In Brief
A mining lease holder sued to restrain the State from interfering with his mining operations on disputed land, claiming it was revenue land outside forest protection areas. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court both decreed in his favour and granted a permanent injunction. The High Court dismissed the State's second appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose because two Courts had already decreed the suit. The Supreme Court held the High Court erred by confusing concurrent findings of fact (which are binding) with the existence of substantial legal questions. It found five substantial questions remained: whether the land was forest or revenue land, whether statutory provisions of various laws were satisfied, and whether injunction grounds were made out. The Court remanded the case for the High Court to frame and decide these substantial questions on merits."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.