Karnataka High Court
Smt Noorjahan vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2026
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:715
WP No. 53 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2026 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT NOORJAHAN
W/O LATE CHINTAMANI
MOHAMMED MUJEEB
AGED 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.21/6, SPENCER ROAD,
1ST CROSS, FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE-560005.
2. SRI.MOINUDDIN C M
Digitally
signed by S/O LATE C.M.MUJEEB
VANAMALA AGED 41 YEARS
N
Location: R/AT NO.21/6, SPENCER ROAD,
HIGH
COURT OF 1ST CROSS, FRAZER TOWN,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560005
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:715
WP No. 53 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DESIGNATED OFFICER CUM
THE ASSISTANT FOREST
CONSERVATIVE OFFICER
CHINTAMANI SUB-DIVISION
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.
3. THE REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER
CHINTAMANI SUB-DIVISION
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.
4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
CHINTAMANI SUB-DIVISION
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.
5. THE SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:715
WP No. 53 of 2026
HC-KAR
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
8. THE TAHASILDAR
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 08.12.2025 IN
NO.2/5.0.2/0/-/2025-26/451 VIDE ANNEXURE A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:715
WP No. 53 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners assert ownership of 20 acres in Sy.No.125 of Hebbari Village, Chintamani [the subject property] and they are aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 08.12.2025 [Annexure-A] under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Forest Act']. The second respondent has opined that the petitioners have encroached a forest land and therefore they must, within thirty [30] days, remove themselves and their assets, including the standing crops, from the subject property.
2. Sri A. Keshava Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' cause in the present proceedings is in the light of the orders of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.01.2025 in Writ Petition No.802/2025 [GM-FOR], and the learned counsel in elaboration submits that this Court has quashed the notice issued by the second -5- NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent to the occupants of the neighbouring extent directing a fresh enquiry and that the second respondent is in the midst of such enquiry. The learned counsel emphasizes that, as part of such enquiry, the second respondent is examining all the records including the genuineness of the grants relied upon by the occupants of the adjacent lands and the mutation entries in their favour.
3. Sri B. Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents reserving liberty to argue on merits, submits that this Court may not entertain the writ petition because the petitioners can avail appellate remedy under Section 64-A(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Forest Act'] read with Rule 164A of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. In reply, Sri.A.Keshava Bhat submits that the petitioners will not contest the assertion that they have appellate remedy against the second -6- NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent's impugned order but would seek this Court's interference for re-examination in the light of the fact that the second respondent is re-examining all the circumstances as aforementioned. When queried, Sri.A.Keshava Bhat is categorical that the petitioners do not propose to make any structural changes in the subject lands.
4. These circumstances are considered, and this Court finds at this stage that there must be a comprehensive decision as against disjointed examination of records for complete adjudication on whether the land in Survey No.125 of Hebbari Village, Chintamani is a forest land. A comprehensive decision will result in a cohesive resolution. As such, leaving open all questions on the merits of the respondents' assertion that the petitioners are in possession of forest land, the petition is partly allowed quashing the second respondent's order dated 08.12.2025 [Annexure-A] and restoring the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 HC-KAR proceedings to the second respondent for simultaneous consideration of the petitioners' response under Section 64-A(1) of the Forest Act with the pending responses as against notices issued under this provision.
5. The petitioners, without any further notice, shall appear before the second respondent on 29.01.2026. It is expressly stipulated that the petitioners shall not make any structural changes in the subject land and that if there is any such effort, it should be open to the concerned from the State Forest Department to take appropriate action. It is needless to observe that the petitioners will be at liberty to place on record all documents that they propose to rely upon to vindicate their stand.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4