The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to encroached forest lands and requires prior approval of the Central Government for any order directing the cessation of reserved forest or the use of forest land for non-forest purposes.

BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.: - The petitioner was a partner of a firm. He died subsequent and two of his sons came forward to get themselves impleaded. They submitted that in addition to being his sons they were also partners of the firm. They were impleaded. They seek to challenge the order Ext. P6 passed by the Secretary (Agriculture and Forest) Government of Kerala rejecting their claim for execution of a lease in their favour on the ground that the lease in question is one hit by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Act 69 of 1980 and since the conditions of that Act were not satisfied the Government Order Ext.P1 earlier passed, could not be complied with or implemented.

2. The firm had a lease in respect of certain lands. While in possession of those lands, the partners of the firm seem to have encroached upon adjacent forest lands. The extent encroached upon was 250.39 acres. The forest department resumed an area of 142.39 acres of land during the year 1976. The balance portion remained with the encroacher, the firm. Out of the 142.39 acres resumed by the Forest Department, it appears that an extent of 38.42 acres had been cultivated with cardamom. The firm who appears to have been in possession of 108 acres

on the basis of the encroachment and from whom 142.39 has been resumed as encroached area, appears to have moved a petition before the Government praying that its encroachment may be regularised and it may be granted a lease of the encorached forest land as well. The Government by order dated 16-10-1980 decided to grant a lease of 108 acres of encroached land continuing in the possession of the firm and 38.42 acres of planted area which had been resumed along with other extents by the Forest Authorities, making in all 146.42 acres for raising cardamom cultivation. The order Ext.P1 indicated that the area of 146.42 acres taking in 108 acres of trespassed land in which cardamom had been cultivated and which continued to be in the possession of the firm and the extent of 38.42 acres of cultivated area resumed by the Forest Department would be leased to the Managing Partner of the firm on certain terms and conditions set out in that order. The proposed lease was to be for a period of 20 years and the lease was to be deemed to have been commenced from the date of the order. The rent was Rs.50/- per acre subject to revision under the relevant Act, and the area was to be used by the lessee for the cultivation of cardamom only. It also contained a stipulation that the lease shall not cause any damage to the forest tree growth in the area and the lessee wilt have no right over the tree growth whether naturally grown or artificially regenerated. The lessee was also not entitled to cut and remove any extending trees. A penal rent was to be recovered from him for the encroachment he had earlier made. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Trivandrum was to take further action in the matter.

3. Before any effective action could be taken, the Forest (Conservation) Act came into force on 25-10-1980. Without reference to that Act or applying his mind to the possible effects of that Act, the Divisional Forest Officer, Nenmara issued Ext.P2 notice to the Managing Partner of the firm calling upon him to remit a sum of Rs. 6,56,582.15 and to produce the original challan receipt immediately so as to enable him to take further action. The firm thereupon filed O.P. 6991 of 1983 before this court seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Conservator of Forests, Trivandrum and the State of Kerala to act in furtherance of the order of the Government dated 16-10-1980 marked herein as Ext.P1 and which was marked in that Original Petition also as Ext.P1. In that Original Petition, a copy which has been marked as Ext.P3 here, the firm stated that the draft of the lease deed required to be executed by the firm had not yet been finalised by the Chief Conservator of Forests, that the Chief Conservator of Forests and the State were bound t