JUDGMENT

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J)

The appellants have brought this appeal questioning the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge, in the order dated 10.01.2019 passed in WP.No.15323 of 2005.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased Rangasamy, who is the husband and father of the appellants, is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation. He was granted lease by the second respondent/District Forest Officer in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.741 at Chennaimalai Village, measuring an extent of 25 cents to run a Petrol Bunk on 06.02.1969 and thereafter, he installed a Petrol Bunk. Subsequently, on 06.04.1971, the second respondent also granted lease to the petitioner to run a Kerosene Bunk. Thereafter, the total extent of land measuring 50 cents, is in possession and enjoyment of the appellants, in which, they are running the Petrol Bunk and the Kerosene Bunk. After expiry of the lease period, the Conservator of Forests, Erode had recommended the Government to renew the lease in favour of the appellants, vide his proceedings dated 01.06.2001. The appellants were in full hope that the lease period will be extended further, but to their shock and surprise, the second respondent issued a notice dated 25.08.2003, directing the appellants to vacate the premises within 15 days informing that their request for renewal of lease was cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed WP.No.25667 of 2003. The respondents insisted for withdrawal of the said Writ Petition for re-consideration of renewal of lease and hence, the appellants withdrew the Writ Petition with liberty. However, the first respondent, vide proceedings, dated 15.03.2003, rejected the proposal. Consequently, the second respondent, vide his proceedings dated 23.03.2005 directed the appellants to vacate the premises within a period of

30 days.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are running the Petrol Bunk and also Kerosene Bunk only after getting necessary approval. Though the District Forest Officer recommended extension of lease in favour of the appellants, the same was rejected. The lease was entered even before the promulgation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and hence, the said Act is not applicable to this case. The learned Single Judge completely ignored the said aspect.

4. Arguing further, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Petrol and Kerosene Bunks were installed 50 years back and there is no necessity for them to put any new construction. Hence, there is no question of de-forestation. Further, there is no complaint against the appellants alleging that they are endangering atmosphere in the Reserve Forest by constructing buildings or uprooting trees even near the Petrol Bunk.

5. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram Modi and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 814, held that if any permission is granted by the Central Government for a lease before the promulgation of the Act, then the application for renewal of lease can be considered. However, in the present case, the State Government has not forwarded the appellants' application seeking renewal of lease to the Central Government. Since the Central Government is the competent authority, the State Government cannot prevent the appellants from running the Petrol and Kerosene Bunks.

6. In reply, Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted to preserve Forest. It prevents deforestation and ensures preservation of ecological balance to save wild animals and nature. After enactment of the said Act, any lease granted inside the Forest has to be approved by the Government of India, though lease was granted prior to 1980. In the present case, after expiry of the lease on 31.03.1994, the said Rangasamy filed application for renewal of lease and the same was forward