Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) To declare that the cancellation of lease by Ext.P10 order is non-est in the eye of law.
(v) To grant such other relief as this Honourable Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice."

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government opposing the Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit it has been pleaded that the lands purchased by the petitioner on 26.04.1994 were the lands comprised in reserve forest which were leased out between 1933 to 1947. Leased land could not have been sold to the petitioner. Provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereinafter W.A. No. 89 of 2011 & W.P(C) No.18339 of 2011 referred to as "the 1980 Act") are applicable and the petitioner was using the forest land, also for non-forest purpose, i.e., tourism resort. The original lessee had no right of alienation of the Estate. Government have rightly initiated action to cancel the lease conforming to the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act") and the 1980 Act. An Order dated 10.01.2011 was issued by the Government stating for not accepting any tax from the estates as the State proposed to cancel the lease. Use of forest land for non-forest purpose is prohibited by the 1980 Act. Petitioner has converted the entire area into resorts, parks, dairy farms, etc., violating the provisions of the 1980 Act. The area was inspected and report was submitted mentioning that the property was used for non-forest purpose by running resorts, etc. Reply was also filed by the petitioner. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the 1980 Act has no retrospective operation and sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioner under orders of this Court. It was further pleaded that there being provisions for amending the lease deeds, application was W.A. No. 89 of 2011 & W.P(C) No.18339 of 2011 submitted to the Government.

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "non-forest purpose"

(i) any order directing that any reserved forest or any portion thereof shall cease to be a reserved forest, (ii) that any forest land or portion thereof may be used for any non forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned, by way of lease or otherwise, to any private person or to any authority or corporation, agency or any other organisation, not owned, managed or controlled by the Government, (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared or trees which have grown natural in the land or portion for the purpose of using it for reforestation. Clauses (iii) and (iv) were added by Amendment Act 69 of 1988 w.e.f. December 19, 1988. The explanation thereto of non forest purpose was defined to mean the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for the cultivation of but does not include any work relating to ancillary to conservation development and management of forest and wild life, namely, establishment of check posts, fire lines ......... or other like purposes. S.2, therefore, prohibits de - reservation of the forest or use of any forest land for and non forest purpose or assignment by way of lease or otherwise of any portion of land to any private person other than Government controlled or owned, organised or managed by the State Government agency; it prohibits clearance of trees or natural growth in the forest land or any portion thereof W.A. No. 89 of 2011 & W.P(C) No.18339 of 2011 to use it for reforestation, except for preservation. Breaking up or clearance of forest land or a portion thereof is amplified to be of non forest purpose. The object of the F.C. Act is to prevent any further deforestation which causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental degradation. it is, therefore, necessary for the State Government to obtain prior permission of the Central Government for (1) de - reservation of forest; and (2) the use of forest land for non forest purpose. The prior approval of the Central Government, therefore, is a condition precedent for such permission. The State Governments are enjoined by FC Act, with power coupled with duty, to obtain prior approval of the Central Government. The leases/renewal of leases otherwise are good.

42. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further W.A. No. 89 of 2011 & W.P(C) No.18339 of 2011 placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi ([1985] 3 SCC 643) in support of his argument that in event permission had been granted for breaking of reserve forest prior to enforcement of the 1980 Act, permission of the Central Government is not required. It is submitted that in the present case plantation lease was granted prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Act, hence the provisions of the the 1980 Act shall not apply. The judgment in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi (supra) was explained by the Apex Court in a Constitution Bench in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujrat and Others ([1987] 1 SCC 213) where it was held that the ratio of judgment in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi (supra) has to be understood in the background of facts of that case. As noted above, in Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala (supra) after considering all the relevant judgment, the Three Judges Bench held that after enforcement of the 1980 Act neither the State Government nor any authority can make an order or direction for de- reservation of forest or permit use of forest land for non- W.A. No. 89 of 2011 & W.P(C) No.18339 of 2011 forest purpose or any portion thereof assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority or corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except with the prior approval of the Central Government. From the above discussion it is clear that petitioner has used the leased land for non-forest purpose, i.e., for running tourism resort after the enforcement of the 1980 Act which was in clear violation of the provisions contained in Section 2 of the 1980 Act. For violation of the statutory provisions as contained in Section 2 of the 1980 Act, the State has rightly proceeded to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and cancelled the lease. The action of the State for cancellation of the lease granted to the petitioner was thus fully in accordance with the provisions of the 1980 Act. Ext.P10 cannot be faulted.