Quashed

Mrs Anusuya v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2021WP/42030/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka issued a writ of certiorari quashing statutory orders made under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Due to procedural lapses in demarcating reserved forest land, the matter was remitted to the Deputy Conservator of Forest for fresh consideration involving the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to quash impugned orders; matter remitted to R-3 for afresh consideration.

Mrs Anusuya Vs the Principal Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.42030 OF 2014 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. ANUSUYA W/O MALLAPPA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NEMMARU VILLAGE, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577139.

¶9

K.M.DHARMENDRA KUMAR HEGDE S/O MALLAPPA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NEMMARU VILLAGE, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577139.

¶10

..PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYARAMA BHATT S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKKAMAGALUR CIRCLE, CHIKKAMAGALAUR-577101.

¶15

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOPPA SUB DIVISION, KOPPA-577136.

¶16

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DCF KOPPA SUB DIVISION, KOPPA-577136.

¶17

¶18

5. RANGE FOREST OFFICER NARASIMHARAJAPURA, KOPPA TALUK-577136..

¶19

RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE PRODUCED AT ANNX-B & C RESPECTIVELY BEARING DOCUMENTS DT:6.3.2008 & 7.4.2008, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-F DT:2.5.2009 & THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-G BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS REGARD AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS DEEM FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court

¶25

for assailing the statutory orders u/s 64A & 64(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 made by the jurisdictional respondent authorities whereby, their land comprised in the Grant Order, having been treated as being part of the reserve forest constituted pursuant to Section 17 Notification dated 4.4.2006 & gazetted on 29.6.2006, a copy whereof is placed on record along with Memo, they are directed to be removed from the said land.

¶26

¶27

After service of notice, the official respondents

¶28

having entered appearance through the learned HCGP, oppose the Writ Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed; learned HCGP contends that the survey having been done inter alia in respect of the land comprised in Sy.No.62, the authorities have drawn a map which shows that the subject land claimed by the petitioners is included within the Reserve Forest; so contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶30

(a) Chapter II of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963

¶31

provides for ear-marking certain lands as the Reserve Forest or the lands belonging to the Forest Department by following the prescribed procedure which ultimately results into issuance of the Notification by the Govt. in terms of section 17; there is some prima facie material produced by the

¶32

¶33

petitioners to show that they have been granted the subject land which happens to be a part of Sy.No.62, since phoded.

¶34

(b) There is force in the submission of learned counsel

¶35

for the petitioners that when the proceedings were initiated for ear-marking the Reserve Forest, the entire land comprised in Sy.No.62 admeasuring 230 Acres was included, later, a big chunk thereof has been left out i.e., about 169 Acres at the time the final notification has been issued; therefore, whether petitioners’ land fits into the notified land or the left out land, has to be scrupulously ascertained by the authorities with the participation of one Asst. Director of Land Records, one Surveyor, one Revenue Inspector & the petitioners as well; this having not been done, there is a breach of fair standard procedure expected of the statutory authorities.

¶36

(c) In more or less a similar fact matrix i.e., in the case of Sri.Ramachandrapura Mutt Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.36699/2015 (GM-FOR) disposed off by this Court on 13.9.2021, this court has nearly treated the subject matter on a similar footing and granted relief to the litigant; that being the position, a relief to similarly circumstanced litigants, cannot be denied.

¶37

¶38

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders; matter is remitted to the third respondent for consideration afresh in the light of the observations herein above made.

¶39

Till such consideration takes place and four weeks thereafter lapse, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners; all contentions are kept open.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

cbc

Mrs Anusuya v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Anusuya v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Srikantha Rao Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Sri. S Anthony Raj Jayakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Bajaj Allianz Gic Ltd. Vs Smt. P C Sharada

M/S Tyre Works Vs the Managing Director

Smt Shanaz Begum Vs the Muslim Boys Orphanage

M/S. Sas Cargo Vs Union of India