Supreme Court Ruling on Forest Land Leasing: Central Government Approval Mandatory for Agricultural Use Under Forest Conservation Act

In a landmark judgment delivered on December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the protection of forest lands by categorically ruling that no forest land can be leased or utilized for agricultural purposes without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Cooperative Society Limited held that any lease granted in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is void ab initio and cannot be allowed to continue under any circumstances. [1] This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving India’s forest cover and preventing unauthorized diversion of forest land for non-forestry activities, particularly agriculture.

Background and Facts of the Case

The dispute originated from a lease agreement executed in 1976 by the Karnataka State Government, which granted approximately 134 acres of forest land located in Benachi and Tumarikoppa villages of Kalaghatagi Taluk in Dharwad District to the Gandhi Jeevan Collective Farming Cooperative Society Limited. The lease was granted for a period of ten years specifically for agricultural purposes. During the tenure of this lease, members of the cooperative society proceeded to clear the naturally grown trees on the land and commenced cultivation activities. Upon the expiry of the lease period on June 30, 1986, the State Government declined to renew or extend the lease arrangement. [2]

Following the State’s refusal to extend the lease, the cooperative society initiated a series of legal proceedings challenging the termination. The society filed writ petitions in 1985 and 1987, both of which were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court. Subsequently, a civil suit was instituted seeking protection of possession. Although the trial court partly decreed the suit by restraining interference except in accordance with law, 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. [3]

Despite the Forest Department having taken possession of the land, the Karnataka High Court granted liberty to the respondent society to submit a representation to the Central Government seeking continuation of the lease. This direction by the High Court prompted the State of Karnataka to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the grant of such liberty on the ground that it was contrary to the statutory provisions governing forest conservation and violated earlier binding directions issued by the apex court.

Legislative Framework: The Forest Conservation Act, 1980

Core Provisions and Restrictions

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted on October 25, 1980, as a critical legislative measure to prevent large-scale deforestation and regulate the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes across India. The Act established a centralized system of control whereby state governments and other authorities are required to obtain prior approval from the Central Government before undertaking any activity that would alter the forest status or character of land. [4] This legislative framework was necessitated by the alarming rate of forest degradation that was occurring in the decades preceding its enactment, driven largely by developmental pressures and commercial exploitation of forest resources.

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 forms the cornerstone of forest protection in India. This provision stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make any order directing that any reserved forest shall cease to be reserved, or that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose, or that any forest land may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or entity, or that any forest land may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land for the purpose of using it for reafforestation, except with the prior approval of the Central Government. [5]

Definition of Non-Forest Purpose

The Act specifically defines what constitutes a “non-forest purpose” through an explanation added by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 1988. According to this definition, non-forest purpose means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants, or for any purpose other than reafforestation. Importantly, agriculture squarely falls within this definition of prohibited non-forest activities. However, the definition excludes activities relating to or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, such as silvicultural operations, establishment of check-posts and infrastructure for forest staff, and eco-tourism facilities included in Forest Working Plans or Wildlife Management Plans. [5]

The Godavarman Case: Expanding Forest Protection

Landmark Interpretation of “Forest”

The Supreme Court’s approach to forest conservation has been significantly shaped by the landmark judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, decided on December 12, 1996. This case fundamentally redefined the understanding of what constitutes a “forest” for the purposes of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court held that the term “forest land” occurring in Section 2 will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. [6] This expansive interpretation was adopted to ensure that forest protection measures could not be circumvented through technical distinctions based on ownership patterns or official classifications.

The Godavarman case originated from concerns about illegal timber operations and deforestation in the Nilgiris region of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, an environmental activist, approached the Supreme Court to halt unauthorized timber harvesting that threatened the sandalwood forests and potentially endangered the sandalwood species itself. Recognizing that the issues raised extended far beyond a single region, the Court converted the matter into a continuing mandamus to address systemic failures in forest governance throughout the country. The Court issued wide-ranging national directives that included cessation of all non-approved forest activities such as sawmills, plywood mills, and mining operations, suspension of tree felling unless conducted under a central government-approved working plan, and a complete ban on timber movement from certain northeastern states. [7]

Binding Precedent and Continuing Mandamus

The Godavarman judgment has remained a continuing mandamus for nearly three decades, with the Supreme Court issuing periodic orders and directions to ensure effective implementation of forest land conservation measures. The Court in subsequent orders clarified that any non-forest activity within forest areas must cease forthwith unless specifically approved by the Central Government. This has created a robust framework wherein even activities that might have been permitted under state laws or earlier arrangements are now subject to strict central oversight and approval mechanisms. The judgment has been repeatedly relied upon by courts across the country to prevent unauthorized forest diversions and to order restoration of degraded forest lands.

Supreme Court’s Analysis in the Karnataka Case

Prohibition of Agricultural Activities on Forest Land

In the recent Karnataka judgment, the Supreme Court categorically observed that forest lands could not be allowed to be used for non-forestry purposes, which would include agriculture. The bench emphasized that granting permission to cultivate forest land would essentially require clearing of forest, and such a course of action is directly contrary to Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which precludes dereservation or use of forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior approval of the Central Government. [1] The Court noted that this interpretation is not merely based on the literal reading of the statute but is informed by the constitutional obligation to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife as mandated by Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.

The Court specifically rejected the argument that since the cooperative society had been cultivating the land for over a decade, there should be some consideration given to continue the arrangement. Instead, the bench held that the original grant of the lease itself was legally unsustainable and resulted in extensive deforestation and degradation of approximately 134 acres of forest land. The Court observed that no permission could have been granted to perpetuate the illegality committed while granting the lease of the forest land to the respondent cooperative society. This reflects the principle that prolonged illegality does not transform into a legal right, particularly when it concerns environmental protection and forest conservation where the harm caused is often irreversible.

Illegality of Lease Grants Without Central Approval

A crucial aspect of the Supreme Court’s reasoning was its finding that the lease granted in 1976 was itself contrary to law. While the Forest (Conservation) Act came into force in 1980, the Court noted that the principles of forest conservation and the requirement for sustainable forest management were well-established even prior to the enactment of the statute. More significantly, the Court held that once the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force, any renewal or continuation of the lease became impermissible without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government as mandated under Section 2 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the statutory framework governing forest conservation imposes an absolute embargo on the use of forest land for non-forestry purposes without central approval. [8]

The bench further held that the Karnataka High Court erred in granting liberty to the cooperative society to make a representation for continuation of the lease. Such a direction, according to the Supreme Court, was contrary to the binding precedents established in the Godavarman case and other subsequent judgments that have consistently held that any diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes must cease forthwith unless approved by the Central Government. The Court noted that allowing the cooperative society to make such a representation would effectively amount to sanctioning a process that sought to validate an illegal diversion of forest land, which is impermissible under the law.

Regulatory Mechanism and Approval Process

Central Government’s Authority and Procedures

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 vests the Central Government with exclusive authority to grant approvals for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. This centralized control mechanism was designed to ensure uniformity in forest conservation standards across the country and to prevent ad hoc decisions by state governments that might prioritize short-term developmental or revenue considerations over long-term environmental sustainability. The Central Government exercises this authority through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which has established detailed procedures and guidelines for considering proposals for forest land diversion.

Under the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, which were framed under Section 4 of the Act, any proposal for diversion of forest land must be submitted by the concerned state government to the Central Government through a prescribed format. The proposal must contain detailed information about the area of forest land proposed to be diverted, the purpose for which diversion is sought, details of trees to be felled, compensatory afforestation plans, and various other technical and environmental parameters. The Central Government has constituted a Forest Advisory Committee that examines these proposals and makes recommendations. Only after detailed scrutiny and consideration of environmental impacts, alternative options, and compensatory measures does the Central Government grant or refuse approval for forest land diversion.

Compensatory Afforestation and Net Present Value

An integral component of the regulatory framework is the requirement for compensatory afforestation whenever forest land is diverted for non-forest purposes. The principle underlying this requirement is that the loss of forest cover and the ecological services provided by forests must be compensated through afforestation on equivalent non-forest land. Additionally, user agencies are required to pay the Net Present Value of the forest land being diverted, which represents the present value of all future forest produce and ecosystem services that would have been available from the forest land in perpetuity. These funds are deposited in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), which was established pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in the Godavarman case.

Ecological Restoration and Remedial Measures

Direction for Forest Restoration

Having set aside the High Court’s judgment and prohibited any continuation of agricultural activities on the forest land in question, the Supreme Court issued specific directions for ecological restoration of the degraded area. The Court directed the Karnataka Forest Department to restore the forest on the 134 acres of land by planting indigenous plants and trees in due consultation with experts. The Court emphasized the importance of using indigenous species rather than exotic or commercial species to ensure that the ecological character of the original forest is restored to the maximum extent possible. [1]

The Court specified that the restoration work must be completed within a period of twelve months and directed that the matter be listed after one year for receiving a compliance report. This reflects the Court’s recognition that merely prohibiting further illegal activity is insufficient; active measures must be taken to reverse the environmental damage caused by decades of unauthorized cultivation. The direction for expert consultation ensures that the restoration efforts are scientifically sound and ecologically appropriate, taking into account factors such as soil conditions, climate, native species composition, and ecosystem dynamics.

Implications for Forest Governance

Strengthening Central Control

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the primacy of central government control over forest land diversion decisions. This centralized regulatory framework serves multiple important functions in forest governance. First, it ensures that forest conservation standards are applied uniformly across the country, preventing a race to the bottom where states might compete to offer easier clearances for developmental projects at the cost of environmental protection. Second, it provides a mechanism for balancing developmental needs with conservation imperatives at a national level, taking into account the cumulative impact of multiple projects rather than evaluating each proposal in isolation. Third, it helps prevent political or commercial pressures at the state level from compromising forest protection.

The judgment also clarifies that state governments cannot grant leases or permissions for use of forest land for agricultural or other non-forest purposes on their own authority, even if such land falls within state jurisdiction. Any such grants made without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are void ab initio and create no legal rights or interests in favor of the persons or entities to whom such grants are made. This principle applies regardless of how long such unauthorized uses may have continued or what investments may have been made based on such illegal grants.

Impact on Agricultural Expansion

The judgment has significant implications for agricultural expansion policies, particularly in regions where forest lands might be considered suitable for cultivation. The Court has made it unequivocally clear that agriculture constitutes a non-forest purpose within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and therefore any conversion of forest land for agricultural use requires prior approval from the Central Government. This requirement applies even to wasteland or degraded forest areas that might appear to have limited forest value. The Court’s reasoning is that allowing such conversions would set a dangerous precedent and could lead to widespread forest degradation, as areas with dense forest cover could be deliberately degraded to make them appear suitable for agricultural conversion.

The prohibition on agricultural use of forest land without central approval also serves to protect the rights and livelihoods of forest-dwelling communities and tribals who depend on forests for their subsistence. While the judgment does not directly address the rights recognized under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the Forest Rights Act itself operates within the framework of the Forest (Conservation) Act and does not permit conversion of forest land for commercial agricultural purposes. The emphasis is on recognizing and protecting traditional forest-based livelihoods rather than promoting large-scale agricultural conversion of forest areas.

Recent Amendments and Ongoing Debates

The Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023

In August 2023, Parliament enacted the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, which renamed the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 and introduced several substantive changes to its provisions. The amendments introduced Section 1A, which provided a narrower definition of forest land by specifying that the Act would apply only to land declared or notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or any other law, and land recorded in government records as forest as on or after October 25, 1980. The amendments also exempted certain categories of land from the Act’s purview and expanded the types of activities that could be carried out on forest land without requiring prior approval. [9]

Environmental groups and conservation activists challenged the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendments through public interest litigations filed in the Supreme Court. They argued that the amendments weakened forest protection by potentially excluding vast areas of forest land that had been brought within the Act’s protective ambit by the Godavarman judgment. The petitioners contended that the narrower definition of forest land could result in approximately 1.97 lakh square kilometers of forest land losing protection under the Act. In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court passed an interim order on February 19, 2024, directing that states and union territories should continue to follow the definition of “forest” as laid down in the Godavarman judgment until the completion of the process of identifying forest lands as per the amended Act. This interim order ensured that forest protection standards would not be diluted pending final adjudication of the constitutional challenges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the State of Karnataka case represents a significant reaffirmation of India’s commitment to forest conservation and environmental protection. By categorically holding that forest land cannot be leased or used for agricultural purposes without prior approval from the Central Government, the Court has reinforced the statutory framework established by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the judicial precedents set by the landmark Godavarman case. The judgment makes it abundantly clear that economic or developmental considerations cannot override the imperative of protecting and preserving forest ecosystems, which provide irreplaceable environmental services and support biodiversity.

The decision also serves as a stern warning to state governments and other authorities that grants of forest land made in violation of the statutory requirements are void and create no legal rights. The emphasis on ecological restoration through planting of indigenous species demonstrates the Court’s proactive approach to environmental remediation. As India grapples with the dual challenges of ensuring food security and protecting its remaining forest cover, this judgment provides clear legal guidance that forest conservation must remain paramount and that any proposals for utilizing forest land for agricultural or other purposes must undergo rigorous scrutiny and approval by the Central Government under the established regulatory framework.

References

[1] LiveLaw. (2024, December 19). Forest Land Cannot Be Leased Or Used For Agriculture Without Centre’s Prior Approval Under Forest Conservation Act: Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-rules-forest-land-lease-for-agriculture-illegal-forest-conservation-act-513900

[2] Business Standard. (2024, December 19). Forest land cannot be leased for farming without Centre’s approval: SC. Retrieved from https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/forest-land-cannot-leased-farming-without-centres-nod-sc-125121900552_1.html

[3] Verdictum. (2024, December 19). Forest Land Cannot Be Used For Non-Forestry Purposes Including Agriculture Without Central Government’s Prior Approval: Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/state-of-karnataka-ors-v-gandhi-jeevan-collective-farming-cooperative-society-limited-2025-insc-1461-1601827

[4] StudyIQ. (2025). Forest Conservation Act 1980, Objectives and Features. Retrieved from https://www.studyiq.com/articles/forest-conservation-act-1980/

[5] Indian Kanoon. Section 2 in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1642441/

[6] Indian Kanoon. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 December, 1996. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/298957/

[7] Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. (2025). India court case: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others. Retrieved from https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-vs-union-of-india-ors/

[8] India Legal. (2024, December 19). Supreme Court invalidates agricultural use of forest land without approval from Centre. Retrieved from https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/supreme-court-invalidates-agricultural-use-of-forest-land-without-central-nod/

[9] Drishti IAS. (2024, February 19). SC’s Interim Order on the Forest Conservation Act 2023. Retrieved from https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sc-s-interim-order-on-the-forest-conservation-act-2023