National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

period as compared to 1.5 lakh hectares per year between 1950 and 1980. Despite this, it isestimated that more than 10,000 cases have been approved for various developmentalactivities since 1980, involving diversion of more than 6 lakh hectares of forest land. (Theseapprovals include pending cases from the period prior to 1980.) This shows that thegovernment has tried to maintain a balance between the needs of conservation and the needsof development. However, the mining industry has argued that during the last few years thisbalance has got tilted towards conservation because the interpretation of certain provisions inthe FCA by both state and Central governments, and consequently also by the courts, hasbecome narrower and more severe and exceeded the needs of conservation as perceived bythem. The narrow interpretations, combined with inordinate delays in the grant of clearancesin the states and to some extent in the MOEF, have made mining an uneconomic activity forlarge-scale investors. This is one of the reasons why mining in India has remained mainly aSME activity.3.24 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its Order dated 12 December 1996 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirmulkpad vs. Union of India & Others, extended the applicability of theFCA to ‘forest’ in the dictionary sense. Prior to this, FCA was applicable to only such areaswhich were notified as ‘forest’ under the Indian Forest Act or which were recorded as ‘forest’in the records. The industry has represented that the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ leavesgreat scope for subjective interpretation and the custodians of forest, that is the forest officers,need to uniformly adhere to any one meaning in deciding whether a particular piece of landshould be treated as ‘forest’ in the dictionary sense or not. In such a scenario, miningentrepreneurs are unable to ascertain whether the land they want to mine is a forest land ornot. The safe course available to them is to actually apply for clearance in every case and letthe forest officer decide whether clearance is needed. Since environmental clearances areobtained only after the concession itself is granted entrepreneurs will be loath to risk the hugeinvestment needed in prospecting and obtaining MLs, only to be told subsequently that theland is a forest land. It is necessary to mention here that the above order of the SupremeCourt was interim in nature and by the same Order, the Supreme Court directed all the stategovernments to constitute an Expert Committee to specifically identify such forest lands.Almost all the state governments have submitted the reports of their Expert Committee to theSupreme Court and a final decision is awaited. The Kanchan Chopra Committee referred toabove has also made recommendations on the definition of ‘forest’. Against this background,the Committee would recommend that once the Hon’ble Court has passed orders in this81