1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.445/2008 Girraj Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: March 13, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Vimal Choudhary for the appellant. *** Heard Mr. Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.3352/1997 dismissing the writ application. The writ application was filed for issuance of the writ of mandamus upon the respondents to consider the request of the writ petitioner for issuance of No-objection Certificate for grant of mining lease. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that he applied for the aforesaid lease on 06.03.1995 and necessary sanction thereupon was granted immediately; but the matter was kept pending for No-objection Certificate to be obtained from the Forest Department. After a lapse of more than a year when there was no response from the side of the respondents, the present writ application was filed before this Court. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the writ application was simply dismissed on the basis of averments made in reply to the writ application wherein it was stated that the land 2 in question falls within forest area, and therefore, lease deed cannot be executed in favour of the writ petitioner in view of the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Learned counsel alternatively, therefore, argued that since no cogent material or papers were produced before this Court showing the land in question within forest area, the matter may be remitted back to the authorities concerned to reconsider the matter and take necessary decisions in accordance with law. In course of hearing of the writ application, the submissions of the parties were considered and at the same time in view of the statement made in Para 4 of reply filed on behalf of the State, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that since the land in question fell in forest area, the lease could not be granted in view of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 in the light of the decisions of this Court as rendered in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1073 and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1228. It is undisputed that the statement was made in reply filed on behalf of the State that the land in question fell in forest area and the same was notified forest. There is nothing on record to show otherwise that the forest was not notified one and the land in question for which lease was asked for had not fallen within that area. In view of the statement made in Para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of the State, it was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to produce relevant records/documents showing that the land in question was not in forest area nor the same 3 was notified forest. In absence of these pleadings, we should not scrutinize the matters and facts again in intra court appeal. In the background of the case, therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be faulted merely on the questions of fact. The matter is pending since 1995 and now at this threshold, it would not be appropriate for this Court to redirect the authorities to reconsider the matter afresh. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, it is held that the writ petitioner cannot claim for grant of mining lease as a matter of right in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as referred to above. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-