K. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 1143 · Decided: 05-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1143 
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Civil Appeal No. 4994 of 2004) 
MAY 05, .2011 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Forest Conversation Act, 1980: Leasehold land, a 
reserved forest land - Non-renewal of lease by the· State · C 
Government - Challenged - Held: The leasehold land in 
question was surrounded by thick forest in East Aletty 
Reserved Forest land which was near to the boundary o( 
Kera/a and Karnataka State - Extending the period of tease 
in respect of the 'said area was likely to cause problems for D 
the movement of men and vehicles - Lessees had already 
raised Areca, Coconut and Cashew trees on the 'leasehold 
lands and those trees were fully developed and in the event · 
of extending the lease period, it was likely that the lessee 
would commence fresh cultivation on the land in question - · 'E 
The intention or the Government was to develop naturally 
' 
grown forests over the lands which could only be done if the 
possession was taken by the Government - By virtue of the 
1980 Act, no State Government or other authority could pass 
an order or give a direction for de-reservation of reserved 
F 
forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land 
or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any 
lease, etc. in respect of forest land to any private person or 
any authority, corporation, agency or organisation which wa.s 
not owned, managed or controlled by the Government - Even 
if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for.non-
G 
forest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a 
particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the 1980 
Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended by way of 
1143 
H 
1144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 
A renewal of lease or otherwise after 25-10-1980 without 
obtaining prior approval of the Central Government - State 
Government rightly refused the claim of lessee to renew the 
lease. 
8 
The appellant was the lessee of the land in question. 
The lease in regard to a portion of the land was to expire 
on 31st March, 1999 and in regard to remaining portion 
in the year 2000. The appellant sought renewal of the 
lease. On 25th March 2000, the State Government rejected 
C the claim of the appellant and directed the appellant to 
hand over the possession of the leasehold land back to 
the forest department. The reasoning of the order of the 
State Government was that the leasehold land was 
surrounded by thick forest in East Aletty Reserved Forest 
Land and this area was near to the boundary of Kerala 
D and Karnataka State and in the event of extending the 
period of Lease in respect of this area, it was likely to 
create the problem for movement of 'men and vehicles. 
The lessees had already raised Areca, Coconut and 
Cashew trees on the leasehold lands and those trees had 
E fully developed and in the event of extending the lease 
period, it was likely that the lessees would commence 
fresh cultivation on the land in question. Therefore, in 
order to protect the interest of forest, the State 
Government did not renew the lease deed. 
F 
The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court 
which was dismissed. The Division Bench of the High 
Court dismissed the appeal holding that the issue was 
concluded by Supreme Court in case of T.N. Godavarman 
wherein it was held that no forest area should be used 
G for non-forestal activities. The instant appeals were filed 
challenging the order, of the High Court. 
,, 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR v. STATE OF 
1145 
KARNATAKA 
HELD: 1. It is not correct to state that the arecanut A 
cultivation cannot be treated as a non-forestal activity, 
merely because it does not involve any cutting of the 
trees. On the other hand, the State Government has given 
cogent and valid reasons for non-renewal of the lease. 
·The order passed by the Government made it clear that 
B 
the leasehold land was surrounded by thick forest in East 
Aletty Reserved Forest land which was near to the 
boundary of Kerala and Karnataka State. It noticed that 
extending the period of lease in respect of this area was 
likely to cause problems for the movement of men and c 
vehicles. The lessees had already raised Areca, Coconut 
and Cashew trees on the leasehold lands and those trees 
were fully developed. Therefore, in the event of extending 
the lease period, it was likely that the le

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.