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