As per case facts, the petitioner applied for a mining lease for iron-ore in forest land. The Union of India granted initial approval with a condition for compensating villagers for ... loss of forest produce benefits. The petitioner deposited the initial compensation, and final approval was granted. However, the State government later incorporated an additional condition (10.7(2)) in the mining lease, mandating annual compensation with a percentage increase to villagers, allegedly without prior Central Government approval. A demand notice was issued based on this. The petitioner challenged this demand notice and the order, arguing the condition's incorporation lacked necessary approval and was contrary to prior approvals. Respondents contended the condition was agreed to by the petitioner and no Central Government approval was required. The question arose whether the incorporation of condition No.10.7(2) in the mining lease without prior approval of the Central Government is valid, and consequently, whether the impugned demand notice/orders based on it are liable to be set aside. Finally, the court held that the additional condition, which was about satisfying third-party claims for forest produce benefits, was not related to mineral development or atomic minerals. Therefore, the requirement for prior Central Government approval under sub-rule (3) of Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, did not apply. The court dismissed the petition, concluding there was no substance in the challenge.