Chikkavenkataiah Vs the Secretary

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-J DATED 20-8-2015 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATOR, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA IN FOC NO.03/2015-16 DATED 8-5-2015 AND ANNEXURE-M DATED 19-3-2016 PASSED BY THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, BANGALORE CIRCLE, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.252/2015-16 AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-J) and the order dated 19.03.2016 in Appeal No. 252/2015-16 passed by respondent No.2.

¶29

Relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are

¶30

that:

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44610 WP No. 22025 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in Survey No.1 to an extent of 3 acres 12 guntas situated at Doddamannugudde Village of Ramanagara Taluk and District. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject land has been granted to the Grandfather of the petitioner as per the Notification dated 02.05.1985 (Annexure-A). It is also stated that the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner after the demise of his Grandfather. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is running a brick factory by obtaining license as per Annexure-H in the scheduled property. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has initiated proceedings before respondent No.3 for evicting the petitioner from the land in question, and based on the fact that the land in question is Forest Land, the said proceedings was resisted by the petitioner. Respondent No. 3, after considering the material on record, by Order dated 20.08.2015 (AnnexureJ), held that the land in question has been declared as Forest Land and accordingly sought for eviction of the petitioner.

¶34

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 64-A (3) of the Karnataka

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:44610 WP No. 22025 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Forest Act, 1963, before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2,

¶39

after considering the material on record by its Order dated 19.03.2016 (Annexure - M), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶40

Heard Sri Pramod R., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶41

It is submitted by Sri Pramod R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that land in question has been granted by the Revenue Authorities way back on 02.05.1985 (Annexure-A), as the said land has been released by the Forest Department as culled out in the aforementioned application.

¶42

It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and submitted that the contention raised by the respondent-State to invoke Section 2 of the above Act does not arise since the land in question has

¶43

been granted in favour of the petitioner as per the Notification at Annexure-A. It is also submitted by the learned counsel

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44610 WP No. 22025 of 2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

appearing for the petitioner by referring to the Order dated 15.05.2025 in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India in IA No.2079 of 2007 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995 by referring to the paragraphs 92 and 93 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has saved the grant made in favour of the respective grantees prior to 12.12.1996, and in that view of the matter, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the reasons assigned by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 require to be set aside.

¶47

Per contra, Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, refers to the proceedings as per Annexure-R1 whereby the land in question has been classified as Forest Land as per the Gazette Notification dated 26.04.1884 by His Highness, the Maharaja of Mysore, and thereafter, until the said Notification is withdrawn or modified by the Forest Department, no such land can be allotted in favour of any person, much less the petitioner. Accordingly, sought to defend the impugned order passed by respondent - Authorities.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:44610 WP No. 22025 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

In light of the submission made by the learned

¶52

counsel appearing for the parties, it is the claim made by the petitioner that the land in question has been granted in favour of the Grandfather of the petitioner as per the Notification dated 02.05.1985 (Annexure-A). On careful consideration of the aforementioned Notification, nothing is stated in the said Notification under which source of power the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division, has passed the said Notification, granting the forest land to the respective grantees as per the revenue documents. It is also forthcoming from the Annexure-R1 that the Gazette Notification has been issued, stating that the land in question has been declared as Forest Land as per the Notification dated 26.04.1884. In this regard, since originally the land in question has been declared as Forest Land and unless the competent authority withdrew the same for non-forest purposes, I am of the view that the grant of land to the petitioner by the revenue authorities cannot prevail over the Notification issued by the Forest Department to declare the land in question as the forest land.

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:44610 WP No. 22025 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In this regard, though the learned counsel

¶57

appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman (supra), particularly the paragraphs 92 and 93, which read as under:

¶58

" 92.While hearing this matter, another glaring issue has come to the notice of the Court. It has been noticed that a vast stretch of the land which is notified as 'Forest Land' is still in possession of the Revenue Department. Such a situation creates many complexities as is evident in the present matter. The Revenue Department, despite resistance from the Forest Department, allotted the land to private individuals/institutions for non-forestry purposes. This, in turn, reduced the vital green cover. We, therefore, find that it is necessary that a direction needs to be issued to all the State Government and the Union Territories to hand over the possession of the lands which are recorded as 'Forest Land' and which are in possession of the Revenue Department to the Forest Department.

¶59

93. The report of the CEC would also reveal that there is material to show that many of the Forest Lands have been allotted to private individuals/institutions for non-forestry purposes. Any such allotment after 12^th December 1996, i.e., the date on which the directions were given by this Court in the present proceedings, would not be sustainable in law."

¶60

10. Applying the aforementioned principle to the case

¶61

on hand, wherein the land in question was originally declared as the forest land as per the Notification dated 26.04.1884 at

¶62

Annexure-R1 and in that view of the matter, as the land was declared as forest land a century ago, the observation made by

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44610 WP No. 22025 of 2016

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is not applicable

¶66

to the facts on record. It is also relevant to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. I.S. Nirvane Gowda reported in (2007) 15 SCC 744 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the mere issuance of the Saguvali Chits or Grant made by the revenue authorities in respect of the land which is declared as the forest land and such revenue entries have no consequence and would not confer title to the land in question. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.S. Nirvane Gowda ( Supra) , as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman ( Supra) referred to above, I am of the view that the findings recorded by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are just and proper and no interference is called for in this writ petition.

¶67

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶68

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶69

AM

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Chikkavenkataiah v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikkavenkataiah v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sai Balaji Combines Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Govindappa Vs Sri. Laxmappa

Sri. S. Satish Vs Karnataka Grameena Bank

Prakash Gopalkrishna Hegde Vs the Union of India

Mahendra Labs Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Drugs Logistics

Government of Karnataka Vs National Comission for Schedule Castes