Quashed

Sri Babu Reddy @ Rajanarendra Babu Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2013WP/15429/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, on preliminary hearing, quashed a notice requiring the petitioner to vacate alleged forest land. The Court directed the survey as ordered in a related writ petition to first determine if the land is forest or revenue area, holding the notice unsustainable pending the survey's completion and attempted withdrawal of the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 30.04.2012 was quashed; the petitioner was directed to withdraw the pending appeal and cooperate with the survey ordered in W.P.No.12996/2012.

Sri Babu Reddy @ Rajanarendra Babu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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.15429/2012 (GM-FOR)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Babu Reddy @ Rajanarendra Babu Reddy Aged about 50 years S/o late Ramachandra Reddy R/of Peddur Village Koorigepalli Post Rayalpadu Hobli Srinivasapura Taluk Kolar District. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri G R Mohan, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Revenue Department Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001

¶12

The Assistant Conservator of Forest Chinthamani Sub Division Chinthamani

¶13

The Forest Officer Srinivasapura Zone Srinivasapura

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

(By Sri Jagadish Mundargi, GA.)

¶16

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the respondents to remove the board put up illegally over the land of the petitioner in question under appeal before the Conservator of Forest.

¶18

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the

¶21

notice dated 30.04.2012 which is impugned at AnnexureM to the petition.

¶22

By the said notice, the respondents have directed

¶23

the petitioner to vacate from the land in question which is the subject matter of the impugned petition since it is alleged that the petitioner is in occupation of the forest land. While taking note of this aspect, what is also necessary to be noticed is that prior to the same, the order dated 28.02.2007 was passed under Section 64-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, whereby it was held that the land bearing Sy.No.2 measuring 5 acres 12 guntas to which the petitioner claims right, title and interest is within the forest area and therefore the petitioner cannot claim right to the said property and he is liable to be

¶24

¶25

evicted. The said order dated 28.02.2007 has been assailed in the statutory appeal which is pending consideration. Though the rights of the parties were required to be decided in the said appeal, the petition is taken up for consideration even on that aspect of the matter in view of certain circumstance that had intervened which becomes relevant.

¶26

In that regard, it is necessary to notice that one other owner of another extent of the property in the same survey number was before this Court in W.P.No.12996/2012 wherein the order passed by the Appellate Authority was in issue. In the said proceedings, this Court had taken note of an earlier order dated 16.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.39676/2010 wherein specific directions have been issued by this Court to conduct the survey in a particular manner in the presence of the Officers who had been specifically indicated therein. Since the said order had not been complied, this Court while disposing of W.P.No.12996/2012 on 11.07.2013 has directed the respondents to carryout a fresh survey in the manner as indicated therein.

¶27

¶28

It is in that circumstance, the instant petition is

¶29

taken up for consideration since the land to which the petitioner is claiming herein is contiguous to the lands which are involved in W.P.No.12996/2012 and similar contentions arise herein. Since the survey has already been ordered in the said case, in the instant case also, if such a survey is conducted, the rights of the parties could be determined in relation to the property of the petitioner herein. Learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that insofar as the directions issued in W.P.No.12996/2012, though notices have been issued to the parties but the survey is yet to commence.

¶30

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the interest of

¶31

the petitioner herein also could be protected notwithstanding the pending appeal since in any event the factual aspect as to whether the petitioner’s land is situate in a forest area or revenue area would be determined by the said survey. In that circumstance, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the appeal which has been filed would be withdrawn and the

¶32

¶33

petitioner would subject himself to the survey that would be conducted by cooperating with the respondents. If such survey is to be conducted and thereafter action is to be taken, certainly the notice dated 30.04.2012 impugned at Annexure-M in any event at this juncture would not be sustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to inform the petitioner and subject the land to which the petitioner claims right, title and interest also to the survey as ordered in W.P.No.12996/12 and thereafter come to a conclusion on the aspect in the manner as indicated above.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

akc/bms

Sri Babu Reddy @ Rajanarendra Babu Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Babu Reddy @ Rajanarendra Babu Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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

Anwar Vs Registrar Judicial