Disposed¶51

Manjunath v. the Forest Department

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2025WP/26599/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Forest Act 1963; Section 64 show cause notice; Section 64A(1) inquiry; Section 64A(3) appellate remedy; forest land claim Sy.No.36 Gulakamale Village Uttarahalli Hobli Bangalore South Taluk; Notification dated 24.08.1934 (184 acres); mutation entries MR 5/2000-01 and MR T5/2016-17; revenue entries in favour of Forest Department; relegation to statutory remedy before Authorised Officer/Assistant Forest Range Officer; no precipitous or coercive action pending inquiry; Articles 226 and 227 certiorari and mandamus; WP No. 26599 of 2025 (GM-FOR).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to respond to the impugned show cause notice by 15.10.2025, and a direction that the respondents shall not take any precipitous action until the culmination of the inquiry. ¶51

Manjunath Vs the Forest Department — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to respond to the impugned show cause notice by 15.10.2025, and a direction that the respondents shall not take any precipitous action until the culmination of the inquiry.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 19.08.2025 under Section 64 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the revenue entries in favour of the Forest Department, was entitled to writ relief, or whether his factual assertions and documents had to be examined by the fifth respondent in the inquiry under Section 64A(1) of the Act. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The factual assertions and the documents relied upon by the petitioner to show cause against the notice for eviction must be examined by the fifth respondent, and the petitioner must be relegated to that remedy (the inquiry under Section 64A(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963).

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to respond to the impugned show cause notice, such response to be filed by 15.10.2025.

¶51

Key takeaways

The respondents shall not take any precipitous action until the culmination of the inquiry.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (single judge, B M Shyam Prasad, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by a landowner asserting ownership of 5 acres in Sy. No. 36 of Gulakamale Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, who was aggrieved by revenue entries in favour of the Forest Department and a notice dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by the fourth respondent under Section 64 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Observing that the petitioner would have the opportunity to justify his cause against the show cause notice in the inquiry contemplated under Section 64A(1) of the Act, with an appellate remedy under Section 64A(3), the Court held that the petitioner's factual assertions and documents had to be examined by the fifth respondent (Authorised Officer and Assistant Forest Range Officer) and relegated the petitioner to that remedy. The petition was disposed of with liberty to file the response to the show cause notice by 15.10.2025, and the respondents were directed not to take any precipitous action until the culmination of the inquiry.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35482 WP No. 26599 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 26599 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MANJUNATH SON OF VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NELAKANADODDI, GULAKAMALLE VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH - 560082

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SURESH DESAI K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE FOREST DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO. 442, GATE NO. 2 M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE RANGE OFFICER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:35482 WP No. 26599 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KAGALIPURA RANGE BANGALORE SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560082

¶21

RANGE OFFICER KAGALIPURA RANGE BANGALORE SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560082

¶22

DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER KAGALIPURA RANGE BANGALORE SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560082

¶23

AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ASSISTANT FOREST RANGE OFFICER BANGALORE SUB DIVISION BANGALORE

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 19/08/2025 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT SA AH SA (DAA) 64(A) NOTICE/CR-13/202526/368 DATED 19/08/2025 WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A. ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 4 TO FIX BOUNDARIES OF FOREST LAND AND REVENUE LAND IN THE SY. NO. 36 OF GULAKAMALE VILLAGE, JOINT SURVEY WITH THE AID OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT. TO CANCEL THE MUTATION ENTRY MR

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35482 WP No. 26599 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

5/2000-01 AND MR T5/2016-17 ANNEXURE-B AND ANNEXURE-F IN REVENUE RECORDS PERTAINING TO SY.NO. 36 OF GULAKAMALE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANAGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANAGALORE-560082, WHICH HAS BEEN MARKED AS FOREST LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 184 ACRES.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner asserts ownership of 5 acres of land in Sy. No. 36 of Gulakamale Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore [ the subject property ]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue entries in favour of the Forest Department, and the notice dated 19.08.2025 [ Annexure - A ] under Section 64 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 [for short, ' the Forest Act' ].

¶35

Mr. K. Suresh Desai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:35482 WP No. 26599 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

intervene because the records ex-facie show that the subject land cannot be a forest land and that it would not be within the sweep of the Notification dated 24.08.1934, which relates to Sy.No.36 measuring about 184 acres of Gulakamale Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. The learned counsel emphasizes that the Forest Department had made a claim for the adjacent land in Sy.No.35, and ultimately, the Assistant Commissioner, on verifying all the records has opined that the Forest Department cannot have any claim against such land.

¶40

Mr. Rahul Cariappa, the learned

¶41

Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, submits that the petitioner will have ample opportunity to place on record all circumstances to justify a cause against the impugned show cause notice as there would be an inquiry as contemplated under Section 64A(1) of the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35482 WP No. 26599 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Forest Act, and the learned Additional Government Advocate also emphasizes that even if there is any conclusion against the petitioner, there would be an Appellate remedy under Section 64A(3) of the Forest Act. This Court is of the view that the factual assertions and the documents relied upon by the petitioner to show cause against the notice for eviction must be examined by the fifth respondent and the petitioner must be relegated to such remedy.

¶45

At this stage, Mr. K. Suresh Desai submits that this Court may grant some reasonable time to the petitioner to file all documents in response to the show cause notice while also directing the authorities not to take any precipitative action as there are standing arecanut trees and other facilities in the subject property. In reply, Mr. Rahul Cariappa submits that the notice is only for an inquiry and until such inquiry is culminated, there cannot be any coercive measures to dispossess the petitioner. This

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:35482 WP No. 26599 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

indeed would be so, and the petition must be disposed of with just order in the light of this Court's view that the petitioner must participate in the inquiry. As such, the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

[A] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to respond to the impugned show cause notice and the petitioner will be at liberty to file such response by 15.10.2025.

¶52

[B] The respondents shall not take any precipitous action until the culmination of the inquiry.

¶53

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶54

Manjunath v. the Forest Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath v. the Forest Department

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

Mrs Gayathri Vs the Administrator

Sri. Girish S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kavitha Srinath Venkatappa Vs the Union of India

Sri N Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ahammad Kabeer, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Shashikumar Vs State of Karnataka