The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no vested right for a lessee to claim renewal of a lease, and the State has the authority to consider various factors for permitting renewal.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against judgment dated 10/08/2015 in WP (C) No. 29483 of 2009. The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the order of State Government by which, the State Government by Ext. P. 1 order dated 24/09/2009 has refused renewal of lease of 7 acres of forest land. Petitioner's grandfather was leased out 7 acres of forest land in Kasaragod range under the Kannur division under order dated 26/02/1949. A lease for 50 years w.e.f. 01/03/1949 was also executed for raising various agricultural crops. Original lessee died and thereafter the leased land was partitioned and registered in the name of one Chikapa Naik. After the death of Chikapa Naik, the property has been managed by the writ petitioner.

2. Petitioner had filed the writ petition being WP (C) No. 33939 of 2000 which was disposed of on 08/01/2009 directing the State Government to take a decision. In consequence to the order of the Court, the State Government considered all aspects and decided to refuse renewal of the lease. The order passed by the State Government was challenged in the writ petition by the petitioner. Learned Single Judge upheld the order of the State Government. Learned Single Judge referred to three judgments of this Court where it was held that lessee has no vested light to seek renewal of lease. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the writ appeal contended that original lessee had died long back i.e. in the year 1974 and the respondents permitted the leased land to be occupied by the heirs of original lessee and even after enforcement of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, no action was taken, which means that the State has permitted the use of land for non-forest activity and on such ground, the lease could not have been refused to be renewed.

4. It is submitted that there was a legitimate expectation in the writ petitioner that lease shall be renewed. It is further submitted that the ground given by the State Government that after the death of petitioner's grandfather in 1974, lease became void, which reason is not correct. It is submitted that prior approval of the Central Government was not obtained under the Forest Conservation Act 1980, hence, the renewal could not have been refused. It is further submitted that the petitioner was entitled for Kumki rights in the trees which were planted by the petitioner in the leased land.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the records.

6. Insofar as the question for the decision of the Government refusing renewal, it is well settled that there is no vested right in the lessee to claim renewal. At the time of renewal, the State has to take into consideration the various factors for permitting renewal of the lease. In the order itself, it has been stated that the department waited for period of lease to come to an end to resume the land. The learned Single Judge has rightly referred to the judgment of this Court where it was held that the lessee cannot claim any vested right to seek renewal of the lease.

7. The submission pressed by learned counsel for the appellant that after the death of the petitioner's grandfather, petitioner and other predecessor-in-interest were allowed to continue with the land and no action was taken for violation of the terms of lease, hence, it will be presumed that non-forest use of the land was impliedly permitted. The mere fact that the State did not take any action for resumption of land on violation of the terms and condition before the period of 50 years came to an end, cannot be said to be an action on the part of the State for condoning breach of the condition of the lease. Nor the State can be presumed to have given the permission for use of the land for non-forest activity. In fact, the State has no power to permit use of forest land for non-forest activity ex