Karnataka High Court
Sri G Pillappa vs The Chief Conservator Of Forest on 11 June, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:21463
WP No. 37747 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 37747 OF 2017 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G. PILLAPPA,
S/O GURRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT BASAVANAPARTHY VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
BANGALORE CIRCLE,
ARANYA BHAVAN,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
Digitally signed by B
K BANGALORE - 560 055.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA ZONE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN APPEAL NO.235/2014-15
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:21463
WP No. 37747 of 2017
DATED 4.3.2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CASE
FOA 17/2008-09 DATED 18.7.2012 ON FILE OF R-2 VIDE
ANNEXURE - A AND B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner asserts that he purchased 4 acres of land situated in Sy.No.14 in Kuttanahalli Village, Chikkaballapur, through an auction conducted by the Amaldhar/Tahasildar, Chikkaballapur. Accordingly, a grant certificate was issued in favor of the petitioner on 10.10.1962. The land was demarcated with exact boundaries, and the petitioner was put in possession of the land, with their name being recorded in the revenue records via mutation register ASR No.115-62-63 dated 25.05.1963. The petitioner's name was also entered in the index of lands in DAR No.133/61-62, and the record of rights for the periods 1965-66 and 1966-88 reflected the petitioner's ownership. Additionally, the petitioner obtained a loan by mortgaging the property.
2. Despite this, respondent No.3 registered a case based on information from a Forest Guard and issued a show cause notice, requiring the petitioner to produce documents proving their title to the land. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 18.07.2012, stating that the land in question was reserved as Haristhala State Forest land per the notification dated 12.06.1937. The order also noted that the petitioner had not produced any documents to substantiate their claim despite being served notice. The petitioner -3- NC: 2024:KHC:21463 WP No. 37747 of 2017 appealed under Section 64(a)(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and Rule 69(a) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, before respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal on 04.03.2016 and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment on the forest land. This writ petition challenges that decision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the grant certificate and revenue records clearly establish that the subject land is not forest land. They contend that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing, violates principles of natural justice and contradicts the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act.
4. Per Contra, the learned HCGP representing the respondent-State argues that the petitioner failed to produce the necessary documents to substantiate their claim despite receiving notices. Respondent No.2, based on the available records and the declaration of the land as forest land, rightly passed the impugned order. The proceedings were initiated following a court order in W.P.No.202/1995 to declare lands treated as forest in the record of rights.
5. After considering the submissions from both parties, it is noted that the petitioner has produced a copy of the grant certificate, the index of lands, and the record of rights to substantiate his purchase of the subject land in the auction -4- NC: 2024:KHC:21463 WP No. 37747 of 2017 conducted by the Tahasildar. The record of rights at Annexure-E and the mutation register bearing No.ASR.115-62-63 indicate that the petitioner's name was recorded in the revenue records as the owner in possession of the land. Consequently, the petitioner's name was reflected in the record of rights as the owner until 1998. The petitioner also asserts that the land was subsequently assigned Sy.No.299 after subdivision.
6. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to substantiate his claim that the subject land is not forest land but patta land, nor was allowed to produce relevant documents. Petitioner also stated that out of the 366.21 acres in Survey No.14, 111.16 acres of land was declared as forest land, and his land is not part of the extent of land declared as a forest land. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, declaring the subject land as a forest land and directing the petitioner to remove encroachments, is not legally sustainable. Respondent No.1, in their appellate decision, did not consider this material aspect, and thus, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 also requires interference. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 04.03.2016 passed by respondent No.1 in appeal No.235/2014-15 at Annexure-A and the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by -5- NC: 2024:KHC:21463 WP No. 37747 of 2017 respondent No.2 in FOA No.17/2008-09 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed.
iii. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.
iv. The petitioner to appear before the
respondent No.2 on 04.07.2024 and produce all the relevant documents in support of his case without waiting for notice from the Respondent No.2.
v. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file appropriate application for conducting joint survey and if such an application is filed, respondent No.2 to consider the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA