Partly allowed

Smt. Subhashini J. Rai D/O Late Vittal Rai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2013WP/1132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition challenging a notice to vacate forest land. It held that the notice failed to comply with previous Court directions and statutory requirements regarding reasons for non-renewal, dismissing the eviction portion.

What did the court decide?

The portion of the notice directing the petitioners to vacate the land stands quashed.

Smt. Subhashini J. Rai D/O Late Vittal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1132/2012 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUBHASHINI J. RAI D/O LATE VITTAL RAI W/O SERAJE JAYARAM RAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶9

SMT. SUKESHINI D SHETTY D/O LATE VITTAL RAI W/O DOMMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶10

SMT. SUVASINI V HEGDE D/O LATE VITTAL RAI W/O VIDYADARA S HEGDE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶11

SRI SUBHASHCHANRA RAI S/O LATE VITTAL RAI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶12

SMT. LAXMI R SHETTY D/O LATE VITTAL RAI W/O RAMANATHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶13

SRINIVAS RAI S/O LATE VITTAL RAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶14

GURUPRASAD RAI S/O LATE VITTAL RAI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶15

HARIPRASAD RAI S/O LATE VITTAL RAI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶16

¶17

REP. BY GPA HOLDER SURESH CHANDRA RAI S/O LATE VITTAL RAI AGED 55 YEARS

¶18

ALL R/AT YENMOORU VILLAGE KONTEL GARDEN, SULLIA TALUK D.K.DISTRICT.

¶19

... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI K RAVISHANKAR, ADV. )

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY M S BUIDLING, BANGALORE

¶23

THE PRINICPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYABHAVAN MALLESHWRAM, 18TH CROSS BANGALORE.

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF FOREST D.K.DISTRICT.

¶25

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER PANJA SUB DIVISION SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI JAGADISH MUNDARGI, GA. FOR R1-4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 23.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER / REPLY TO THE NOTICE DATED 14.12.2011 WHEREIN IT WAS DIRECTED TO VACATE THE PROPERTY ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST MARCH 2012 FAILING WHICH THE PETITIONER SHALL PAY RS.5,00,000/- PER MONTH FOR AN HECTARE BEYOND 1.3.2012 AS VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶29

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners are before this Court assailing the impugned notice dated 23.12.2011 and also the reply to the notice dated 14.12.2011 at Annexures-A and B.

¶32

The petitioners contend that they are the legal heirs of late Lalitha V.Rai, W/o late Vittal Rai. The land bearing Sy.No.125 measuring 5 acres situate at Yenmooru village, Kontel Garden, Sullia Taluk, D.K.District was granted by way of lease for a period of 50 years on 18.05.1959. The petitioners contend that they are continuing to occupy and cultivate the same. Presently since the notice at Annexure-A dated 23.12.2011 in fact is in the nature of an order directing the petitioners to vacate from the land, they are before this Court.

¶33

At the outset, what is necessary to be noticed is that at an earlier instance, when similar action was sought to be taken against the petitioners, they were before this Court in W.P.No.19338/2009. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition on 27.07.2009 was of the view that even though Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)

¶34

¶35

Act, 1980 (the ‘Act’ for short), also poses an embargo on such renewal or grant of lease, since the order impugned at Annexure-E did not disclose reasons, the same was

¶36

quashed and the matter had been remitted to the respondents to reconsider and pass appropriate orders. In that direction, this Court also directed the respondents to take into consideration the Act and relevant Rules regarding renewal of lease. Subsequent to the said order, no action has been taken by the respondents as directed

¶37

therein. In that view, when there was interference, the petitioners have got issued the legal notice. While replying to the said notice, the respondents have taken a contention that the petitioners have no right whatsoever. Thereafter the present impugned notice at Annexure-A has been issued.

¶38

Learned Government Advocate would no doubt

¶39

once again place reliance on the provisions contained in the Act and submit that the decision as to the renewal or otherwise of the grant is to be taken at the level of the Government and therefore, the request of the petitioners for renewal of lease cannot be considered. In that regard,

¶40

¶41

the averments made in the statement of objections is also relied on to contend that in respect of the Forest Land, the occupation cannot be permitted and no lease could be renewed in respect of forest land.

¶42

Having noticed these contentions and also keeping in view that the Government is yet to take decision and further keeping in view the directions issued by this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition, the short issue for consideration herein is as to whether the impugned notice dated 23.12.2011 satisfies the direction issued by this Court and whether the reasons which are presently being put forth by the learned Government Advocate was the consideration for issue of a notice. In that regard, a perusal of the same would indicate that though it is styled as notice, the subject indicated therein would reveal that it is a show cause notice under Section 82 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The reply has not been sought for from the petitioners and a detailed order is not made thereafter. But in the very same notice, the petitioners have been directed to immediately vacate from the land. This would

¶43

¶44

indicate that it does not satisfy the requirement as directed by this Court earlier nor does the said notice indicate reasons based on which the respondents have arrived at such conclusion i.e., to say as to whether the Government has taken a decision to renew the lease or not or as to whether there is a legal embargo as contained in the Act. But what has been stated in the notice is that the period of lease has expired and therefore the petitioners should vacate. Therefore, the same does not satisfy the requirement as noticed above.

¶45

Hence, the portion of the notice directing the petitioners to vacate shall stand quashed. The same shall be treated as a show-cause notice and further while considering the reply that may be given by the petitioners, the respondents shall also keep in view the directions issued by this Court earlier and also the legal provisions and thereafter come to the conclusion based on a considered order. The reply to the show cause notice shall also indicate the reasons for the admissions made in the reply to the legal notice that had been issued by the petitioners.

¶46

¶47

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

akc/bms

Smt. Subhashini J. Rai D/O Late Vittal Rai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Subhashini J. Rai D/O Late Vittal Rai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Co-Operative Fisheries Federation Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S G Gayathri Vs Dr T v Srinivas

Kere Thonnur Meenugarara Sahakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramanatha M Hegde Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri Babu Reddy @ Rajanarendra Babu Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Anwar Vs Registrar Judicial