The Supreme Court has held that forest land cannot be leased or diverted for agricultural use without prior approval of the Central government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that any lease granted in violation of the statutory mandate is void ab initio and incapable of continuation.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on Thursday emphasised that the statutory framework governing forest conservation imposed an absolute embargo on de-reservation of forest land or its use for non-forest purposes, including agriculture, without express prior approval of the Central government.
The Apex Court noted that permitting cultivation on forest land necessarily entailed clearing of forest cover, an outcome directly contrary to the object, scheme, and mandatory requirements of the 1980 Act.
In this context, the Court referred to a consistent line of precedents in which binding directions had been issued to prevent de-reservation and diversion of forest land. It observed that any administrative or judicial indulgence that enabled continuance of an unlawful lease would amount to perpetuating an illegality committed at the threshold, thereby undermining the statutory prohibition under Section 2 of the Act.
On this reasoning, the Bench set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had allowed a cooperative society to pursue continuation of a lease over forest land by submitting a representation to the forest authorities and the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Supreme Court held that once the original grant itself was illegal, no equitable or procedural remedy could be invoked to sustain its continuation.
The Court further held that the lease granted to the respondent cooperative society for agricultural purposes was contrary to law and resulted in extensive deforestation of approximately 134 acres of forest land. It was observed that forest land, by its very nature and statutory character, could not be utilised for non-forestry purposes, and that agriculture squarely fell within the category of prohibited activities unless approved in accordance with the Act.
Allowing the civil appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, the Court overturned the High Court’s 2009 judgment, which had affirmed an earlier order granting liberty to Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Co-operative Society Limited to make a representation for continuation of the lease. The High Court had also directed that such representation be forwarded to the Union Ministry for consideration, a course of action the Supreme Court found to be legally untenable.
The dispute concerned 134 acres and 6 guntas of land situated in Benachi and Tumarikoppa villages of Kalaghatagi Taluk in Dharwad district. The land, classified as forest land and under the control of the Forest Department, had been leased by the State Government to the respondent society in 1976 for a period of ten years for agricultural purposes. During the subsistence of the lease, large tracts of forest were cleared and brought under cultivation.
Upon expiry of the lease on June 30, 1986, the State declined to grant any extension and formally terminated the lease by an order dated March 13, 1985. This termination was challenged through writ petitions filed in 1985 and 1987, both of which were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court. The society thereafter instituted a civil suit seeking protection of possession. Although the trial court partly decreed the suit by restraining interference except in accordance with law, subsequent appeals filed by the State were dismissed, with the courts observing that eviction ought to be carried out through due process.
Pursuant to these observations, the Forest Department initiated eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Forest Act and the Karnataka Forest Manual. An eviction order was passed on June 22, 2004, and the society’s statutory appeal before the Conservator of Forests was rejected on December 12, 2006. Physical possession of the land was taken over by the Forest Department on January 23, 2007.
Before the Supreme Court, the State contended that the land in question constituted forest land within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and remained vested in and possessed by the Forest Department. It was submitted that the land was no longer under cultivation and that any attempt to revive or continue the lease was barred by law. The State relied on the landmark orders passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) and Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I v. Union of India (2000), which categorically prohibited de-reservation of forests or diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval of the Central Government.
Accepting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the original grant of lease was legally unsustainable and that no authority, including the High Court, could have sanctioned a process that effectively sought to validate an illegal diversion of forest land. The Court further noted that since possession had already been lawfully resumed by the Forest Department in 2007, the High Court’s direction permitting a representation for continuation of the lease had no legal foundation.
In exercise of its powers, the Court directed the Forest Department of Karnataka to undertake restoration of the forest land by planting indigenous trees and vegetation, in consultation with subject-matter experts. The restoration exercise was directed to be completed within a period of twelve months. The matter was directed to be listed on December 17, 2026, for submission of a compliance report evidencing reforestation and ecological restoration.
The post Supreme Court invalidates agricultural use of forest land without approval from Centre appeared first on India Legal.