Sri B Ganapathi Bairy Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. B. GANAPATHI BAIRY S/O KRISHNA BAIRY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S BAYIR EXTRACTS PVT. LTD., NO.33, VAJARAHALLI - 562109, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. BHARATH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST / APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BENGALURU (REGIIONAL) CIRCLE, FOREST DEPARTMENT, ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST DEPARTMENT, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA, BENGALURU.

¶23

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶24

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (CENTRAL) MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, REGIONAL OFFICE (SOUTHERN ZONE), KENDRIYA SADAN, 4^TH FLOOR, E & F WING, 17^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. D. BASAVARAJA, CGSPC FOR R4 AND R5)

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2016 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.207/2014-15 AS PER ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶31

IN WP NO. 12825/2019

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

M/S BAYIR EXTRACTS PVT. LTD NO.4112, UTKARSHA, 3^RD & 4^TH FLOOR, K.R.ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.GANAPATHI BAIRY.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. BHARATH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS & CLIMATE CHANGE, REGIONAL OFFICE (SOUTHERN ZONE), KENDRIYA SADAN, 4^TH FLOOR E & F WINGS, 17^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. REP. BY DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (CENTRAL).

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶41

THE ADDL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (FOREST CONSERVATION) & NODAL OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S., CGC FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THE MINUTES OF TWENTY SEVENT MEETING OF REGIONAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE OF REGIONAL OFFICE (SZ) BENGALURU HELD ON 27.07.2018 IN SO FAR AS AGENDA NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-B IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUST.

¶45

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

In W.P.No.13216/2016, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.207/2014-15 and order dated 07.06.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in FOC No.62/2007-08(AnnexureB), inter alia, sought for a direction to respondent No.5 to consider the representation made by the petitioner as per Annexure-C for regularisation of encroached land as proposed by the state Government.

¶51

Heard Sri. Bharath S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Shivakumar S., learned Central Government Counsel representing the Union Government, Sri. Mahantesh Shetter, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent - State and Sri. D. Basavaraja, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶52

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased the land bearing

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Sy.No.33 of Vajarahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk as per the registered Sale Deed dated 13.12.2002. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has established Ayurvedic Herbal Extract Unit after obtaining necessary sanction from the respondent - Government. It is also stated that after purchasing of the schedule property as mentioned above, the neighbouring land owners have put up compound all around and therefore, the same has caused difficulty in approaching the industry of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has made an application to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavana, Malleswaram, Bengaluru, seeking grant of land on long term lease basis, as stated in the application dated 21.09.2012. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the interregnum period, the respondent No.3 has initiated proceedings under S.64-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') in FOC No.62/2007-08 on 07.12.2007 and rejected the claim made by the petitioner by Order dated 07.06.2014 as per Annexure-B and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.2, Appellate Authority, under

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

S.64-A(3) of the Act and the said application came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide Order dated 26.02.2016 as per Annexure-A, and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the same has caused difficulty for the petitioner to approach the industry put up by the petitioner in the schedule property and therefore, petitioner has presented this writ petition and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶59

In W.P.No.12852/2019, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the observation made by the competent authority at Annexure-F (Annexure-B in W.P.No.13216/2016) that as the rejection of the application made by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Ramanagara, in public interest, however, it is difficult for the petitioner to secure approachable road to enter into the land. Learned counsel submitted that, subsequent to the filing of W.P.No.13216/2016 before this Court, respondent No.1 called for a meeting of Regional Empowered Committee to consider the proposal sent by the Government of Karnataka with regard to regularisation of land in question. The respondent No.1 though had ample power to consider the request of the

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

petitioner that the land in question is already being used by the petitioner, considering the Minutes of the Meeting of Regional Empowered Committee held on 27.07.2018, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for construction of water sump in the industry of the petitioner as per the communication dated 05.10.2018 and in that view of the matter, the petitioner herein has sought for setting aside the communication dated 05.10.2018 as per Annexure-A issued by the respondent No.1 and to consequently declare the Minutes of Twenty Seventh Meeting of the Regional Empowered Committee held on 27.07.2018 in so far as Agenda No.1 as per Annexure-B is concerned as illegal and unjust and accordingly, sought for allowing of the writ petition.

¶63

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate refers to the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by this Court and thereafter the joint survey has been made and report of the joint survey has been placed before this Court by Memo dated 07.08.2025, wherein it is stated that an extent of 4 guntas in Sy.No.32 of Vajarahalli Village of Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.18 of Manchanayakanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk,

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

has been encroached by the petitioner and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petitions on the ground that the petitioner has encroached the land belonging to the Forest Department.

¶67

Learned counsel representing the Union Government, submitted that since the land in question is belonging to forest and as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 read with Rules made thereunder, the competent authority has taken a decision that the forest land cannot be regularised by the respondent - authorities and that apart, since the land in question is belonging to the Forest Department, and therefore, same cannot be allotted in favour of the petitioner for industrial purposes and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶68

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the land in Sy.No.33 as per registered Sale Deed dated 13.12.2002 and having purchased the same established the Ayrvedic Herbal Extract Unit therein and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (in W.P.No.13216/2016), as per the orders at Annexures - A and B respectively, have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner herein has encroached to an

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

extent of 1 acre of the forest land and therefore, ordered for eviction of the petitioner from the encroached portion of the land in question. It is also to be noted from the joint survey conducted by the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records, Ramangara, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 01.07.2025 and the report filed by the State Government in the memo dated 07.08.2025 stipulates that the petitioner has encroached to an extent of 4 guntas in Sy.No.32 of Vajarahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.18 of Manchanayakanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the scope of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, I am of the view that, the petitioner has to be evicted from the encroached portion of the land in question forthwith and in this regard, the finding recorded by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 at Annexures - A and B in respect of the order of eviction in so far as the encroached portion is concerned, is just and proper and therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions are concerned.

¶72

Further, in so far as the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to seeking approachable

¶73

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:45757 WP No. 13216 of 2016 C/W WP No. 12825 of 2019

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

land to reach his land as the same having been encroached by neighbouring land owners who have allegedly encroached and therefore, it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority seeking redressal of his grievance, and in the event, if such an application is filed by the petitioner herein within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, same shall be considered by the respondent - authorities in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of such representation that may be made by the petitioner is concerned.

¶76

In that view of the matter, as the petitioner had the benefit of the interim order before this Court, the respondent - authorities shall not precipitate any action against the petitioner herein, for a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶77

With this observation, the writ petitions are accordingly, disposed of.

¶78

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶79

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri B Ganapathi Bairy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Ganapathi Bairy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj N Naidu Vs Subramanyeshwra Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Sri Basave Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Lalitha. H. S. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mallikarjuna. C. K. Vs Chief Superintendent of Central Prison

Dr U Sudhir Vs Karnataka State Safai Karmachari

Smt. Beula Grace J a Vs Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd.