Allowed

Sri.D.Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024WP/6889/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash forest department orders declaring private land holdings as forest land. Quashing was warranted after a court-conducted survey established the land was private property granted prior to the forest notification, making the impugned orders erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 23-09-2006 and 19-12-2014 declaring the lands as forest land were quashed, and the petitioners were held entitled to consequential benefits.

Sri.D.Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.6889 OF 2015 (GM - FOR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

1 . SRI D.MUNIRAJU S/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.5151, VIJAYARAJ NEAR OMKAR HILLS KENGERI POST UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶7

2 . SRI D.HEMANNA S/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.429, H ROAD 2^ND STAGE,

¶8

IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098.

¶9

3 . SRI D.GOPALA S/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.17, 12^TH MAIN 17^TH MAIN ROAD RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098.

¶10

¶11

4 . SRI D.KRISHNA S/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DOOR NO.113 PANTHARAPALYA NAYANDAHALLI POST MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 039.

¶12

5 . SRI D.NARAYANASWAMI S/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DOOR NO.113 PANTHRAPALYA NAYANDAHALLI POST MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 039.

¶13

6 . SRI D.SHYAM

¶14

S/O DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.32, 6^TH STAGE 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS BEML LAYOUT R.R.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

¶20

2 . CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY BENGALURU CIRCLE ARANYA BHAVAN, II FLOOR 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶21

3 . ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISIO BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶22

4 . RANGE FOREST OFFICER KAGGALIPURA RANGE KAGGALIPURA BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶23

5 . THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI KIRAN V.RON, AAG A/W SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN APPEAL NO. 135/2008 AND THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2008 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN FOC NO.142/06-07 DATED 23.9.2006, KAGGALIPURA RANGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANN-A & B RESPECTIVELY.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶27

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶29

CAV ORDER

¶30

The petitioners are calling in question an order dated 19-12-2014 passed by the 2^nd respondent/Chief Conservator of Forests-Appellate Authority in Appeal No.135 of 2008 affirming the order dated 09-09-2008 passed by the 3^rd respondent/Assistant Conservator of Forests in FOC No.142/2006-07 declaring the lands belonging to the petitioners to be forest lands.

¶31

Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

¶32

The averment in the petition is that the petitioners are brothers in relation and are owners of land in Sy. Nos. 60 to 63 of Mylasandra Village, KengeriHobli, Bangalore South Taluk totally measuring 19 acres 35 guntas. It is the case of the petitioners that Sy.No.26 of Mylasandra Village originally measured 91 acres and 02 guntas and after Phodi which took place on 29-06-1869 it is divided into 30 acres and 22 guntas each. Among 6 survey numbers carved out of Sy.No.26 as Survey Nos.59 to 64, Sy.Nos. 59, 60

¶33

¶34

and 61 were granted in favour of one P.M. Puttaraju and Sy.Nos. 62, 63 and 64 were granted in favour of T.K. Damodar. The boundaries are clearly demarcated is the averment in the petition. This is written down in the survey that was conducted as per the Dharkasthu Manjuri Durasth dated 08-04-1932.

¶35

In the year 1935, the remaining extent of 60 acres and 20 guntas out of 91 acres 02 guntas mentioned hereinabove, was declared to be a forest land by Notification dated 14-12-1935 by the Government of Mysore to become forest land with effect from 15-01-1936. The extent in Sy.No.26 as in the year 1935 is said to be an undisputed fact and the mutation extract in relation to the said survey number is said to be depicting as 60 acres and 20 guntas to be the forest land. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of Sy.Nos. 60 to 64 which were granted originally to two persons mentioned hereinabove, but the original grantees had not paid any kandayam to the Government. When the original grantee did not pay kandayam to the Government, the Government by holding proceedings under the then Land Revenue Code, confiscated the land and thereafter sold the same in public auction.

¶36

¶37

One Karimsab purchased the aforesaid land in public action and sells the land on 30-04-1962 in favour of (1)Narayanaswamy, (ii) Smt. Mallamma and (iii) P. Narayanaswamappa. All these sale deeds took place in the year 1962. These land owners who had purchased the property from Karimsab have sold the property in favour of one Raghunath Rao Mane. In a family partition these lands fell to the share of Rohini, Meena and Anitha, daughters of Raghunath Rao Mane. In the year 1982, these family members sell the land in favour of the petitioners. It is the averment in the petition that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.Nos. 60 to 64 right from year 1982 and today have been in possession for the last 42 years. After purchase of the property, the petitioners developed the land into a farm land and constructed a residential house therein.

¶38

In the family of the petitioners, there appears to be another partition and the lands are divided among the family members on such partition. The further averment in the petition is that the land in Sy.Nos. 60 to 64 are revenue lands and notwithstanding the same, the 4^th respondent/Range Forest Officer,

¶39

¶40

Kaggalipura Range registered a crime on 23-09-2006 against the petitioners and their family members alleging that they have encroached 15 acres of forest land. The 4^th respondent is directed to investigate into the matter. The 4^th respondent submits a report to the 3^rd respondent alleging encroachment against the petitioners and their family members. Based upon the said report of the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent issues a show cause notice to the 1^st petitioner invoking Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules’ for short) alleging violation of the Karnataka Forest Act and the Rules.

¶41

The 1^st petitioner, on behalf of all the members of the family, submits a reply that he and his family members are the owners of 20 acres of land in Sy.Nos. 62 to 64 and they are in possession of the said land since 1982. The 3^rd respondent without considering the reply and without holding any inquiry passes an order declaring the land in Sy.Nos.62 to 64 to be belonging to the forest in terms of his order dated 09-09-2008. The petitioners then prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Chief Conservator of Forests in appeal No.135 of 2008. All records are

¶42

¶43

said to have been produced by the petitioners and notwithstanding the same, the appeal comes to be rejected holding that the petitioners have encroached forest land and Sy.Nos.59 to 64 are a part of Sy.No.26 and it is the land belonging to the forest. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. This Court had protected the petitioners by an interim order of stay, insofar as orders in Annexures-‘A’ & ‘B’are concerned, in terms of its order dated 20-02-2015. The said interim order is in substance even today.

¶44

Heard Sri K. Anandarama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the lands did not belong to Forest Department, as way back in the year 1931, the lands were granted to certain persons and those grantees had not paid kandayam/taxes which resulted in confiscation of the lands and purchase was made in a public auction in the year 1943 and 40

¶46

¶47

years thereafter, after several hands changed, the petitioners have come in possession of the property. Sy.No.26 to an extent of 60 acres and 20 guntas was declared as a State Forest in terms of Notification dated 14-12-1935. The occupation of the petitioners is now said to be unauthorized. They are in possession of Sy.No.26, which after Phodi is now Sy. Nos. 59 to 64. He would contend that a survey was conducted and in the survey, the surveyor has given a sketch and a report which clearly depict that the petitioners are not in encroachment of any forest land. Their land only borders the land belonging to the forest and not the forest land. He would submit that the action is taken after 94 years of the proceedings and after 42 years of possession of land by the petitioners. He would seek quashment of the orders and the petitioners be left in peace with the property, without any interference from the hands of the State, through the Forest Department.

¶48

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General Sri Kiran V. Ron would vehemently refute the submissions contending that once a forest it is always a forest. Any encroachment can be detected and de-encroached at any point in

¶49

¶50

time. There can be no limitation for taking over the encroached forest land. He would submit that this is a settled principle of law. He would contend that the grant that is spoken to in the year 1931 does not find its place in the original records. He has placed the original records for the perusal of the Court. It is his contention that there was no grant at all and if there was no grant, the entire area was declared to be a forest land in the year 1935 and, therefore, the petitioners are admittedly in encroachment of forest land. No fault can be found with the orders passed by the original authority holding the land to be a forest land and the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the same. Insofar as survey is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the survey is erroneously made. It is contrary to the records. Therefore, it should not be given any credence, notwithstanding that the survey is conducted by another wing of the Government. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶51

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶52

¶53

The afore-narrated facts though not in dispute would require a little elaboration. The story in the case at hand would commence from the year 1931. The proceedings that have happened from the years 1931 to 1933 are appended to the petition. It is necessary to notice those proceedings. The proceedings dated 20-10-1933 read as follows:

¶54

ಸರ�ಾ� RÄ¶Ì PÉA¥ÀÄ "ಾಗು ಕ$ಾ%: �.�ೆ .$ಾ&ೕದರಂ ಪ�' ೇತ�.

¶55

¶56

ಊ�ಂದ ದೂರ �ೖಲು

¶57

ಆ�ಾರಬಂ4ನಂ5ೆ6 ಮೂಳ ನಂಬರು ಪ78ಾ ಖ8ಾ:ನ�;ದು< ಈ ನಂಬರು ,ೈ- 8ೆ>ನೂ? ಇAಾ�ೆ ಹುಕುಂ �ೕ8ೆ�ೆ ಖು¶Ì "ಾಗುವ��ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು EಾFರುವ �ೊಸ ಸGೆ% ನಂಬನರು ಪ��ಾರ ಅ$ೇಶವ£ÀÄß $ಾಖAಾJFರು5ೆ�.

¶58

ಈ ಆ�ಾರ ಬಂ4ನ�; ಮೂಳ ನಂಬರು ಪ78ಾ ಖ8ಾಬು ಈಗ ¥ÉÆÃFKಾLರುವ ಕದ% "ಾ��ೆ ಬಂದ ಈ ನಂಬ��ೆ ಖ8ಾಬು ನ�ಾMೆಯ�; ಕಂಡ ಬ�ೆP �ಾಯಂ

¶59

QೕRಾದ<�ಂದ �ೊಸ$ಾL ಅFಕಲು;ಗಳ+ ಮತು� ಕಲು;ಗಳನುS ಗುರುತು EಾFರು5ೆ�.

¶60

QೕRಾದ ನಂಬರು �ಾ�ಮ ನ�ಾMೆ $ೊ8ೆಯದ<�ಂದ ದುರಸು� EಾFಲ;.

¶61

ಋಣಗಳ+ Kಾವತೂ� ತKಾ8ಾLರು5ೆ�,

¶62

ಸ. 20.10.33.”

¶63

All the four survey numbers that form part of these 90 acres bear consideration in the proceedings dated 20-10-1933. When things stood thus, a notification comes about on 14-12-1935 from the Government of Mysore declaring certain parts of Thurahalli to be lands belonging to the Forest Department. The notification insofar as it is germane reads as follows:

¶64

“GENERAL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

¶65

G.O.N.G.4902.5-Ft 154-35-2, dated 14^th December 1935

¶66

Forest Settlement

¶67

Approves of the – of the Badamanevarthe Forest Block in the Bangalore Taluk as a State Forest.

¶68

READ

¶69

¶70

Government Notification No.G.1572-Ft. 56-33-2 dated 2^nd September, 1933 issued under Section 4 of the Forest Regulation, in the matter of the proposed constitution of the Badamanevarthe Forest Block in the Bangalore Talulk.

¶71

Letter No.C.1235-35-36, dated 18^th November, 1935, from the Revenue Commissioner in Mysore, forwarding the Forest Settlement Officer’s report on the conclusion of the settlement of the block and stating that the Chief Conservator of Forests is agreeable to the issue of the final notification in the matter.

¶72

ORDER NO.G.4902-5-Ft. 154-35-2, DATED BANGALORE THE 14^TH DECEMBER, 1935

¶73

The settlement effected by the Forest Settlement Officer and agreed to by the Revenue Commissioner and the Chief Conservator of Forests, is approved. The Notification under Section 17 of the Forest Regulation constituting the block a State Forest with effect from 15^th January 1936, will be published in the Gazette.

¶74

The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District is requested to duly promulgate the boundaries of the block in the village concerned.

¶75

M.VENKATANARANAPPA

¶76

Secretary to Government, Development Department.

¶77

ORDER NO.G.4902-5-Ft. 154-35-2, DATED 14^th DECEMBER 1935

¶78

ANNEXURE

¶79

No.G.4906-FT. 154-35-3, dated 14^th December, 1935.

¶80

The Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore are pleased to declare, under Section 17 of the Mysore Forest Regulation, XI of 1900, that from 15^th January 1936, the area,

¶81

¶82

the boundaries of which are set forth in the schedule appended to this notification, shall be deemed to be a “State Forest” subject to the exercise of rights specified at foot thereof.

¶83

By order, M.VENKATANARANAPPA Secretary to Government, Development Department.

¶84

To – The Compiler, Mysore Gazette.

¶85

Schedule

¶86

District	Taluk	Hobli	Village	Area	Name of block	Situation
Bangalore	Bangalore	Kengeri	Kengeri Mailsandra Badamanevarte Kaval Hemagiri	A. G. 514 29 Or 80 Sqr Miles	Badamanevarte state forest	This block is situated at a distance of about 10 miles south- west of Bangalore town and 2 miles south-east of kengeri

¶87

Boundaries

¶88

North.- Starting from a point about 6 chains south-east from the south-east corner of Survey No.56 of Mailsandra, the line runs south-east through Sy.No.22 of Mailsandra for about 27 chains to a point about 5 chains south-west from the southeast corner of Sy.No.21 of the same village.

¶89

East.- Then south-west along the western boundary of Sy.No.23 of Mailsandra for about 29 chains to its south-west corner; then north-west along the common boundary of Sy.Nos. 22 and 26 for about 5 chains; then south-west through Sy.No.26 of Mailsandra, 67 & 68 of Kengeri, for about 42 chains to a point about 6 chains south-west from the south-west corner of Sy.No.25 of Mailsandra; then south-east through Sy.No.65 of Kengeri and 170 of Badamanevarte Kaval for about 11 chains to a point about 5 chains south-west from the south-east corner of Sy.No.25 of Mailsandra; then south-east through Sy.No.170 of

¶90

¶91

Badamanevarte Kaval and 86 of Hemagipurada Majare Gubbala chikkanhalli for about 103 chains at a distance of 5 chains margin all along the western and southern boundary of Sy.Nos. 13, 11 and 10 of Sanakallu to a point about 5 chains south-east from the north-east corner of Sy.No.89 of Hemagipurada Majare Gubbalachikkanahallli; then south-east along the western boundary of Sy.No.89 of the said village for about 12 chains to a point about 5 chains north-west from the north-east corner of Sy.No.85 of the said village.

¶92

This is ostensibly declared a forest land in terms of the Mysore Forest Act, 1900 and the Mysore Forest Regulations of the said year. The Act and the Regulations insofar as they are germane read as follows:

¶93

“ The Mysore Forest Act, 1900 –

¶94

Section 3 - Power to constitute State Forests - "Any land at the disposal of Government may be constituted a State Forest in the manner hereinafter provided"

¶95

Section 2(9) - " Land at the disposal of Government " means land in respect of which no person has acquired -

¶96

a) A permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy under any law for the time being in force; or

¶97

b) Any right created by grant or lease made or continued by, or on behalf of, Government."

¶98

The Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900

¶99

Section 3 - Power to constitute State Forests - "Any land at the disposal of Government may be constituted a State Forest in the manner hereinafter provided"

¶100

¶101

Section 2(9) – “ Land at the disposal of Government ” means land in respect of which no person has acquired –

¶102

a) A permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy under any law for the time being in force; or

¶103

b) Any right created by grant or lease made or continued by, or on behalf of, Government.”

¶104

Section 3 of the Mysore Forest Act empowered the then Government of Mysore to constitute State Forest. Any land at the disposal of the Government could be constituted as State Forest in a manner provided therein. Section 2(9) defines the ‘land at the disposal of the Government’ to mean that the land in respect of which no person has acquired a permanent, heritable and transferable right. The Regulations are to the same effect. Prior to the Mysore Forest Act, which was a local legislation, the Indian Forest Act, 1878 also confers power to reserve forest. Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1878 reads as follows:

¶105

“ The Indian Forest Act, 1878

¶106

Section 3 - "Power to reserve forests - The Local Government may from time to time constitute any forest-land or waste-land which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided."

¶107

¶108

This was replaced by the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 reads as follows:

¶109

“ The Indian Forest Act, 1927

¶110

¶111

Here again, the local Government was empowered from time to time to constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary right to be a reserved forest. These are the relevant legislations which prevail at the time when the subject lands were allegedly declared to be belonging to the forest in terms of notification dated 14-12-1935.

¶112

After the declaration of lands as forest lands in terms of the notification dated 14-12-1935, much water flows. The petitioners come in possession of the property after the property changed hands at various levels. Sy.No.26 was phoded into Sy.Nos. 59 to 64. After the phoding was done now it is as follows:

¶113

¶114

Sy.No	Total Area	Kharab	Net Area
59	5A-08G	04G	5A-04G
60	5A-03G	02G	5A-01G
61	5A-04G	02G	5A-02G
62	5A-06G	02G	5A-04G
63	5A-06G	02G	5A-04G
64	4A-35G	0	4A-35G
	30A-22G	12G	30A-10G

¶115

The remaining extent of land apart from the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.26 are now as follows:

¶116

Sy.No.26 - 91A-02G Less: Sy.No.59-64 - 30A-22G Remaining area in 26: - 60A-20G

¶117

As observed hereinabove, the lands were granted in favour of P.M. Puttaraju and T.K. Damodhar. They are the original grantees. Due to non-payment of taxes, the granted lands were taken possession of by the State and sold in public auction on 30-06-1943. One Karimsab purchases the property. These are matters on record. After Karimsab purchasing the property, the property changed hands till the petitioners.

¶118

The coordinate Bench while hearing the matter, at the outset on 18-08-2022, passes the following order:

¶119

¶120

“Both the sides having argued the matter at length, are now in agreement that there is a dispute as to where the boundary between petitioners' land and the notified forest land does lie. There is no dispute as to 1930-31 grant of certain lands to private entities in old Sy. No.26 i.e., new Sy. Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 & 64, the Grant being of the year 1930-31, Phodi having taken place in 1933 or so pursuant to said Grant.

¶121

In the year 1935, certain lands came to be reserved as Turahalli State Forest vide Notification dated 14.12.1935 at Annexure - F and in the annexure to the said Notification, there is specific description of the forest land by fixing the boundaries. Of these boundaries, the Eastern one appears to be relevant for the purpose of identification of the boundary line between the private land of the petitioners and the forest land of the Govt. This aspect assumes importance inasmuch as, the map a copy whereof avails at Annexure-H to the petition does not appear to have been drawn keeping the description of the said boundaries within which the said forest land is comprised. Therefore, much significance cannot be attached to this map.

¶122

It hardly needs to be stated that the dispute about the boundary is not as to its existence as such, but as to where the boundary line lies. This can be ascertained by undertaking the Spot Inspection & Survey of both the lands in question involving the experienced survey officers of Department of Survey, preferably ADLR, Bengaluru, assisted by jurisdictional Range Forest Officers and Revenue Officers as well. The participation of petitioners' side is also permitted as a stakeholder. This exercise has to be accomplished and Survey Report be submitted to this Court within an outer limit of four weeks.

¶123

It hardly needs to be stated that both the sides can bank upon the documents and records in support of their version facilitating the survey in question.

¶124

Post this matter for Further Hearing on 29.09.2022.”

¶125

The coordinate Bench holds that there is no dispute as to 1930-31 grant of certain lands to private parties. Phodi takes place in the

¶126

¶127

year 1933 pursuant to the said grant. The order captures the entire gamut of the contentions of both the petitioners and the respondents. The coordinate Bench further holds that the dispute about the boundaries is not as to its existence as such, but as to where the boundary line lies. This could be ascertained by a spot inspection is what the coordinate Bench directed. It directed the Department of Survey to depute an ADLR assisted by the jurisdictional Range Forest Officer and Revenue Officer and after hearing the stake holders, the exercise of survey should be accomplished and a report should be placed before the Court within four weeks. The ADLR issues a notice on 05-09-2022 to all the stake holders to be present at the time of survey. The notice reads as follows:

¶128

“¨sÀÆzÁR¯Éಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ V$ೇ%ಶಕರ �ಾKಾ%ಲಯ, WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು WೆಂಗಳXರು. ಕಂ$ಾಯ ಭವನ, 1[ೇ ಮಹF �ೆ .:.ರ"ೆ� WೆಂಗಳXರು-560009.

¶129

ಸಂ�ೆ?: ಭೂ.ಸ.V/.ಆ]/ಇತ8ೆ :284/2022-23. ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.09.2022

¶130

'ಳ+ವ��ೆ ಪvÀæ

¶131

ಷಯ:- WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು, �ೆಂ�ೇ� �ೋಬ�, �ೖಲಸಂದ� �ಾ�ಮದ ಹ_ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.26 �ೊಸ ಸ.ನಂ.59 �ಂದ 64 ರ ಜ`ೕVನ ಕದ%, �ಪ��, ಆ�ಾರಬಂದು ದುರa�KಾLರುವ 4[ಾಂಕವನುS ನಮೂ4a ಘನ ಉಚe [ಾ?Kಾಲಯದ ಆ$ೇಶದಂ5ೆ ನ ೆ VೕಡWೇ�ಾL ಮನ>.

¶132

¶133

G¯ÉèÃR:- 1. Eಾನ? ಘನ ಉಚe [ಾ?Kಾಲಯದ ಪ�ಕರಣದ ಸಂ�ೆ?: ಡಬೂ;f..ನಂ. 6889/2015 ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.08.2022 DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ.

¶134

F.ಮುV8ಾಜು ಮತು� ಇತರರು (F.�ೇಮಣg, F.�ೋ,ಾh, F.ಕೃಷg, F.[ಾ8ಾಯಣ "ಾj` ಮತು� F.Mಾ?k) �ೖಲಸಂದ� ಸ.ನಂ.59 �ಂದ 64) ರ�; Gಾಸ �ೆಂ�ೇ� �ೋಬ�, WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು, WೆಂಗಳXರು ರವರ ಮನ> 4[ಾಂಕ:01.09.2022.

¶135

¶136

�ೕಲlಂಡ >ಷಯ�ೆl ಸಂಬಂmaದಂ5ೆ , WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು, �ೆಂ�ೇ� �ೋಬ�, �ೖಲಸಂದ� �ಾ�ಮದ ಹ_ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.26 �ೊಸ ಸ.ನಂ.59 �ಂದ 64 ರ ವ8ೆ�ೆ QೕFದುರa�KಾLದು<, ಜ`ೕVನ ಗF2ಾಗದ�; ತುರಹ�n �ಾ�ಮ�ೆl ಒಳಪಡುವ ಅರಣ? ಇAಾ�ೆರವ8ೊಂ4�ೆ ಜಂ� ಅಳ5ೆ �ಾಯ% Vವ%.a ಗF ಗುರು'ಸಲು ಉAೆ;ೕಖ(1) ಆ$ೇಶದ�; ಸೂಚ[ೆ ಇರುತ�$ೆ .

¶137

ಅದರಂ5ೆ ಪ�"ಾ�\ತ ಜ`ೕನುಗಳ ಗFಗಳನುS ಗುರು'ಸಲು ಅರಣ? ಇAಾ�ೆರವ8ೊಂ4�ೆ ಜಂ� ಅಳ5ೆ �ಾಯ% �ೈ�ೊಳ+nವ ಸಲುGಾL ನಮJ ಕpೇ�qಂದ Vrೕ:aರುವ ಭೂEಾಪಕರುಗಳ+ �ಾಗೂ ¥ÀAiÀÄð«ÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ 4[ಾಂಕ:09.09.2022 ರಂದು �ಾಜ8ಾಗುವವ�ದು<, ಸದ� 4ನದಂದು ಜಂ� ಸsಳ ತV�ೆ�ೆ , vÀªÀÄä°ègÀÄªÀ zÁ�ಾಲ'ಗ_ೆXಂ4�ೆ ಸsಳದ�; �ಾಜ�ದು< ಅಳ5ೆ�ೆ ಸಹಕ�ಸಲು �ೋ�$ೆ .

¶138

ರವ��ೆ ,

¶139

vÀºÀ²ÃzÁÝgï,

¶140

WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

¶141

ಉಪ ಅರಣ? ಸಂರv1ಾm�ಾ�ಗಳ+,

¶142

WೆಂಗಳXರು >2ಾಗ,

¶143

WೆಂಗಳXರು.

¶144

ವಲಯ ಅರಣ?m�ಾ�ಗಳ+,

¶145

ಕಗP�ೕಪxರ ವಲಯ,

¶146

ಕಗP�ೕಪxರ.

¶147

ಆ].�.a $ಾರ8ಾದ

¶148

1. ²æÃ F.ಮುV8ಾಜು ಮತು� ಇತರರು 2) F.�ೇಮಣg

¶149

1. F.�ೋ,ಾh,

¶150

1. F.ಕೃµÀÚ,

¶151

¶152

F.[ಾ8ಾಯಣ "ಾj` 6) r. ±ÁåªÀiï �ೕ�ನ ಆ].�.a$ಾರರ >_ಾಸ: �ೖಲಸಂದ� ಸ.ನಂ.59 �ಂದ 64) ರ�; Gಾಸ �ೆಂ�ೇ� �ೋಬ�, WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು,

¶153

WೆಂಗಳXರು

¶154

¸À»/-

¶155

ಭೂ$ಾಖAೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ V$ೇ%ಶಕರು

¶156

WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು,

¶157

WೆಂಗಳXರು.”

¶158

The report is as follows:

¶159

“¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ

¶160

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆÃ§½ ªÉÄÊ®¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ D.ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄ, D. ºÉÃªÀÄtÚ, D. PÀÈµÀÚ, D.£ÁgÁgÀt ¸Áé«Ä, D. ±ÁåªÀiï DzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (ADLR) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ºÉÃ½ §gÉ¹zÀ ºÉÃ½PÉ.

¶161

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁll PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆÃ§½ ªÉÄÊ®¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA26 gÀ°è ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 59-60, 61-62, 63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£ GZ À Ñ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ W.P. No.6889/2015 DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉÃ²¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉgÀªÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÃ½zÀ§½PÀ ¤Ãr F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.09.2022 gÀAzÀÄ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdjzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ºÀ¼É ¸À.£ÀA. 26 gÀ UÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ UÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ dAnAiÀiÁV C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è ºÁdjzÀÄÝ ¸À.£ÀA. 26 gÀ°è ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï DVgÀÄªÀ ¸À.£ÀA. 59, 60-61, 62-63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ UÀr UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ 2 ¢£À PÉÃ½ ¸Àj JAzÀÄ M¦à F PÉ¼ÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ¥ÁæPÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.10.1933 gÀAvÉ ºÀ¼É £ÀA§gï 26 gÀ ¥ÉÊQ ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ ªÀÄÆ® L. R n¥ÀàtÂUÀ¼À DzÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁ° ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr UÀr UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÁV F PÉ¼ÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:

¶162

¶163

G.O.No.G.4902-5.Ft.154-35-2 ¢£ÁAPÀ 14 r¸ÉA§gï 1935 gÀ vÀÄgÀºÀ½î gÁdå CgÀtå ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÀ UÀr «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄAvÉ CgÀtåzÀ UÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶164

ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ:

¶165

sd/(D.MUNIRAJU)

¶166

Sd/-

¶167

(D.HEMANNA)

¶168

Sd/-

¶169

(D.GOPAL)

¶170

Sd/-

¶171

(D.KRISHNA)

¶172

Sd/-

¶173

(D.NARAYANASWAMY)

¶174

Sd/-

¶175

(SHAM D)

¶176

¸À»/09.09.2022

¶177

(ADLR, Bangalore South).”

¶178

The report is indicative of the fact that Sy.Nos. 59 to 64 though borders the forest land, is not a forest land. The report is placed on record by the Additional Government Advocate. Long thereafter, when the matter was being heard, the State itself sought to file its objections to the survey report contending that it was not in

¶179

¶180

accordance with law. In the objections what is contended is as follows:

¶181

“….

¶182

14. It is submitted that on 04.03.2015, the final Notification dated 14.12.1935 containing 'C' statement is produced. It is submitted that by oversight and inadvertently, the 'B' statement to the said Notification was not produced and the entire final Notification issued under Section 17 of the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900 along with 'B' and 'C' statements are being produced as ANNEXURE 'R13' for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶183

15. It is submitted that on reading of the final Notification, it is clear that a Preliminary Notification was issued on 02.09.1933 under Section 4 of the Forest Regulation, 1900. Pursuant to the issuance of Section 4, the Forest Settlement Officer came to be appointed and the said Forest Settlement Officer, after following the procedures in accordance with the Regulations, has settled the claims of the persons whose rights were affected. The entire 'B' statement along with the Notification shows the settlement of rights by the Forest Settlement Officer.

¶184

16. It is submitted that the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900 being a self contained regulation, contemplated declaration of any lands of State Reserve Forest by following the procedures prescribed under Sections 4 to 17 with the declaration of the final notification under Section 17, all rights of any person interested in it is put to an end. In the instant case, it is absolutely clear that 'B' statement clearly reveals that there were no claims put-forth by any person before the Forest Settlement Officer insofar as Sy No.26 of Mylasandra Village is concerned.

¶185

17. It is relevant to submit that insofar as the Mylasandra Village is concerned, which is at Sl.No.4, 'B' statement in the column pertaining to the nature and extent of claims preferred, it is stated as 'no takrars from this village'. Thus, it is absolutely clear that there were no claims whatever preferred before the

¶186

¶187

Forest Settlement Officer by the Petitioners alleged erstwhile vendors. Moreover, in para 2 of the Petition, the Petitioners have stated that re-Sy.Nos.59 to 64 in Sy.No.26 came to be granted by Revenue Authorities in the year 1930-31. A Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 of the Mysore Forest Regulation is on 02.09.1933. If the grant as alleged in Para 2 of the Petition, was genuine, then, the grantees ought to have approached the Forest Settlement Officer with their claims. Even in the proceedings, the Petitioners have failed to produce the alleged original grant certificate. In the absence of the same, the case of the Petitioners that the lands came to be granted in the year 193031 cannot be believed.”

¶188

The contention is that, the petitioners land came to be granted in the year 1931 is itself doubtful. If contemporaneous documents of 1933 are noticed, they clearly match with the survey report of the State itself which survey takes place pursuant to the orders of this Court and the report of it, is placed by the Government itself before this Court which clearly indicates that there is no encroachment by these petitioners. It would be unacceptable for the State to argue against its own survey contending that the survey is not properly done. The survey is not done keeping the stake holders in darkness. It is admittedly done after issuing notice and in the presence of all the stake holders. The stake holders included the officials of the Forest Department even. Merely because officers in the Forest Department changed, it cannot be said that the said

¶189

¶190

survey was erroneously done. If the survey takes place in the presence of all the stake holders, including the petitioners, pursuant to the orders of this Court, nothing further need be analyzed by this Court.

¶191

The order dated 18-08-2022 albeit , interim, has not been questioned by the State or by any stake holders and the observations in the order dated 18-08-2022 have today become final. The observation is made after hearing both the parties – State and the petitioners. The observation is that the grant has admittedly happened in the year 1931. Therefore, it did not have the characteristic of a Government land at the time of issuance of notification dated 14-12-1935. It had lost that status. If it was not a Government land, the Forest Department in terms of the legislations then, would not have declared it to be a forest land. If it could not have declared it to be a forest land, it remained as a private land or a revenue land. Hands have changed and the Forest Department has now based upon report of an Investigating Officer in the year 2006 tries to dig into the issue after about 80 years of the grant, which resulted in the impugned proceedings of both the

¶192

¶193

Assistant Range Forest Officer and the Chief Conservator of Forests declaring the lands belonging to the petitioners as forest lands.

¶194

No doubt the forest land abuts the lands of the petitioners. But, that does not mean that the boundary of the forest land can stretch into private land declaring the entire extent of land holding of the petitioners to be forest land. Finding the orders themselves to be erroneous and that erroneousness getting vindicated by the report of the survey, the unmistakable inference would be quashment of the orders that stare at these petitioners declaring the lands to be forest lands.

¶195

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶196

O R D E R

¶197

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶198

(ii) Order dated 23-09-2006 passed by the 3^rd respondent/Assistant Conservator of Forests in FOC No.142/06-07 and its confirmation order dated 19-12-2014 passed by the 2^nd respondent/Chief

¶199

¶200

Conservator of Forests-Appellate Authority in Appeal No.135 of 2008 stand quashed.

¶201

(iii) Petitioners are held entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the orders impugned.

¶202

Sd/(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶203

bkp

¶204

CT:MJ

Sri.D.Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.D.Muniraju 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

Mutta Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. B. Gopalakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K B Shivalinge Gowda @ K B S Gowda Vs Smt M C Shobha @ Sumitha

Chaluvaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prabhakar S Vs State of Karnataka

Malike Saba Vs Sameer Hamsa Ramla