands which are identified for near future use for such plantation drives must be held to bear the character of the land on which plantation already has taken place. Earmarking of the land for plantation ought to, thus, necessarily accord the same protection which is attributed to afforestation plantations.”

The Bench, accordingly, held: “The Subject Land, as well as other lands identified in the DC Report, having been earmarked for Aravalli plantation, shall not be made available for any mining activity. Any mining lease or other right permitting mining activity in respect of these lands, if presently subsisting, shall be terminated forthwith. This direction shall be subject to the final directions to be issued by this Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition”.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Guru Krishna Kumar and Narendra Hooda appeared for the mining lessee. The State of Haryana was represented by Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., and Shekhar Raj Sharma, A.A.G.

Background

The mining lessee had applied to the State Government for a mining lease over land in Mahendergarh, Haryana, for minerals including quartz, felspar and barytes. The State Government sanctioned a mining lease for 20 years. For the purposes of an Environment Management Plan, the mining lessee obtained an initial NOC from the Forest Department stating that the land was not forest land.

Subsequently, in compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004), steps were taken to identify areas where plantation and afforestation activities under the Aravalli Project had been undertaken.

The Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh, identified some lands falling under Aravalli Plantation, and the list included the Khasra numbers of the subject land. The Divisional Forest Officer later informed the mining lessee that an NOC could not be granted because the subject land fell within the list of land for Aravalli Plantation.

The mining lessee approached the High Court seeking, among other reliefs, setting aside of the communication refusing NOC and a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer to grant it. The High Court allowed the writ petition, relying on the earlier history of mining and ambiguity regarding the exact area on which Aravalli Plantation had taken place.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority granted environmental clearance, but the Court restrained the mining lessee from cutting trees or taking further steps on the basis of that clearance.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants relied on communications from the Forest Department to contend that the land forming part of the mining lease was part of Aravalli plantation and that the NOC and environmental clearance would permit mining in areas meant for afforestation.

The mining lessee raised preliminary objections of delay and availability of statutory appeal before the NGT, and contended that no plantation had ever taken place on the 79.32 hectares allotted under the mining lease. The Mines and Geology Department supported the mining lessee, while the Forest Department supported the appellants and maintained that the land was part of the list of lands for the Aravalli Project.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court identified the singular issue as whether the subject land fell within the Aravalli Project. It noted that the High Court’s reasoning proceeded on the premise that unless actual plantation had taken place on land earmarked for afforestation, mining could be permitted on that land.

The Bench held that this reasoning suffered from an inherent fallacy. It explained that when government departments plan afforestation activities, whether preservatory or compensatory, they must first identify the land on which plantation can take place, while the final stage of actual plantation necessarily requires both protective intervention and passage of time.

It observed: “If the submission of the Mining Lessee is to be accepted, then such areas would always be susceptible to permissions for mining activities, since the authorities would only consider whether trees or plantations are standing on the land.”

The Court further reasoned that where only part of an originally planned plantation had been completed, and the rest could not be initiated due to intervening factors, treating the remaining land as outside the plantation area would defeat the object of afforestation. The Bench observed: “This result would be entirely antithetical to the true nature of that remaining land, i.e., that it is an essential part of the afforestation drive.”

Applying this principle to the Aravalli Project, the Court noted that plantation drives had been initiated in the early 1990s across the Aravallis by using funds received through foreign aid for afforestation in the region. It further noted that the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006) had recognised the need to protect such plantations from disruptive activities, especially mining.

The Court held that it was admitted that plantation drives could not cover the entire area identified under the Aravalli Project. It therefore observed: “That being so, the lands which had been earmarked for Aravalli plantation drives, including those which may not have had any fresh saplings planted, ought to have the same protective status as those which bore the afforestation.”

On the facts, the Court found that the subject land was clearly earmarked for plantation under the Aravalli Project, while none of the parties could conclusively state whether plantation had actually taken place over it. It held that the High Court had proceeded on the premise that ambiguity regarding actual use of the land for plantation meant that NOC ought to be granted and mining allowed.

Disapproving that approach, the Court observed: “The High Court has, however, not given much importance to the fact that the land fell within the plan for the Aravalli Project or had been identified for plantation under the same. By permitting mining in such a situation, the Mining Lessee was allowed to effectively undermine the afforestation efforts of the Forest Department by clearing existing trees and initiating excavation of minerals. Such an outcome, in our view, is impermissible.”

The Bench therefore held that the direction to grant an NOC for mining on the subject land was unfounded. It also held that the SEIAA’s decision and the environmental clearance granted pursuant to it ought to be set aside.

The Court also took serious note of the contrary stands adopted by the Mines and Geology Department and the Forest Department of Haryana. It observed that the stand of the Mines and Geology Department appeared to be motivated by its claim for dead rent and other mining royalties or dues. The Court stated: “However, it is surprising that no action was taken by the said Department regarding the continuation of the mining lease once it was brought to light by the latter Department that the land in question was earmarked for Aravalli plantation.”

The Court further noted that the High Court’s directions stood contrary to continuing directions issued by the Supreme Court for protection of ecology and forest cover in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. Referring to the pending suo motu proceedings concerning the definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges, the Court noted that mining in the region during pendency of that matter was barred.

It observed: “Such circumstances constrain us to disapprove of the continuing stand of the State Government in favour of permission to initiate mining. We are, thus, of the firm opinion that there is a need to issue some directions for the protection of lands which have been earmarked for afforestation purposes, whether compensatory or arising out of foreign aid/charitable contributions.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Court upheld the Forest Department’s refusal to grant NOC and held that the earlier NOC and its consequences stood effaced. It also quashed the SEIAA decision and the environmental clearance granted to the mining lessee.

The Court directed that the subject land, as well as other lands identified in the Deputy Commissioner’s report as earmarked for Aravalli plantation, shall not be made available for mining activity. Any subsisting mining lease or other right permitting mining activity in respect of those lands was directed to be terminated forthwith, subject to final directions in the pending suo motu proceedings.

The State Government was directed to conduct a comprehensive survey of areas earmarked for Aravalli plantation, identify land parcels where mining rights subsist, take immediate steps for cancellation or termination of such rights, and file a compliance report before the Supreme Court.

The Court directed that any violation of its directions, including commencement or continuation of mining activity in areas earmarked for Aravalli plantation, would be viewed seriously. The Registry was directed to convey the judgment to the Chief Secretaries of Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and the NCT of Delhi for compliance.

Cause Title: Sunder Singh & Anr. v. M/s Satish Kumar Garg & Company & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 855)

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, with Advocates Ajay Kumar, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Anila Bharti, Ritul Tandon, Tarun Gupta, AOR, and Hirday Virdi

Respondents: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtagi, Guru Krishna Kumar and Narendra Hooda, with Advocates Ajit Sharma, AOR, Sameer Rohtagi, Kanchan Kumar, Yuvrajsinh C Solanki, Anant Ram Mishra, Lareb Habib Ansari, Shweta Jain, Ashutosh Senger, Shaswat Koushik, Ankur Yadav, AOR, Shekhar Raj Sharma, A.A.G., Akshay Amritanshu, AOR, Nidhi Narwal, Sarthak Srivastava, Srishti Jain, Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., Rahul Khurana, AOR, Nikunj Gupta and Bhavya Singla

Click here to read/download Judgment