Telangana High Court Upholds Stop on Mining in Garla Reserve Forest

The Telangana High Court has upheld the Forest Department’s action to stop barytes and dolomite mining operations in the Garla Reserve Forest of Khammam district, dismissing petitions filed by mining and labour contract firms challenging stop-work notices issued since 2009. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka sharply criticised lapses by revenue authorities, observing that the wrongful classification of reserve forest land as “Sarkari” (government land) enabled large-scale environmental damage across nearly 760 acres over several decades. The court also rejected objections raised against a Survey of India report that confirmed the mining area falls within the notified Garla Reserve Forest. The dispute pertained to lands in Pocharam and Sripuram villages. According to the Forest Department, the land forms part of the 44,582-acre Garla Protected Reserve Forest notified by the erstwhile Nizam government on August 17, 1951. However, mining leases were later granted on the basis of incorrect revenue records. Forest officials issued stop-work notices in 2009, citing the absence of mandatory clearances under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. During the course of the case, the High Court in 2013 directed the Survey of India to demarcate the forest boundaries in accordance with the 1951 notification. The survey report found that around 762 acres covered under mining leases fell within the reserve forest limits, while only 2.77 acres lay outside the notified area. Rejecting allegations of bias and procedural irregularities, the court held that the survey process was transparent and legally sound. Relying on the findings, the judge ruled that the disputed land was unequivocally part of the reserve forest and said the mining leases had been granted due to a fundamental misconception arising from faulty land classification by revenue authorities. The petitioners argued that mining activities had been carried out for decades and pointed to previous environmental clearances while alleging arbitrary action by the Forest Department. However, the court found the claims unsustainable and observed that the statutory obligation to protect forest land overrides such arguments. The court also noted that several mining leases had already expired and that some operations had never commenced.