Can forest land be leased for agriculture without prior Central Government approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?

 

Summary

Category Data
Court Supreme Court of India
Case Number C.A. No.-003661-003661 – 2011
Diary Number 31755/2009
Judge Name HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Bench HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Precedent Value Binding authority on the prohibition of de-reservation and non-forest use of reserved forest land
Overrules / Affirms
  • Overrules the High Court’s order directing a representation to Central Government
  • Affirms Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and earlier Supreme Court precedents
Type of Law Forest Conservation / Environmental Law
Questions of Law
  • Whether a lease or extension for agricultural use on reserved forest land can be valid without prior Central Government approval under Section 2
  • Whether a court can direct such a representation
Ratio Decidendi

The grant and extension of the agricultural lease over reserved forest land were illegal ab initio in the absence of prior Central Government approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Any direction by the High Court to seek such approval could not perpetuate that illegality. The State’s eviction and the Court’s power to mandate restoration by afforestation were lawful and necessary to uphold the Act’s protective purpose.

Judgments Relied Upon
  • Centre For Environmental Law v. Union of India (2000) 2025 INSC 1461
  • T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) (continuing Mandamus)
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court
  • Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
  • The statutory ban on de-reservation
  • SC precedents prohibiting non-forest activities in forest areas
  • Protective forest-conservation jurisprudence
Facts as Summarised by the Court The State granted a 10-year agricultural lease (1976–1985) over 134 acres of reserved forest. After lease termination and litigation, the Forest Department evicted the society in 2007. The High Court directed the society to file a representation for lease continuation.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All forest departments, subordinate courts and tribunals in India on the requirement of Central approval under Section 2 FCA for non-forest use
Persuasive For High Courts addressing forest-land lease disputes and environmental petitions
Overrules Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka’s order in Writ Appeal No. 1079/2008
Follows
  • Centre For Environmental Law v. Union of India (2000)
  • T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Clarifies that any grant or extension of lease for agricultural use on reserved forest land without prior Central Government approval under Section 2 FCA is void.
  • Confirms that high courts cannot direct representations to the Central Government to validate an illegal lease under Section 2.
  • Mandates restoration of forest land through afforestation of indigenous species within 12 months.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Section 2 FCA prohibits any “de-reservation” or non-forest use (including agriculture) of reserved forest land without prior Central approval.
  2. The Court relied on precedents—Centre For Environmental Law and Godavarman Thirumulpad—that declare clearing or non-forest activity in forest areas prima facie illegal.
  3. The original grant and all extensions of the lease were illegal ab initio for violating Section 2.
  4. The High Court’s direction permitting the society to seek Central approval could not cure the original illegality.
  5. Since eviction had already been effected in January 2007, the Court ordered afforestation to restore the forest ecosystem.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner – State of Karnataka

  • The land is “forest” in ownership and possession of the Forest Department; agriculture constitutes non-forest use.
  • Section 2 FCA requires prior Central Government approval; the original lease was illegal.
  • Reliance on Supreme Court precedents prohibiting de-reservation; High Court lacked authority to validate an illegal lease.

Respondent – Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Co-operative Society

  • The lease was originally granted by the State, and the society cultivated the land for over ten years.
  • Multiple writ and civil proceedings ensued; sought continuation of lease via representation to Central Government as directed by the High Court.

Factual Background

From 1976–1985, the State granted a 10-year lease over 134 acres of reserved forest land for agricultural purposes. After the lease was terminated in 1985, the society challenged the order unsuccessfully in writ and civil proceedings. In 2004–2007, the Forest Department initiated eviction under the Karnataka Forest Act and took possession. The Karnataka High Court in 2009 directed the society to file a representation to the Central Government for lease continuation despite the statutory bar.

Statutory Analysis

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Section 2:

  • Prohibits any order de-reserving reserved forests or permitting non-forest uses—including agriculture—without prior approval of the Central Government.
  • Defines “non-forest purpose” to include cultivation of agricultural crops.
  • Establishes a mandatory approval regime to safeguard forest ecosystems against unauthorized clearing.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded. Both Justices delivered a unanimous judgment.

Procedural Innovations

None beyond the Court’s direction for mandatory afforestation within a specified timeline to restore the illegally cultivated forest land.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.