Allowed

Smt. Savithramma , v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/8263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged eviction orders from land granted to her father via Saguvali Chit, contending the orders lacked notice and evidence linking her land to encroached forest land in Sy.No.14. Court found the survey was conducted without the petitioner and quashed both impugned orders, directing a fresh survey in her presence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 01.02.2023 and 04.05.2015 quashed; fresh survey directed in petitioner's presence.

Smt. Savithramma , Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31679 WP No. 8263 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8263 OF 2023 (GM-FOR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA , D/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT HUNASEKATE VILLAGE, KASABA - II HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577115

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF FOREST VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶15

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST CHANNAGIRI SUB-DIVISION,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31679 WP No. 8263 of 2023

¶17

CHANNAGIRI TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577213

¶18

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, UMBELEBAILU RANGE, UMBELEVAILU VILLAGE AND POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 115

¶19

THE FOREST OFFICER, LAKKINAKOPPA CIRCLE, OFFICE OF UMBELEBAILU RANGE FOREST, UMBELEBAILU VILLAGE AND POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 115

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶21

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶22

THE TASHILDAR BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577115

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-9)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 IN APPEAL NO.08/2015-16 PASSED BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-D), ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31679 WP No. 8263 of 2023

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is challenging the order issued by the third respondent, which upheld the decision of the fourth respondent. The impugned orders direct the petitioner’s eviction from the subject land on the grounds that the petitioner’s deceased father was allegedly occupying the land in question without authorization.

¶31

The petitioner contends that her deceased father was granted 3 acres of land in Sy.No.14, situated at Hunasekatte Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi. The Saguvali Chit (land grant certificate) was issued on 31.12.1994, and, pursuant to this grant, the name of the petitioner’s father was duly entered into the revenue records. Upon her father’s demise, the petitioner’s name was mutated into the revenue records as the lawful successor. The petitioner asserts that the impugned orders were passed without providing her with notice or a proper hearing, as required under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. She further contends that the third respondent, while confirming the fourth respondent’s order in the appeal under Section 64A(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, failed to consider the lack of evidence substantiating the claim that the 3 acres of land belonging to the petitioner formed part of Sy.No.14, which was allegedly marked as encroached forest land.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:31679 WP No. 8263 of 2023

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned orders are vitiated by a lack of procedural fairness, as no opportunity for a hearing was provided to the petitioner. Additionally, it is submitted that there is no credible evidence demonstrating that the petitioner’s land is part of Sy.No.14, which has been characterized as encroached forest land. As such, the orders are legally unsustainable.

¶35

On the other hand, Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, contends that the survey map, which was prepared in accordance with Rule 33 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, does not mandate the issuance of notice to any party, including the petitioner. He argues that the survey map is binding and that the orders passed by respondents 3 and 4 are valid and do not require interference.

¶36

The arguments advanced by both counsel have been carefully considered.

¶37

It is undisputed that the survey was conducted in the absence of the petitioner and her deceased father, raising doubts as to whether the land in the petitioner’s possession forms part of the 3 acres in Sy.No.14, which has been marked as “Encroached” in the survey map. In the absence of substantive evidence establishing that the petitioner’s land is part of the encroached area, the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:31679 WP No. 8263 of 2023

¶40

impugned orders issued by respondents 3 and 4 are legally untenable.

¶41

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the third respondent at Annexure-D and the impugned order dated 04.05.2015 passed by the fourth respondent at Annexure-A are hereby quashed.

¶42

The fourth respondent was directed to conduct the survey of land in the presence of the petitioner and upon survey it is found that the petitioner is in possession of the forest land and if that extent of land is notified as forest land, the fourth respondent is directed to take immediate steps to evict the petitioner from the subject land.

¶43

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶44

GSR

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Smt. Savithramma , v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savithramma , 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

M/S S P Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Samskruthi Couriers Vs Dcb Bank Ltd.

Sri Gaurav Aggarwal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shakeela Bi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Hitesh Soni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrappa Vs State Ofkarnataka