Dismissed

M.K. Chandrashekhara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2025WP/55577/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming ancestral cultivation of 20 acres in Chikkamagaluru challenged endorsements treating the land as forest land despite earlier tribunal restoration orders. The court found no RTC or mutation records establishing their right, relied on Supreme Court forest land precedent, and rejected the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition rejected.

M.K. Chandrashekhara Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.55577 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

M.K. SREEDHARA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶11

M.K. LAXMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶12

M.K. NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH, R/O MUJEKHAN, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERETALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 124.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BENGALURU -560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.

¶23

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CHIKKAMAGALUR CIRCLE, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP )

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU DATED 05.08.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION AND THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION DATED 12.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CHIKKAMAGALURU CIRCLE, CHIKKAMAGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-R TO THE WRIT PETITION; DIRECT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU TO RESTORE THE OCCUPANCY OF THE LANDS IN SY.NO.707/544 MEASURING 20 ACRES 4 GUNTAS OF MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, AS DIRECTED BY THE KARANTAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 27.3.2000 IN APPEAL NO.471/1999 IN ANNEXURE-H AND THE ORDER DATED 03.1.2005 AND 09.03.2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.45820/2004 AND WRIT

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

PETITION NO.13552/2006 RESPECTIVELY AS PER ANNEXURE -J AND ANNEXURE-L.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Petitioners herein are assailing the

¶34

endorsement/communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure-M) and communication dated 12.05.2014 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Chikkamagaluru District as per Annexure-R to the Writ Petition, inter alia, sought for a direction to the competent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for continuing to cultivate the land in question.

¶35

Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of Writ Petition are that, petitioners claim to be the sons of late Krishnaiah. It is stated that the petitioners are in possession and cultivation of the land measuring 20 acres in

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Sy.No.707(544) of Mavinakere Village, Kalasa Hobli,

¶40

Chikkamaguluru District since ancestors of the petitioners were in cultivation of the same for more than a century. It is also stated that on account of non payment of the land revenue in respect of the subject land, the respondent - Government has forfeited the land in question during 1899-1902 without hearing the petitioners' ancestors, however, the father of the petitioners was not dispossessed from the land and as such, father of the petitioners was cultivating the land in question. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that after death of their father, petitioners have continued to cultivate the land in question. It is stated that Government has brought amendment to Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, by Notification dated 18.11.1998 (Annexure-A) and pursuant to the same, the restoration of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioners. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioners herein have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.471/1999 (Annexure-H), wherein, the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was allowed by Order dated 27.03.2000 and as such, the respondent - authorities were directed to restore the land in

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

favour of the petitioners. Petitioners have also produced the Order of this Court dated 03.01.2005 in W.P.No.45820/2004(Annexure-J), wherein this Court has directed the respondent therein to comply with the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-H. It is also forthcoming from the Writ Petition that respondent - authorities have issued endorsement dated 15.07.2005 and same was questioned before this Court in W.P.13552/2006 and this Court, by Order dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure-L) directed the authorities to comply with the endorsement and the Order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, as per AnnexureH.

¶45

In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 has issued the endorsement dated 05.08.2013 to the petitioners stating that the land in question is a forest land, and therefore, the petitioners have to vacate the land in question. It is also forthcoming from the Writ Petition that a notice dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure-N) and another notice dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure-P) was issued to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to remove their encroachment in the forest land. The

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

petitioners have also produced the acknowledgement for having submitted documents to the Kalasa Grama Panchayat on 26.06.2014 as per Annexures-S, T and V, seeking claim in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the impugned notices, present petition is filed.

¶49

I have heard Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶50

Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, ancestors of the petitioners were the owners of the land in question and thereby the petitioners are in cultivation of the land in question. It is also submitted that on account of non payment of the land revenue, the Government has forfeited the land in question, however the same was rectified as per the Order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-H to the Writ Petition. He also refers to the Order of this Court in W.P. No.45820/2004 (Annexure-J) and W.P.No.13552/2006 (Annexure-L) and contended that, since the respondent - authorities without implementing the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Tribunal, have issued the endorsement dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure-M), which requires to be interfered with in this Writ Petition. It is also further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, since the petitioners herein have made a representation to the respondent - authorities as per Annexures-S, T and V and during the pendency of said representation made by the petitioners, the respondentauthorities have no authority under law to issue the impugned endorsement/communication, and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶54

In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Section 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR AND ANOTHER Vs. GIDDA AND ANOTHER" reported in 2013 (2) KLJ 612(DB), and contended that, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent - authorities requires to be interfered with in this Writ Petition.

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Per contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned Additional

¶58

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, reiterates the averments made in the statement of objections. It is the principal submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, that petitioners have to establish their right in respect of the land in question as no authenticated document has been produced before this Court to demonstrate that petitioners are in cultivation of the land in question. It is also argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate that since the land in question has been declared as the forest land under the provisions of the Mysore Forest Act, 1900, and in this regard, he refers to The Mysore Gazette Notification dated 15.03.1928 (Annexure- R1) and submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. He also referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, dated 15.05.2025, and contended that, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted since the land in question is a forest land.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that though the petitioners herein have made a claim that the land bearing Sy.No.707(544) of Mavinakere Village, Kalasa Hobli, Chikkamaguluru District, belongs to the petitioners, however, no RTC extracts or mutation records have been produced to establish their right over the land in question. Further it is forthcoming from the writ papers that in the proceedings in Appeal No.471/1999 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as per Annexure-H, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by Judgment dated 27.03.2000 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and as such the respondent-authorities were directed to restore the land to the petitioners herein, after collecting the required fees. It is also noticed that judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.45820/2004 and W.P.NO.13552/2006 (Annexures - 'J and L' respectively), wherein this Court has directed the respondent - authorities to implement the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, as the petitioners herein have not produced any

¶63

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

material to establish their right in respect of the land in question and as the endorsement has been issued by respondent - authorities at Annexure-M stating that the land in question is a forest land and also refers to the earlier Judgments passed by this Court in W.A.No.1453-1464/2005, W.A.No.1558/2007 and the Order dated 20.04.2012 in W.P.No.9573/1999, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. It is also to be noted that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD (supra), dated 15.05.2025 has considered the claim of the individual with regard to forest land and the operative portion of the order passed therein reads as follows:

¶66

" 95. We, therefore, dispose of the Interlocutory Applications and the Writ Petition in the following terms:

¶67

(i) We hold that the allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land in Survey No.21 (old Survey No.20A) Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune for agriculture purposes on 28th August 1998 and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of RRCHS on 30th October 1999 was totally illegal;

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

(ii) We further hold that Environmental Clearance granted by the MoEF on 3rd July 2007 to RRCHS is illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside;

¶72

(iii) Since the State of Maharashtra has recalled the communication dated 4th August 1998 approving the allotment of the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’, we uphold the same;

¶73

(iv) We direct that the possession of the subject land, which is reserved as a Forest Land, but is in possession of the Revenue Department, should be handed over to the Forest Department within a period of three months from today;

¶74

(v) We further direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Investigation Teams for the purpose of examining as to whether any of the reserved Forest Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to any private individuals/institutions for any purpose other than the forestry purpose;

¶75

(vi) The State Governments and the Union Territories are also directed to take steps to take back the possession of the land from the persons/institutions in possession of such lands and handover the same to the Forest Department. In case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, the State Governments/Union Territories should recover the cost of the said land from the persons/institutions to whom they were allotted and use

¶76

12 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

the said amount for the purpose of development of forests; and

¶80

(vii) We further direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Teams to ensure that all such transfers take place within a period of one year from today.

¶81

Needless to state that hereinafter such land should be used only for the purpose of afforestation."

¶82

It is also to be noted from the Judgment of this Court in the case of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT (supra), wherein this Court at para 33 and 34 has held as follows:

¶83

"33. Keeping all these aspects in perspective, since we have arrived at the conclusion that no right is created either for granting occupancy right or being continued as tenants keeping in view the nature and history of the lands, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the relief to the extent done by the order dated 7-8-2003. Further, as noticed, the FC Act, 1980 had also come into force with effect from 25-10-1980. Therefore, in respect of forest land neither the Tribunal, Appellate Authority nor Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition would have jurisdiction to grant the forest land subsequent to the said date without approval of the

¶84

13 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Central Government which has overriding effect over all other law. In that view, the distinction made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the orders passed prior to 24-4-1992 by the Tribunal to uphold the same is inconsequential and is also not sustainable. Hence, all grants made in respect of the lands in question without such approval of the Central Government are deemed to be void and invalid.

¶88

34. The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle shall therefore issue notice to all such occupants and grantees and take steps to evict them from the lands which are part of the notification dated 6-3-1928. However, having noticed the contention put forth that some of the grantees belong to the second or third generation and their forefathers/ancestors have been in cultivation having obtained the land from Temple and since all of them are not before this Court, it would be open to such of those beneficiaries of the order passed under the MRCIA Act to bring to the notice of the Conservator of Forests that the forest land had been broken up for cultivation prior to 27-2-1964 i.e., the date on which the Karnataka Forest Act came into force. However, to establish that they were in possession and cultivation prior to 27-2-1964 there should be authentic material to indicate that the tenancy is granted by the Temple/Competent Government Authorities. Further, since it is contended that there is coffee cultivation, proof of such cultivation in terms of the requirements under the Coffee Act, 1942 shall also be produced. Mere stray entries in revenue records shall not be acceptable.

¶89

14 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

If the said requirements are found to be satisfied and in such cases, if the Land Tribunal/Land Reforms Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams has granted, the same shall form material for recommending to the Central Government/Central Advisory Committee under FC Act for consideration. If the recommendation is not accepted by the Central Government, it shall become final and they shall thereafter be evicted. If the above requirements are not satisfied and despite the same, if grants are made by the Authorities indicated above, such grants shall remain void and invalid as already stated. The Conservator of Forests shall undertake the above exercise even in respect of persons who have had the benefit of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7-8-2003 who are the respondents in W.A. Nos. 1453 to 1464 of 2005 and if they do not satisfy the condition stipulated above, they shall also be evicted. The said procedure shall also be followed in respect of respondents 7 to 8 in W.P. No. 9573 of 1999 (PIL). Insofar as the appellant in W.A. No. 1558 of 2007, it is seen that the Conservator of Forests as the Appellate Authority has already rejected the case of the appellant. The appellant therein had claimed right in respect of a portion of the property as having purchased under sale deed dated 4-10-1989 from its previous owners and in respect of the other portion since it is contended that the Revenue Authorities have collected T.T. Fine, it is obviously on encroached land. Not only survey has been conducted to indicate it as forest land, we have also concluded that they are forest lands and

¶93

15 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:19470 WP No. 55577 of 2014

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

as such he is liable to be evicted. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in his conclusion."

¶97

Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record that the petitioners herein have not established their right in respect of the subject land and same has been disputed by the respondent - Government and also produced the Notification at Annexure-R1 stating that the land in question is a forest land, I am of the view that, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that though learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Section 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, however, taking into consideration the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD case referred to above, I am of the view that, there is no merit in the Writ Petition.

¶98

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is accordingly, rejected.

¶99

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶100

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

M.K. Chandrashekhara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Chandrashekhara 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum Kavya Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Philip Stephen Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. S. Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Veerabhadrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Lakshmipathi Vs State of Karnataka