Despite 11 pending court cases, Environment Min panel clears coal mining project

Despite pending court cases alleging forest encroachment, the Environment Ministry has approved the expansion of the Magadh opencast coal mine in Jharkhand, raising concerns about environmental compliance and legal precedents.

The Environment Ministry's expert appraisal committee (EAC) has cleared the expansion of the Magadh opencast coal mine in Jharkhand's Chatra and Latehar districts, despite 11 pending court cases regarding the project over alleged encroachment of forest land.

The mine is operated by Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, and sought environment clearance (EC) for increasing its production capacity from 20 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 24 MTPA, with the mining lease area reduced from 1,769 ha to 1,598.71 ha.

The project involves 628.09 ha of forest land. Out of this, Stage-II forest clearance has been given to 276.04 ha, but the remaining 352.05 ha is yet to get the final nod for diversion.

Concerns Over Forest Land Encroachment

"The Committee observed that certain court cases pertaining to alleged encroachment of forest land are associated with the project. However, the Committee noted that the forest land involved in such cases falls outside the approved mine lease area of the project," according to the minutes of the EAC's meeting, which took place on April 28 and April 29.

The EAC recommended that the project proponent (PP) place closely spaced bamboo pillars/fencing to prevent any mining or allied activities within the forest land.

It also recommended that no mining activities should be carried out in the 352.05 ha area, without obtaining Stageâ€II forest clearance for the land.

While eight cases are pending before the Latehar district court, the remaining are before the Chatra district court. All these cases have been filed between 2019 and 2025, under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989.

Details of Alleged Violations

In one case, around 10 ha of forest land on both sides of the railway line at the Magadh coal block siding had been allegedly cleared of bushes and trees.

In another case, about 25 ha of forest land in Chatra's Kundi village was allegedly cleared of bushes and trees on both sides of the railway line.

A case before the Chatra district court is about the alleged use of forest land for mining-related activity.

Project Proponent's Explanation

During the EAC meeting, the PP said that the alleged violations primarily occurred due to discrepancies between the cadastral survey (CS) and revisional survey (RS) records.

While the CS records are the oldest, dating back to the British colonial era, the RS records are more recent surveys.

The PP also claimed that there was a lack of demarcation between non-forest land and forest land at the spots where the alleged violations happened.

"Certain non-diverted Forest land parcels were coming in between already diverted land and were ocularly no different on the ground from non-forest land. Consequently, allied activities inadvertently extended to such land as well," said the PP, according to the minutes of the meeting.

It claimed that currently, all mining or allied activities that were being carried out on the said forest land have been stopped.

Expert Concerns and Implications

Speaking to PTI, Debadityo Sinha, senior resident fellow and lead of the climate and ecosystems team at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said, "After the Supreme Court's stay on the judgment restraining post facto environmental clearances, the practice of granting such clearances by the Environment Ministry is becoming increasingly common, even in cases where court proceedings are pending.

"This sets a bad precedent and goes against the mandate of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006."

"It encourages project proponents to create a fait accompli and seek clearances later," he added.

Sinha also claimed that the PP's explanations for the forest land encroachments were "vague" and indicated both "wilful default and a systemic failure" on the part of the forest department to protect forest land.