IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 33948 of 2000(N) -------- ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. A. VENKATARAMANA BHAT. 2. A RADHAKRISHNA BHAT. 3. M. KRISHNA BHAT. 4. M. VENKATARAMANA BHAT. PETITIONER NO. 1 IS THE SON OF MAHALINGA BHAT AND PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE THE SONS OF NO.1 A. VENKATARAMA BHAT. ALL ARE HINDUS, AGRICULTURISTS, RESIDING IN ATHIKAJE HOUSE, MUNIYANGALA, MULIYAR VILLAGE.P.O., IRIYANNI, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SRI. U.P. KUNIKULLAYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI. RANJITH THAMPAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 33948 of 2000(N) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 -TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF GRANT NO. R. DIS. 329/49.C5 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH KANARA, MANGALORE. EXT.P1(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY LEASED. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO R.C.NO.1952/50.C5 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH KANARA, MANGALORE GRANTING PERMISSION TO BUILD SHEDS, DIG TANKS ETC, IN EXT.P1 PROPERTY. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REF. NO. D.DIS.1989/61 OF THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, WYNAD TRANSFERING EXT.P1 GRANT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND HIS 3 BROTHERS. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE CALLING UPON THE PETITIONERS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. EXT.P4(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. C3/139/98 ISSUED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KASARAGOD TO THE 1ST PETITIONER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KG.12030/99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, CALLING UPON THE PETITIONERS TO SURRENDER THE LEASED PROPERTY. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== O.P.No.33948 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners obtained lease of certain lands from the respondents for a period of 50 years as per Ext.P1 lease deed. As per clause 27 of the lease deed, the petitioners could apply for renewal of the lease, but it was made clear therein that the Government is under no obligation to renew the lease. Petitioners, relying on the said clause in Ext.P1 applied for renewal of the lease. By Ext.P4, the petitioners were directed to cure certain defects in the application. Subsequently by Ext.P4(a) petitioners were directed to appear for a hearing. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 order dated 23.10.2000, the application for renewal of lease was rejected and the land was directed to be resumed to the Government. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent - the Divisional Forest Officer, refusing to renew the lease. 2. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) would submit that petitioners have no enforceable right for getting the lease extended. Clause 27 only enables the petitioners to apply for renewal of lease granting of which was in the absolute discretion of the Government. He also points out that forest land cannot be O.P.No.33948 of 2000 - 2 - leased to private persons without prior approval from the Central Government. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) therefore supports Ext.P5 order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly the land in question is forest land. The lease was granted for 50 years which expired on 28.2.1999. Clause 27 of Ext.P1 reads thus: “27. If not less than three clear months before the expiry of this grant an application for its renewal is presented to the Dt. Forest Officer the Government may renew the grant, but shall in no case be deemed to be under an obligation to do so.” 5. Although the said clause permitted the petitioners to apply for renewal of the lease, it was specifically made clear in that clause itself that the Government was under no obligation to renew the lease. As such the petitioners do not have an enforceable right to get the lease renewed. It cannot now be disputed in view of various Supreme Court decisions on the subject as well as the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 that forest land cannot be subjected to any non-forest purposes except with the prior sanction of the Government of India. That being so, after the commencement of that Act no forest land in India can be leased to private individuals without prior sanction from the Government of India. O.P.No.33948 of 2000 - 3 - In the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P5 order wherein the Government refused to renew the lease. Of course the petitioners would rely on a judgment of this court in O.P.No. 566 of 1999 and connected cases wherein this Court has directed the Government or the concerned authority to take a final decision on the applications submitted by similarly situated persons. That does not in any way confer any right on the petitioners for renewal of the lease. In this case, the appropriate authority had taken decision by Ext.P5. The petitioners could not bring to my notice any legal infirmity in the same. The law after the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is that no forest land can be used for non-forest activities. Stringent provisions have been introduced which have been made more stringent by various decisions of the Supreme Court. The Act even makes it compulsory for the State Governments to get prior sanction from the Government of India to lease forest lands. That being so, I do not think that the petitioners as of right can claim that the lease in their favour should be extended for any further period. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs