Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed a State government’s appeal and declined a cooperative society’s plea to continue cultivating forest land, holding that forest land cannot be leased or used for agriculture without prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that any lease granted in violation of this requirement is illegal and cannot be continued. The dispute arose from a lease of around 134 acres of forest land for cultivation, which the Forest Department later treated as unauthorized and recovered. Setting aside the order that had enabled the society to seek continuation, the Court directed restoration of the area by planting indigenous species within 12 months.

The dispute arose from a grant of forest land by the State Government to a cooperative society for agricultural purposes. The State had leased approximately 134 acres of land situated in two villages of Kalaghatagi Taluk, Dharwad District, for a fixed term of ten years commencing in 1976. During the lease period, the lessee cleared forest cover and cultivated the land. Upon expiry of the lease, the State declined renewal and formally terminated the lease in 1985.

Also Read: Individual Partner Firms Can Claim Proportionate Joint Venture Work Experience For Future Tenders When Applying Solo: Supreme Court

Subsequent legal proceedings were initiated by the lessee challenging the termination, including writ petitions and civil suits. While earlier civil proceedings resulted in protection of possession until eviction through due process, the Forest Department later initiated eviction proceedings under the applicable forest laws. Orders directing eviction were passed and upheld in appeal. Physical possession of the land was taken by the Forest Department in January 2007.

Despite this, a writ petition was later disposed of by granting liberty to seek continuation of the lease through representation. This direction was affirmed in appeal, prompting the State to approach the Supreme Court. The principal issue concerned the legality of permitting agricultural use of forest land and the permissibility of granting or continuing such a lease under the governing forest conservation framework.

The Court examined the factual record and statutory framework governing forest land. It recorded that “the very grant of lease to the respondent-Cooperative Society for agricultural purposes was uncalled for because it led to devastation and deforestation of huge forest area admeasuring nearly 134 acres.” The Bench noted that the land in question fell within the category of forest and remained under the ownership and control of the Forest Department.

The Court stated that “This Court in a catena of decisions has passed numerous mandatory directions prohibiting de reservation of forest. Granting permission to cultivate the forest land would essentially require clearing of forest and such a course of action is in the teeth of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which precludes de-reservation or use of forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior approval of the Central Government… Thus, no permission could have been granted to perpetuate the illegality committed while granting the lease of the forest land to the respondent-Cooperative Society”

The Bench recorded that the lessee had already enjoyed possession for more than a decade and held that “the respondent-Cooperative Society, having enjoyed cultivatory possession over the forest area for a period of more than 10 years, was not entitled for any further extension of the lease which was in the first place illegally granted.”

The Court also took note of the admitted fact that possession had already been taken over by the Forest Department. It observed that “the Forest Department, State of Karnataka has taken possession of the forest land on 23rd January, 2007.” In this background, the Court stated that permitting consideration of continuation of the lease would amount to perpetuating an illegality. It recorded that “no permission could have been granted to perpetuate the illegality committed while granting the lease of the forest land.”

Also Read: Institute For Plasma Research Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction As “State” Under Article 12: Gujarat High Court

The Court held that “the impugned order whereby, the respondent-Cooperative Society was given an opportunity to make a representation to be considered by the Central Government for continuation of the lease on the forest land is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

“The Forest Department, State of Karnataka is directed to restore the forest on the 134 acres of released land by planting indigenous plants, trees in due consultation with the experts.” Compliance with the above direction be made within 12 months. The appeal is allowed in these terms.”

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Co-operative Society Limited
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1461
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 3661 of 2011
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta