K. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR(D) BY LRS. Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA .
Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-004994-004994 / 2004
Diary number: 19361 / 2003
Advocates: K. R. NAMBIAR Vs
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4994 OF 2004
K. Balakrishnan Nambiar .. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Karnataka & Ors. ..Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4995 OF 2004
Smt. Meenakshi Amma .. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Karnataka & Ors. ..Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4996 OF 2004
Smt. Girija Nambiar .. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Karnataka & Ors. ..Respondents
1
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3973 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26371 of 2008]
Sri K. Balakrishna Nambiar .. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Karnataka & Ors. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. Civil Appeal No.4994 of 2004 :
1. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore dated 3rd September,
2003, in Writ Appeal No. 3530 of 2003 (GM
– FOR) arising out of Writ Petition No. 17766
of 2000 vide which the order of the Learned
Single Judge was affirmed and the appeal
was accordingly dismissed.
2
2. The appellant herein is the transferee of
leasehold rights of the land to an extent of 25
acres in Survey No. 336/1A1 (75 acres in
total) of Aletti village of Sullia Taluk,
Dakshnia Kannada district. The original
order of lease grant was made in the favour of
one Sri. M. Shankara Narayana
Kadambalithaya in the year 1949 by the then
government of Madras for a period of 50
years vide order of grant dated 24th March,
1949, issued by the District Forest Officer,
Mangalore. The land was granted for the
purpose of raising areca nut plantation. The
lessee was permitted to grow pepper and
other fruit bearing trees as subsidiary crops
on the land. Thereafter, on the death of the
original lessee, his legal representatives, after
obtaining permission from the State
Government, alienated the lease hold rights
3
in favour of the appellant. The lease in regard
to a portion of the land was to expire on 31st
March, 1999 and in regard to remaining
portion in the year 2000.
3. The appellant submitted an application dated
4th June, 1996 for renewal of the lease. It
appears that no action was taken on the
application for renewal. Consequently,
apprehending eviction, immediately after the
lease period, the appellant alongwith two
others filed a writ petition No. 9570-9572 of
1999 in the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore. In the aforesaid writ petition, the
appellant had prayed for the issuance of writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider the applications for renewal of the
lease deed of the land in question. The High
Court vide its order dated 25th March, 1999
disposed of the writ petition with a direction
4
to the respondents therein to consider the
application for the renewal of the lease in
accordance with law and dispose of the same
within two months of the date of receipt of
the copy of the order.
4. The appellant thereafter made another
representation to respondent No. 2 seeking
renewal of the lease. However by order dated
25th March, 2000, the State Government
cancelled the lease deed and directed the
appellant to hand over the possession of the
lease hold land back to the forest department
to the extent of 48 acres out of 75 acres
immediately and the remaining 27 acres by
31st December, 2001. The reasons given by
the State Government in its order dated 25th
March, 2000 for rejecting the claim of the
appellant were as under:-
5
“The leasehold land is surrounded by thick forest in East Aletty Reserved Forest Land; this area is near to the boundary of Kerala and Karnataka State. In the event of extending the period of Lease in respect of this area, it is likely that there may be problem for movement of men and vehicles and in order to protect the interest of Forest, it is not felt advisable to lease the extent of 48 acres of Forest land, as the lessees have already raised Areca, Coconut and Cashew trees on the leasehold lands and those trees have fully developed and in the event of extending the Lease period, it is likely that the lessees would commence fresh cultivation on the land in question. It is proposed to take possession of the land in respect of which Lease period is completed and thereafter after doing forestery work on this land and on the land naturally grown trees are allowed to be protected fully and the Reserved Forest could be taken possession and could be maintained as a Reserved forest land only. As the renewal of the Lease or the extension of Lease period would involve obtaining prior sanction of the Central Government and therefore there is no room for granting the forest land for the purpose of forest activities within the Reserved Forest Area.
As the period of Lease transferred in favour of Shri K Balakrishnan Nambiar, out of the total extent of 75 acres, Lease period comes to an end in
6
respect of an extent of 48 acres on 31.3.1999, it is felt desirable that there is no justification to extend the Lease period in respect of the Leasehold land and that the Department should take back the possession of the land from the Lessee and in respect of the remaining extent of 27 acres the Lease period expires on 31.12.2001 and thereafter without extending that lease also after the lease period is over, the possession of that land also should be taken back to the department. After examining these proceedings the Government has passed the following order:-
ORDER OF GOVERNMENT; FG 17 FLL 97, Bangalore, Dated : 25.3.2000.
Having regard to the background and reasons explained above, it is hereby ordered that out of the extent of 75 acres of Leasehold land transferred in favour of Sri Balakrishnan Nambiar in the land in S.No.336/1A6 of Aletty Reserved forest land; an extent of 48 acres of Leased land is ordered to be forthwith taken possession of by the Forest Department. It is also hereby ordered that the remaining extent of 27 acres in respect of which lease period comes to an end on 31.12.2001 and thereafter the Lease period should not be extended and the possession of that land also should be taken over by the Forest Department.
7
By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka,
Sd/-xx K Krishnamurthy, Under Secretary to Government,
Forest & Environment Department.”
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the
appellant again moved the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in writ petition No.
17766 of 2000. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 9th
April, 2003. The Writ Appeal No. 3530 of
2003 filed by the appellant as against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge was
also dismissed by order dated 3rd September,
2003. The Division Bench of the High Court
held that the issue is concluded by this Court
in the case of T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India1 wherein
it has been held that no forest area shall be
used for nonforestal activities. The Division
1 AIR (1997) SC 1228
8
Bench judgment is under challenge before us
in the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for
parties at length.
7. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the High Court has dismissed the matter
on erroneous interpretation of the judgment
of this Court in T.N. Godavarman’s case
(supra). He then submits that aforesaid
judgment of this Court was with regard to
‘nonforestal’ activities in the ‘reserved forest’
area. He further submits that plantation of
arecanut trees, cashew trees, coconut trees
and black pepper vines do not amount to
nonforestal activities. He further relies on the
reports of the Assistant Conservator of Forest
with regard to the adjoining lands, which
9
were similarly leased, to indicate that the
lands have lost all the character of forest land
and in fact the status of the lands according
to the said report had ceased to be ‘reserved
forest’. Therefore, judgment in the
Godavarman’s case (supra) would not be
applicable in the instant matter. He
thereafter submits that the appellant has not
violated the conditions of grant and his
activities on the land do not include breaking
up or clearing of any forest land or portion
thereto. He then submits that the appellant
has incurred huge investments to raise
valuable arecanut trees for a number of
years. Therefore, it would cause grave
injustice to him if the lease period is not
renewed. He also submits that appellant has
no other source of income. The learned
counsel further draws our attention to the
letter dated 19th February, 1994 where the
1
Chief Conservator of Forest, Bangalore, has
recommended to the State Government for
confirming the lease grant on permanent
basis.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Sanjay M.
Nuli, learned counsel for the State, submits
that the lease land is a part of the statutorily
declared reserved forest, having been
declared as such by Order No. 318 dated
9th February, 1907. This was published in
Notification of Board of Revenue (Land
Revenue) Forest No. 32 dated 22nd February,
1907, which had declared the land under
lease as reserved forest with effect from 1st
May 1907 under the Madras Forest Act,
1882. Since then, it has continued to be the
reserved forest land. The grant of lease in
favour of the predecessors of the appellant
did not have the effect of dereservation. At
1
the expiry of the lease, the land was expected
to be surrendered to the State as forest land.
He further submits that after the enactment
of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, no
forest land can be dereserved without prior
approval of the Central Government. Under
no circumstances, forest land can be
permitted to be used for nonforestal
activities. Learned counsel submitted that
the High Court was bound to dismiss the writ
petition as the matter was squarely covered
by the judgment of this Court in T.N.
Godavarman’s case (supra). In order to
ensure the effective implementation of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the State
Government has taken a policy decision not
to continue the lease of any forest land. The
policy of the State, according to the learned
counsel, is in conformity with National Forest
Policy, 1988, which has been formulated to
1
maintain the environmental stability and to
preserve the ecological balance. The learned
counsel submits that the State Government
has rejected the claim of the appellant, after
taking due notice of the legal position as well
as any hardship that may be caused to him.
9. We have considered the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties. In our
opinion, in view of the judgment of this Court
in Godavarman’s case (supra), it is not
necessary to dilate upon the matter at length,
since all the issues raised by Mr.
Vishwanathan have been elaborately
considered and decided in the aforesaid
judgment. We are unable to accept the
submission of Mr. Vishwanathan that
arecanut cultivation cannot be treated as a
nonforestal activity, merely because it does
not involve any cutting of the trees. On the
1
other hand, the Government has given cogent
and valid reasons for non-renewal of the
lease. The order passed by the Government
makes it clear that the leasehold land is
surrounded by thick forest in East Aletty
Reserved Forest land; this area is near to the
boundary of Kerala and Karnataka State. It
notices that extending the period of lease in
respect of this area is likely to cause
problems for the movement of men and
vehicles. It is also noticed that lessees have
already raised Areca, Coconut and Cashew
trees on the leasehold lands and those trees
are fully developed. Therefore, in the event of
extending the lease period, it is likely that the
lessee would commence fresh cultivation on
the land in question. The intention of the
Government is to develop naturally grown
forests over the lands. This can only be done
if the possession is taken by the Government.
1
Addressing the similar issues, this Court in
Godavarman’s case (supra) has observed as
follows:-
“The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.
This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural
1
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.”
10. After making these observations, a specific
direction has been issued, to all the State
Governments, to ensure that all ongoing non-
forest activity within any forest, without the
prior approval of the Central Government,
must cease forthwith. It was emphasised
1
that every State Government must ensure
total cessation of all nonforestal activities
forthwith. Mr. Vishwanathan had also
submitted that since the lease has been
granted prior to the operation of the 1980 Act
and the land has been declared as dereserved
at the time of the grant of the lease, the lease
can not be automatically cancelled upon
promulgation of the 1980 Act. In our
opinion, the aforesaid submission of the
learned counsel is also no longer res integra
as it has been answered in the case of Nature
Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala &
Ors. 2
11. Upon consideration of the earlier cases
pertaining to the conservation of forests in
India, this Court culled out certain
principles. We may, however, notice only the
2 (2009) 5 SCC 373
1
observations made in Paragraphs 47 and 48,
which are as under:-
“47. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that the 1980 Act is applicable to all forests irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof and after 25-10-1980 i.e. the date of enforcement of the 1980 Act, no State Government or other authority can pass an order or give a direction for dereservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc. in respect of forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or organisation which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government.
48. Another principle which emerges from these judgments is that even if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for non-forest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25-10-1980 without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government.”
1
12. In view of the aforesaid observations, we are
of the considered opinion that there is no
merit in the appeal. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
Civil Appeal No. 4995 of 2004, Civil Appeal No. 4996 of 2004 and
Civil Appeal No.3973 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26371 of 2008)
13. Leave granted in Civil Appeal No. 3973 of
2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.26371 of
2008).
14. In view of the judgment passed in Civil
Appeal No. 4994 of 2004, these appeals
are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
……………………………..J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]
1
……………………………..J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]
New Delhi; May 05, 2011.
2