Context:

The Supreme Court of India has recently reaffirmed a strict interpretation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA), ruling that forest land cannot be leased or used for agricultural purposes without prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act. Any lease granted in violation of this statutory requirement has been declared illegal and void ab initio.

Background of the Case:

• • The case arose from an appeal filed by the Government of Karnataka against a 2009 Karnataka High Court order.
  • Between 1976 and 1986, the state government leased 134 acres and 6 guntas of forest land in Benachi and Tumarikoppa villages (Dharwad district) to a cooperative society for agricultural purposes.
  • The cooperative society cleared forest cover and commenced cultivation.
  • Upon expiry of the lease, the state government refused renewal and terminated the lease in 1985.
  • The cooperative society challenged the termination through multiple legal proceedings.
  • Ultimately, the Forest Department reclaimed possession in 2007 and initiated eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Forest Act.

Key Legal Issues Involved:

1.       Whether forest land can be used for agricultural purposes.

2.      Validity of leases granted without prior Central Government approval.

3.      Scope and mandatory nature of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

4.     Whether illegality can be perpetuated through judicial permission.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling:

1. Violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

·         Section 2 of the FCA prohibits diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior approval of the Central Government.

·         The Court categorically held that agriculture constitutes a non-forestry activity.

·         Allowing cultivation necessarily entails clearing of forest land, directly contravening the objectives of the Act.

2. Lease Was Illegal from the Outset

·         The Court held that the grant of the lease itself was unlawful, as it led to deforestation and environmental degradation.

·         Any lease executed in violation of the FCA is void ab initio and cannot be cured or validated retrospectively.

3. No Perpetuation of Illegality

·         The Court rejected the High Court’s direction permitting the cooperative society to seek continuation of the lease.

·         It unequivocally ruled that courts cannot grant relief that perpetuates an illegality.

4. Reliance on Environmental Precedents

·         The judgment relied on landmark environmental jurisprudence, particularly T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, which expanded the definition of “forest” and underscored the need for strict conservation norms.

Significance of the Judgment:

Environmental Protection

• • • Reinforces the precautionary principle and the doctrine of intergenerational equity.
    • Prevents large-scale diversion of forest land under the pretext of agricultural use.

Federal Balance

• • • Strengthens the Central Government’s supervisory role in forest conservation, even when forest land is under state ownership.

Rule of Law

• • • Sends a clear message that illegal executive actions cannot be legitimised by the passage of time or prolonged litigation.

Sustainable Development

• • • Clarifies that economic and livelihood activities must operate strictly within ecological and statutory limits.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a decisive advance in India’s environmental governance. By unequivocally holding that forest land cannot be diverted for non-forestry purposes without statutory approval and prioritising restoration over regularisation, the Court has upheld ecological integrity over short-term economic considerations. The judgment reaffirms India’s constitutional and statutory commitment to sustainable development and environmental protection.