Karnataka High Court
Ganesh Nayak S/O Bahunayak Lamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2022
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No. 102169 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 102169/2022 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
1. GANESH NAYAK S/O BAHUNAYAK LAMANI,
AGE 34 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R.O HALE NIDNEGILU, TQ.HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581 111.
2. SANKARIBAI W/O BAHUNAYAK LAMANI,
AGE 56 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R.O HALE NIDNEGILU, TQ.HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581 111.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-03.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT
RECOGNITION OF FOREST BOARD,
HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581 110.
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
HAVERI DIVISION, OPP DIET,
KARJAGI ROAD, HAVERI-581 110.
4. THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT TRIBLE WELFARE OFFICE
HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 102169 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.02.2022 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANENXURE-F & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS., J (ORAL) The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dated 04.02.2022 issued in respect of the individual petitioners arising out of applications made by the petitioners seeking recognition of their rights in respect of forest lands for cultivation, as provided in The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules, 2007.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had filed applications in the year 2016 in the prescribed form to the Assistant Director Grade-II, Social Welfare Department. However, as could be seen from the impugned order the endorsement has been issued based on the decision taken by the District Level Committee in its meeting dated 11.01.2022. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited -3- WP No. 102169 of 2022 Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Others reported in (2013) 6 SCC 476, the District Level Committee should have remanded the matter back to the Gram Sabha for reconsideration instead of rejecting the application.
3. Learned counsel would further contend that rejection of the application is based on certain statement stated to have been made by the petitioners in their applications that they had filed applications for regularization of unauthorized occupation of forest lands in the year 1978 while stating that the petitioners or their forefathers were in occupation of the land in question from the year 1960. It is pointed out from the resolution of the meeting of the District Level Committee that this information that is provided by the petitioners in the application that they were in possession of the land in question from the year 1960 is sought to be held against them by stating that the requirement of the law that is the applicant who claims to be the "Other Traditional Forest Dweller", should be a member of a community in occupation of the land for at least three generations prior to 13th Day of December, 2005, primarily residing in and depending on the forest or forest lands for the bonafide livelihood needs. As per the explanation provided to the -4- WP No. 102169 of 2022 definition of the word "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" in Clause "O" of Sec.2 of the Act, 2006, for the purpose of the clause, "generation" means a period comprising of 25 years. It is therefore the opinion of the District Level Committee that three generations of the applicants should have held the land for a period of 75 years prior to 13th Day of December, 2005. That requirement not having been fulfilled, the applications have been rejected.
4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the directions given by the Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation (supra) which was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not compel the District Level Committee to necessarily remand the matter to the Gram Sabha. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court has only directed that such remand would be necessary only if the recommendation of the Gram Sabha is found to be incomplete or prima facie requires additional examination.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the District Level Committee has considered the case of the petitioners who sought declaration of their forest rights on the strength that they are "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers", in terms -5- WP No. 102169 of 2022 of the Act, 2006. The applications made by the petitioners are not rejected on a singular ground that they do not fulfill the primary requirement of establishing the fact that the three generations of the family have been in occupation of the lands in question prior to 13th Day of December, 2005. On the other hand, elaborate discussion has been made by the District Level Committee considering the applications of the petitioners on various grounds including the claim of the petitioners that there were archaeological remains in the land in question. The archaeological remains which were sought to be putforth by the petitioners were got examined through experts and it was found that these stone inscriptions (Veeragallu) were placed in the land by digging up the land a few years ago. The information was also secured from the Court of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Ranebennur, where the litigation was going on against the petitioners and certain information were already available before the Court. On a detailed analysis of all the information which were not only brought by the petitioners but also secured by the District Level Committee from various sources were examined and the District Level Committee has come to a conclusion that the claim of the petitioners is not in conformity with the provisions of law. It was found that the petitioners have been in -6- WP No. 102169 of 2022 possession of the land from the year 1972. Even if it is taken for the sake of argument that the petitioners herein had mentioned in the application that they had already filed application seeking regularization of the forest land in the year 1978 while stating therein that they were in possession of the lands from the year 1960, even then it would not fulfill the basic requirement of law.
6. The learned AGA is right in his submission that the direction by the Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation (supra) was not that every order of rejection of the application at the hands of the District Level Committee should be placed before the Gram Sabha. Such direction was issued to ensure that in case it was found that the information provided by the applicant or the Gram Sabha was not sufficient and there was scope of collection of additional material, the matter should be remanded. As noticed hereinabove, the District Level Committee has gone into the applications of the petitioners very elaborately and additional material were also collected from various sources including examination of the stone inscriptions found in the lands in question at the hands of the expert. The claim of the petitioners having been found dubious, the District Level Committee has rightly -7- WP No. 102169 of 2022 rejected the claim of the petitioners. No infirmity is found by this Court in the resolution passed by the District Level Committee. The impugned endorsement is only a communication of the decision of the District Level Committee.
Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
SD JUDGE BVV