SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 484

2011 (5) SCC 353
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND S.S. NIJJAR, JJ.
K. Balakrishnan Nambiar
VERSUS
State of Karnataka & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4994 OF 2004, 4995 OF 2004, 4996 OF 2004, 3973 OF 2011
Decided on : May 5,2011

Headnote:A) FOREST CONSERVATION ACT : S.2:- This appeal arises out of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant against the refusal of the Government for renewal of the lease and directing the Forest Department to take over the land on the expiry of the lease of the land which actually forms part of a reserved forest and which was leased way back in 1949 for 50 years for raising pepper and acre nuts etc. The submissions made by the counsel for the appellant with regard to the activities not being non-forestry in nature or the lease being earlier to the 1980 Act etc. were rejected in view of the decision of this court in Godavermans case.

JUDGMENT

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. 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 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 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.

5. The reasons given by the State Government in its order dated 25th March, 2000 for rejecting the claim of the appellant were as under:-

"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 t


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top