Land Earmarked for Trees Cannot Be Mined: Supreme Court Cancels Aravalli Mining Lease in Mahendergarh

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that favoured a mining lessee, holding that land identified for Aravalli plantation must be protected as if plantation had already taken place. It upheld the Forest Department’s refusal of an NOC, quashed the 2023 environmental clearance, cancelled the 2002 lease, and directed Haryana to survey the plantation area and terminate subsisting mining rights.

A 20-year mining lease over 79.32 hectares in Village Musnota, District Mahendergarh was executed on 29 April 2002, backed by a Forest Department NOC of 16 September 2002 stating that the land was not forest land. A Deputy Commissioner’s report of 5 April 2007 listed the khasras under ‘Aravalli Plantation’. When a fresh NOC was sought, the Forest Department refused it on 28 October 2016, and in 2017 the Mining Officer demanded dead rent arrears of Rs 2,56,40,170.

On 26 April 2018 a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the lessee’s writ petition, reasoning that mining had occurred there earlier and that it had not been shown that trees existed on the land. The SEIAA granted environmental clearance on 8 August 2023. Residents of Village Panchnota appealed.

The Key Question Before the Court

Does land earmarked for Aravalli plantation, but not shown to bear plantation, enjoy protection against mining?

Earmarked Land Takes the Character of Plantation Land

The Court found an “inherent fallacy” in the High Court’s premise that trees had to be shown on the land. Afforestation is a long-term, multi-step process, and accepting the lessee’s argument would allow earmarked land to be mined whenever trees were absent. In its words, lands identified for near-future plantation “must be held to bear the character of the land on which plantation already has taken place.”

Relying on the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India decisions barring mining in Aravalli plantation areas, the Court held that permitting mining would undermine afforestation. It criticised the Mines Department’s stance as driven by dead rent, and noted the continuing suo motu proceedings on the Aravallis (W.P.(C) No. 10/2025) in which mining is barred pending a High-Powered Committee’s report.

What the Court Actually Held

• The High Court judgment was set aside; the NOC refusal of 28.10.2016 was upheld and the NOC of 16.09.2002 effaced.
• The SEIAA decision of 02.08.2023 and the EC of 08.08.2023 were quashed.
• The subject land and other lands in the DC Report shall not be made available for mining, and subsisting mining rights shall be terminated forthwith, subject to the suo motu case.
• Haryana must survey the Aravalli plantation area, cancel subsisting mining rights and file a compliance report; Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and NCT Delhi are bound by the Aravalli directions.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It extends protection to land earmarked for plantation, not only land already planted.
• It links individual lease disputes to the ongoing suo motu Aravalli proceedings.
• It warns that violations may invite action against responsible authorities.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Lessees and Miners

• Check whether lease land appears in plantation or Aravalli project records before investing.
• Expect mining rights over earmarked plantation land to be terminated.

For States and Regulators

• Carry out the survey and compliance reporting the Court has ordered.
• Do not grant clearances on earmarked plantation land.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Residents of Village Panchnota, against the mining lessee and the State.

The Court noted that no party conclusively showed whether plantation had occurred, but held earmarking was enough.

Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and the NCT of Delhi; the judgment is to be sent to their Chief Secretaries.

Conclusion