The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of lease conditions, specifically clauses 12 and 14, in the context of forest lease termination and the authority of the Government to enforce such conditions.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P39 order of the Government confirming its decision to terminate the lease of 246.26 acres reserve forest land (Beatrice Estate) at Nelliampathy in Palakkad district on grounds of violation of conditions of the lease agreement dated 15.12.1979 and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the 'FC Act'. Ext.P41 proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara holding that Smt.Meera Scaria, the Managing Partner of the writ petitioner firm, is not entitled to the amount in deposit in terms of earlier proceedings is also under challenge.

2. In terms of a notification of January, 1953, certain abandoned portions of Beatrice Estate was auctioned out by the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin Government. One P.I.Joseph bid and took possession of an extent, including 246.26 acres out of the south block on 10.5.1955. He, however, did not execute any lease agreement with the Government and later, that area was assigned by him under Ext.P6 sale deed to K.K.Joseph. That document dated 28.2.1974 was registered on 15.3.1974 in the jurisdictional Sub Registrar's Office. A partnership with K.K.Jospeh as the Managing Partner was also constituted. The lease agreement between K.K.Joseph and the Government through the DFO was entered into on 15.2.1979. On 16.12.1983, the writ petitioner firm registered a transfer deed for 50 acres in favour of one Raghavan and his family from out of the leased area. After that, K.K.Joseph retired from the firm. It appears that though such assignment deed was executed in favour of Raghavan and others, the firm of which K.K.Joseph was a partner, continued to be in possession and was also paying lease rent for the entire area. On the premise that the transfer in favour of Raghavan and others was made without obtaining prior sanction and that the said fact was noticed by the writ petitioner firm only after K.K.Joseph retired from the firm, an application was filed for permission to have the said property re-conveyed from the heirs of Ragahvan. An application for NOC in that regard was filed as Ext.P25 before the DFO.

3. While the aforesaid application was pending, Ext.P14 notice was issued to Smt.Meera Scaria, the Managing Partner of the writ petitioner firm, to vacate the estate.

4. It also appears that in the meanwhile, the Government decided to regularise all transfers of leases in Nelliampathy, however that, the said decision was later revoked, which ultimately stand confirmed by the Government after that issue was remitted by the Apex Court in a different litigation.

5. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, the petitioner firm was evicted as per Ext.P29 termination order. That led to a writ petition which resulted in Ext.P34 judgment quashing the proceedings and remitting the matter to the Government. That writ petition gave rise to two writ appeals; by the State and by the writ petitioner. They were ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P35 judgment, which contains certain observations touching the facts of the case, however, clarifying that the issues are being left for the decision of the Government. On further appeal to the Apex Court, certain clarifications were issued and the Government were directed to pass final orders.

6. Following that, Ext.P37 notice was issued on 29.7.2004 on different grounds. (i) M/s.Joseph & Co., the writ petitioner herein, is an encroacher and squatter of forest land. (ii) K.K.Joseph sold 50 acres to Raghavan and others and the balance area was transferred to the writ petitioner firm, which transfers are in violation of clauses 12 and 14 of the lease deed. This ground was raised by the Government on the premise that K.K.Joseph was a lessee in his personal capacity and he violated clause 14 of the lease agreement by assigning 50 acres to Raghavan and others. (iii) The land in question is Reserve Forest and the petitioner's possession of the Government leased Forest land is illegal