Madras High Court
B. Rajammal Ammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 22 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)2MLJ549
ORDER Somasundaram, J.
1. The second petitioner in W.P. No. 8549 of 1989 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the said writ petition arc the respondents in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their nomenclature in the writ petition.
2. The deceased first petitioner K. Balu Chettiar was the successful bidder in the auction for the sale of the right to do cardamom cultivation and was granted lease of forest lands measuring 16.25 acres in Pambar undeveloped Reserve forest of Bodinaickanur Range (Now Kodaikanal range), with effect from 5.7.1964 for a period of 25 years. The said lease by efflux of time came to an end on 4.7.1989. On 1.2.1989 the said Balu Chettiar submitted an application for renewal of the lease for a further term, treating the renewal as a fresh lease in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 7.11.1979. The second respondent by the order dated 16.5.1989, declined to renew the lease on the ground of subsequent government orders and the revised policy of the State Government and called upon the deceased Balu Chettiar to surrender possession of the forest land to the forest ranger concerned. The first petitioner again pursued his claim by submitting his further application dated 23.5.1989 and inasmuch as the first petitioner was not successful in his attempt, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 8549 of 1989, projecting the following prayer:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiomrified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of Direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records relating to Na.Ka. No. 1664 of 1989 A-2, dated 16.5.1989 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the said order and direct the respondents herein to treat Lease No. 131 of the petitioner herein in Pambar undeveloped Reserve Forest originally Bodinaickanur Range now Kodaikanal Range of an extent of 16.25 acres as fresh lease for a period of 15 years from 5.7.1989 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first petitioner Balu Chettiar died and in W.M.P. No. 22193 of 1989, the second petitioner who is the wife and the third petitioner who is the son of the deceased first petitioner came to be substituted as petitioners 2 and 3 by the order dated 18.1.1990.
4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that the Government Order' dated 7.11.1979 did not assure any grant of fresh lease in favour of the first petitioner and the G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979, only declared that the existing lease on expiry will be treated as grant of fresh leases and that the grant of fresh leases would depend upon the person concerned fulfilling the conditions prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979. The respondents further contended that the subsequent G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988 alone will apply to the grant of lease on and after 1.7.1988and that no lease of the forest land could be granted after the issue of G.O. Ms. No. 779. It is the further case of the respondents that in view of the subsequent policy decision taken by the Government not to grant leases of forest lands for cardamom cultivation, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.
5. Mr. V.S. Ramakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relying on G.O. Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 7.11.1979, urged before the learned single Judge that in respect of leases which were current at the point of time when G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979 was issued, the lease concerned have to be dealt with and regulated only in terms of the said G.O. and the subsequent G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 11.7.1988 would apply only to new leases and not to those leases which were already covered by G.O. Ms. No. 1220 of 1979, dated 7.11.1979. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended before the learned single Judge that the lessees like the lease in favour of 1st petitioner are given protection by G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979, by providing 15 years lease in their favour and therefore, the respondents are bound to treat the lease in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of 16.25 acres of forest land as a fresh lease for a period of 15 years from 5.7.1979. The learned single Judge found no warrant to accept the pleas of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.
6. Mr. V.S. Ramakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated, before us, the very same contentions urged before the learned single Judge and further submitted that on 5.7.1964, a lease of forest land measuring 16.25 acres was granted in favour of the deceased first petitioner for a period of 25 years; the said period of 25 years expired by the efflux of lime on 4.7.1989. On 1.2.1989; the deceased first petitioner applied for renewal of the lease for a further term treating that the renewal as a fresh lease in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 7.11.1979, the said G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979 has not been expressly or by implication repealed or substituted; the lease in favour of the deceased first petitioner is given protection by G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979, and as per the terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1220, the petitioners are entitled to have a fresh lease for a period of 15 years from 4.7.1989. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the subsequent G.O. No. 779, dated 1.7.1988 would apply only to new leases and not to those which are already covered by G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979.
7. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant clause in G.O. Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 7.11.1979, relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners which runs as follows:
There may be cases where the lease is already in force according to earlier orders in excess of 15 years. In all such cases the lease will expire after the current period is over and thereafter it will be treated as a fresh lease subject to the present conditions, for a period of 15 years only and subject to the eligibility of the persons concerned.
It must be remembered that subsequently, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988 on the subject of grant of lease of forest land for cultivation of cardamom, after reviewing the policy which was in force earlier. As pointed out just now, the Government reviewed the policy which was in force before the issue of G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988 and on the basis of which the lease of forest land for cardamom cultivation to private persons was granted. The revision of the policy was necessitated because of the reasons stated in G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988 in the following terms;
Excessive use of fertilizer application and pesticides pollutes the soil and the water, affecting the health of environment. Keeping the ground in a loose condition by removing all ground flora on the pretext of elimination of weed growth for promoting the growth of cardamom adversely affects the soil edaphic conditions peculiar to semi ever green and evergreen forests, with far-reaching consequences. Hence it is considered necessary to re-examine the whole issue from ecological angles of cropping system under the fragile mountainous evergreen climax forests and see whether the cardamom growers can be gradually persuaded to give up cardamom cultivation eventually. The question of optimising yield should not be aided at, since it goes against the basic tenets of maintaining this fragile ecosystem itself. Hence it has to be considered whether it should be supported as a scheme for boosting up cardamoms production by private growers at the expenses of the general well-being and health of the fragile eco-system, in the larger national interests and they constitute the watershed of rivers emanating from such tracts.
While examining the proposal it has been considered that in view of the changed circumstances, no forest land may be leased out for cultivation of cardamom or any other crop in future in view of the policy laid down by the Forests Conservation Act, 1980, of the Government of India. The Chief Conservator of Forests had been consulted in the matter and he has agreed to the above view.
In view of the reasons extracted above for changing its policy the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988, directed that no forest land be leased for any cultivation purpose including cardamom cultivation.
8. In S. Balasubramaniam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. W.P. No. 19 of 1990, dated 8.1.1990, a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us is a party (Nainar Sundaram, J., as he then was), while upholding the constitutional validity of G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988, has observed as follows:
The reasons for the revision of the policy have been clearly spelt out. The same are intelligent and cogent. It is also not the case of the appellant that after the issuance of the impugned Government Order any private party has been given a lease, and therefore the charge against the Government Order as leveled in the petition has to fail. It is settled position that the State is obliged to protect the ecological balance and preserve the green forests from being exploited and eroded. If in the past the Government had allowed private leases, but has now decided, for the purpose of promoting the growth of the green forest and preserving the flora and the ecological balance, not to allow the exploitation of the forest land any further, no fault can be found with the same. In our opinion, it is not proper to make the Government a slave or prisoner of its policy once made for all times to come, particularly when revision of policy is in the interest of the State, the preservation of forests and ultimately for the benefit of the public at large. The interest of an individual cannot be preferred over the rights of the general public and the State. Preservation of forests, which is the green wealth of the nation, cannot be frowned upon, but deserves to be encouraged. The grievance of the petitioner that the policy should not have been reviewed has no merits and deserves notice only to be rejected. The revised policy applied to all equally and therefore the charge of discrimination is futile. In the above decision, the Division Bench of this Court taking note of G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988 repelled the contention of the appellant in that case, that the first renewal after the expiry of the original lease period is automatic and renewal should be granted. The ratio of the decision in W.A. No. 19 of 1990 directly applies to the facts of the present case and therefore, the claim of the petitioner either for renewal of the lease as such or for a fresh lease for a further period of 15 years in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979, cannot be countenanced. G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988 after specifically referring to the earlier policy of the Government with regard to the grant of leases of forest lands for cardamom cultivation as laid down in G.O. Ms.-No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 7.11.1979, states that the policy with regard to the lease of Forests land for cultivation of cardamom has been reviewed and the Government after reviewing its earlier policy issued the said G.O. The recitals in G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 1.7.1988, with reference to the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 1220, Forests and Fisheries Department, dated 7.11.1979, would have the effect of superseding the earlier policy it has taken in G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979. Therefore, the petitioners cannot place any reliance on G.O. Ms. No. 1220, dated 7.11.1979 in support of their claim that the petitioners acquired a right to have a lease of the forest land for 15 years, on the ground that the deceased first petitioner had a valid lease on the date of issue of G.O. Ms. No. 1220. Admittedly, in the present case, the period of lease granted in favour of the deceased first petitioner expired on 4.7.1989. G.O. Ms. No. 779, Forests and Fisheries Department, came into force with effect from 1.7.1988 and therefore, only the said G.O. 779 will apply to the case of the deceased first petitioner when he applied for the renewal of the lease on 1.2.1989. In those circumstances, the second respondent by the order challenged in this petition, relying on G.O. Ms. No. 779 dated 1.7.1988 rightly refused to renew the lease of the forest land in favour of the deceased first petitioner. Taking note of the above position, the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. We cannot take exception to the view taken by the learned single Judge, There is no merit in this writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.