Forest land lease on 134 acres set aside; State directed to restore forest and plantation within 12 months

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal by the State of Karnataka challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order which had permitted the Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Co‑operative Society to make a representation for continuation of a lease over forest land. The appeal raised the legality of the original grant and the scope for continuation of agricultural use on land classified as "forest".

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the grant of lease for agricultural purposes was legally untenable, and directed restoration of the 134 acres of forest land. The Bench observed that forest lands could not be released for non‑forestry purposes without prior approval of the Central Government and that the lease, which led to "devastation and deforestation of huge forest area", could not be perpetuated. The Court emphasised earlier interlocutory directions in Godavarman (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India) that "no de-reservation of forest/sanctuaries/national parks shall be effected." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The State was directed to restore the forest on the 134 acres by planting indigenous plants and trees in consultation with experts and to complete compliance within 12 months. The appeal was allowed and listed on December 17, 2026 for receipt of the compliance report.

Background The dispute arose from two executive orders dated 17 March 1973 and 30 June 1976 by which the State had purportedly granted 134 acres 6 guntas in Benachi and Tumarikoppa (Kalaghatagi Taluk, Dharwad) to the respondent cooperative on a ten‑year lease from 30 June 1976 for agricultural use. The society cleared trees and cultivated the area. The State terminated the lease by order dated 13 March 1985; writ petitions by the society were dismissed. The society later obtained partial relief in local civil proceedings which restrained the Forest Department from disturbing possession until eviction according to law; successive appeals by the State were dismissed and the State was observed to have erred in not evicting the society in accordance with law.

Pursuant to these proceedings, the Forest Department initiated eviction proceedings and issued an eviction order dated 22 June 2004; the Conservator rejected the society’s appeal on 12 December 2006 and the department took possession on 23 January 2007. The High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1079 of 2008 affirmed the Single Judge’s disposal of a writ petition by permitting the society to file a representation to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, which the State challenged before this Court.

The Supreme Court noted statutory constraints under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the continued precedents restraining de‑reservation, including the 2000 order in Centre for Environmental Law, WWF‑I v. Union of India and the continuing mandamus in Godavarman. The Court concluded that the original grant was "uncalled for" and illegal as it led to large‑scale deforestation and that no extension or perpetuation of the lease could be permitted without prior Central Government approval. Consequently, the impugned direction allowing the society to seek consideration for continuation of the lease was set aside. The Forest Department was directed to restore the land by indigenous plantation within 12 months; the matter was listed for compliance on December 17, 2026. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3661 OF 2011 Case Title: State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Co‑operative Society Limited Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment