Disposed

Sri H K Gurumurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023WP/53685/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notice seeking termination of a forest lease and cutting of standing trees while the petitioner's land application was pending. The Court held that initiating action was unjustified during pendency and directed the respondents to consider the application within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.5 to consider the petitioner's pending application for grant of land within six months and thereafter provide an opportunity to show cause.

Sri H K Gurumurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 53685 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.53685 OF 2018 (GM-FOR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI H.K. GURUMURTHY, S/O LATE KALA NAIK, R/AT SIRINALLI VILLAGE, BALUKOPPA VILLAGE, MANDAGADDE HOBLI, THIRTHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 226.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, VIKASA SOUDHA/M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 226.

¶13

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATIVE OF FOREST, SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA 577 226.

¶14

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, HANAGERE RANGE, SIRIGERE, THIRTHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 226.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 53685 of 2018

¶17

THE SIRANAHALLI VILLAGE, FOREST RIGHTS COMMITTEE HANAGERE GRAM PANCHAYATH THIRTHAHALLI (T), SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 226, REP. BT SECRETARY.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V.SHIVAREDDY, HCGP., FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 29.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-4 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINERY HEARING B- GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging impugned notice dated 29.10.2018 issued by respondent no.4 at Annexure-L and seeking for direction to respondent no.5 to consider petitioner's application dated 30.06.2014 in Form-A, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was an agriculturist cultivating extent of 08 acres of land in Sy.no.19 of Sirinahallli village, Mandagadde hobli falling within Sirigere Range Forest. He had filed an application for grant of land and considering his application Government had granted said extent to petitioner vide orders dated 13.12.1967 and 20.03.1967 on lease for a

¶25

¶26

WP No. 53685 of 2018

¶27

period of 99 years. As such, petitioner was cultivating same, by planting Areca nut etc. However, vide impugned notice, respondent no.4 called upon petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him for termination of lease period. Though, petitioner was granted three days time to respond to notice, even before petitioner would respond, respondents high handedly entered his land and cut standing trees. It was submitted that petitioner had filed application for grant of land under Schedule Tribe and Other Tradition Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights Act) Rules, 2007. But, respondents had considered similar applications filed by similarly placed persons and granted land. However, petitioner's application was kept pending. It was submitted that when petitioner's application was pending there was no justification for respondent no.4 to have issued notice in question and for cutting trees. Therefore, petitioner sought for relief.

¶28

On other hand, learned HCGP appearing for respondents no.1 to 4 submits that Annexure-L is only a show cause notice and petitioner had not responded same. Consequently, respondents authorities had taken action as

¶29

¶30

WP No. 53685 of 2018

¶31

provided and therefore submitted that no interference was called for.

¶32

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned notice

¶33

and record.

¶34

On perusal of Government order dated 25.01.1968 at Annexure-A, it is seen that petitioner has been granted lease for a period of 10 years in first instance in respect of 08 acres in FS.no.19 of Malkunge, Sirigere Range Forest. Said lease was subsequently extended for another period of 20 years under order dated 14.08.1970. It is also seen that petitioner had filed application dated 30.06.2014 before respondent no.5 for grant of land. During its pendency, initiation of action has sought to be done under notice - Annexure-L would not be justified unless petitioner's application is already considered and disposed of.

¶35

In any case, as no final order appears to have been passed and even otherwise petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity.

¶36

Hence, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.5 to consider petitioner's application for grant of

¶37

¶38

WP No. 53685 of 2018

¶39

land as per Annexure-H, if it is pending, as early as possible within period of six months and thereafter, in case petitioner is unsuccessful, provide opportunity to petitioner to show cause against action as proposed under Annexure-L within period of four weeks. Thereafter, authorities shall consider material placed by petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within further period of four weeks under intimation to petitioner.

¶40

Until then, interim order granted by this Court against respondents would continue.

¶41

With above observations, writ petition is disposed of .

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

GRD

Sri H K Gurumurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H K Gurumurthy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N C Mohan Vs Karnataka Medical Council

Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Marbles Vs the State of Karnataka

N B Nanjundaiah Vs N N Yalaiahswamy

The Estate Officer Vs Kgf Tamil Sangham

Ningamma Vs the Land Acquisition Officer and

Sri M a Ratnakar Shet Vs Sri S P Lokesh