Karnataka High Court
K N Chandrachooda vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23436
WP No. 10562 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 10562 OF 2020 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
K.N. CHANDRACHOODA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
R/AT "GANGA YATHRINIVAS,
2ND DIVISION, B.NO. ROAD,
GUNDLUPET TOWN,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT- 571 313.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. FAIHAS ACI P.P
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O HASSAN KOYA,
RESIDING AT "NASRATH MANZI"
AZHCHAVATTAM PO
Digitally signed by B K
MANKAVU, KOZHIKODI DISTRICT
MAHENDRAKUMAR KERALA- 673 007.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23436
WP No. 10562 of 2020
3. CONSERVANTOR OF FOREST AND RANGE DIRECTOR
OF TIGER RESERVE
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJA NAGAR- 571313.
4. ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ASST. CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST TIGER RESERVE
MADDUR RANGE
GUNDULPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJA NAGAR-571313.
5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS
GUNDULPET TALUK, CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJA NAGAR- 571313.
6. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
TIGER RESERVE
MADDUR RANGE
GUDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGAR- 571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DATED 29.05.2020 IN ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-N; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-
3 DATED 21.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 64 of the Karnataka Forest Act, which resulted in the petitioner being evicted for unauthorizedly encroaching upon 31 acres and 39 guntas of land designated as forest land within the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:23436 WP No. 10562 of 2020 Bandipura Tiger Reserve Forest. The petitioner also contested the order from the third respondent, which dismissed the appeal filed under Section 65(a)(3) on the grounds that the appeal was not submitted within the prescribed time limit.
2. Facts in Brief are as follows:
i. The petitioner asserts having purchased an extent of 42.38 acres of land in Sy.No.78, which was subsequently assigned different survey numbers under a registered sale deed dated June 4, 2011. Consequently, the petitioner's name was recorded in the revenue records for the land extent.
ii. Proceedings were initiated under Section 64(a) of the Karnataka Forest Act, alleging that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of 31 acres and 39 guntas in Sy.No.78, an area declared as forest land within the Bandipura Tiger Reserve Forest.
iii. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and conceded that 22.27 acres of the purchased land fall within the purview of forest land, while the remaining 9.12 acres are revenue land. The fourth respondent, after considering the material on record, issued an order declaring that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of 31.39 acres of land in Sy.No.78. The order also noted that the revenue authorities had created documents for an extent of 9 acres and 12 guntas.-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:23436 WP No. 10562 of 2020 iv. Subsequently, the petitioner and the Assistant Conservator of Forest submitted an application to the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR), Gundlupete Taluk, requesting a survey of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.78. The ADLR submitted a report stating that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.78 measured 94 acres and 14 guntas, with an excess of 6.14 guntas.
v. During this process, there was a delay in the petitioner filing an appeal under Section 64(a)(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act. The third respondent dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was filed one year after the original order was passed. Consequently, this petition was filed to challenge the dismissal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that 22 acres and 27 guntas of the land fall within the forest area, while the remaining 9 acres and 12 guntas fall outside the forest area, as evidenced by the ADLR's survey report. Therefore, the impugned order evicting the petitioner from the said extent of land is argued to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. In contrast, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner had categorically admitted to unauthorized possession of forest land measuring 22 acres and 27 guntas. Additionally, the material on record clearly establishes that the remaining 9 acres and 12 guntas also fall within the forest area. Thus, the fourth respondent rightly passed the order under Section 64(a) of the Act, 1955, which does not warrant any interference.
-5-NC: 2024:KHC:23436 WP No. 10562 of 2020
5. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties were duly considered.
6. The petitioner admitted to unauthorized possession of 22.27 guntas of land in Sy.No.78, which falls within the Bandipura Tiger Reserve Forest. However, the petitioner contended that the remaining 9.12 guntas of land is revenue land.
7. Upon the request of the petitioner and the Assistant Conservator of Forest, the ADLR conducted a survey of Sy.No.78 and submitted a report stating there was an excess of 6.14 guntas of land. Whether the land purchased by the petitioner falls within this excess land requires reconsideration by the fourth respondent after conducting a fresh survey.
8. Following the order passed under Section 64(a) of the Act, 1955, the possession of the entire extent of 31 acres and 3 guntas was taken from the petitioner. Currently, the said extent of land is in possession of the Forest Department.
9. The possession of the 9.12 guntas of land by the Forest Department is subject to the outcome of the survey to be conducted by the competent authority in the presence of both the Forest Department and the petitioner. Accordingly I pass the following:
-6-NC: 2024:KHC:23436 WP No. 10562 of 2020 ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part.
ii) The impugned order dated 29.5.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent at Annexure-N, and order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the 3 respondent at Annexure-K, insofar it relates to evicting the petitioner from an extent of land measuring 9.12 guntas in syNo.78 is hereby quashed.
iii) Eviction of the petitioner from an extent of 22 acre 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.78 is hereby confirmed.
iv) The fourth respondent is hereby directed to conduct a fresh survey of Sy.No.78, with the assistance of the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR), Gundlupete. This survey must be conducted in the presence of the petitioner. The objective is to determine whether the land measuring 9.12 guntas falls within the 80-acre parcel in Sy.No.78. Following the survey, a report must be submitted. If it is found that the petitioner has purchased excess land in Sy.No.78, the excess land should be restored to the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR