Karnataka High Court
Sri.D.Muniraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.6889 OF 2015 (GM - FOR)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI D.MUNIRAJU
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NO.5151, VIJAYARAJ
NEAR OMKAR HILLS
KENGERI POST
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 060.
2 . SRI D.HEMANNA
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
NO.429, H ROAD
2ND STAGE,
IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
3 . SRI D.GOPALA
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.17, 12TH MAIN
17TH MAIN ROAD
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
2
4 . SRI D.KRISHNA
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
DOOR NO.113
PANTHARAPALYA
NAYANDAHALLI POST
MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 039.
5 . SRI D.NARAYANASWAMI
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
DOOR NO.113
PANTHRAPALYA
NAYANDAHALLI POST
MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 039.
6 . SRI D.SHYAM
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO.32, 6TH STAGE
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS
BEML LAYOUT
R.R.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
FOREST DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3
2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
BENGALURU CIRCLE
ARANYA BHAVAN, II FLOOR
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISIO
BENGALURU - 560 003.
4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KAGGALIPURA RANGE
KAGGALIPURA
BENGALURU - 560 062.
5. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN V.RON, AAG A/W
SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN
APPEAL NO. 135/2008 AND THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2008
PASSED BY THE R-3 IN FOC NO.142/06-07 DATED 23.9.2006,
KAGGALIPURA RANGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANN-A & B
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are calling in question an order dated
19-12-2014 passed by the 2nd respondent/Chief Conservator of
Forests-Appellate Authority in Appeal No.135 of 2008 affirming the
order dated 09-09-2008 passed by the 3rd respondent/Assistant
Conservator of Forests in FOC No.142/2006-07 declaring the lands
belonging to the petitioners to be forest lands.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
The averment in the petition is that the petitioners are
brothers in relation and are owners of land in Sy. Nos. 60 to 63 of
Mylasandra Village, KengeriHobli, Bangalore South Taluk totally
measuring 19 acres 35 guntas. It is the case of the petitioners that
Sy.No.26 of Mylasandra Village originally measured 91 acres and 02
guntas and after Phodi which took place on 29-06-1869 it is divided
into 30 acres and 22 guntas each. Among 6 survey numbers
carved out of Sy.No.26 as Survey Nos.59 to 64, Sy.Nos. 59, 60
5
and 61 were granted in favour of one P.M. Puttaraju and Sy.Nos.
62, 63 and 64 were granted in favour of T.K. Damodar. The
boundaries are clearly demarcated is the averment in the petition.
This is written down in the survey that was conducted as per the
Dharkasthu Manjuri Durasth dated 08-04-1932.
3. In the year 1935, the remaining extent of 60 acres and 20
guntas out of 91 acres 02 guntas mentioned hereinabove, was
declared to be a forest land by Notification dated 14-12-1935 by
the Government of Mysore to become forest land with effect from
15-01-1936. The extent in Sy.No.26 as in the year 1935 is said to
be an undisputed fact and the mutation extract in relation to the
said survey number is said to be depicting as 60 acres and 20
guntas to be the forest land. The petitioners claim to be the
absolute owners of Sy.Nos. 60 to 64 which were granted originally
to two persons mentioned hereinabove, but the original grantees
had not paid any kandayam to the Government. When the original
grantee did not pay kandayam to the Government, the Government
by holding proceedings under the then Land Revenue Code,
confiscated the land and thereafter sold the same in public auction.
6
4. One Karimsab purchased the aforesaid land in public action
and sells the land on 30-04-1962 in favour of (1)Narayanaswamy,
(ii) Smt. Mallamma and (iii) P. Narayanaswamappa. All these sale
deeds took place in the year 1962. These land owners who had
purchased the property from Karimsab have sold the property in
favour of one Raghunath Rao Mane. In a family partition these
lands fell to the share of Rohini, Meena and Anitha, daughters of
Raghunath Rao Mane. In the year 1982, these family members sell
the land in favour of the petitioners. It is the averment in the
petition that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property in Sy.Nos. 60 to 64 right from year 1982
and today have been in possession for the last 42 years. After
purchase of the property, the petitioners developed the land into a
farm land and constructed a residential house therein.
5. In the family of the petitioners, there appears to be
another partition and the lands are divided among the family
members on such partition. The further averment in the petition is
that the land in Sy.Nos. 60 to 64 are revenue lands and
notwithstanding the same, the 4th respondent/Range Forest Officer,
7
Kaggalipura Range registered a crime on 23-09-2006 against the
petitioners and their family members alleging that they have
encroached 15 acres of forest land. The 4th respondent is directed
to investigate into the matter. The 4th respondent submits a report
to the 3rd respondent alleging encroachment against the petitioners
and their family members. Based upon the said report of the 4th
respondent, the 3rd respondent issues a show cause notice to the
1st petitioner invoking Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Rules
1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules' for short) alleging
violation of the Karnataka Forest Act and the Rules.
6. The 1st petitioner, on behalf of all the members of the
family, submits a reply that he and his family members are the
owners of 20 acres of land in Sy.Nos. 62 to 64 and they are in
possession of the said land since 1982. The 3rd respondent without
considering the reply and without holding any inquiry passes an
order declaring the land in Sy.Nos.62 to 64 to be belonging to the
forest in terms of his order dated 09-09-2008. The petitioners then
prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Chief
Conservator of Forests in appeal No.135 of 2008. All records are
8
said to have been produced by the petitioners and notwithstanding
the same, the appeal comes to be rejected holding that the
petitioners have encroached forest land and Sy.Nos.59 to 64 are a
part of Sy.No.26 and it is the land belonging to the forest. It is this
that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
This Court had protected the petitioners by an interim order of stay,
insofar as orders in Annexures-'A' & 'B'are concerned, in terms of
its order dated 20-02-2015. The said interim order is in substance
even today.
7. Heard Sri K. Anandarama, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondents.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that the lands did not belong to Forest
Department, as way back in the year 1931, the lands were granted
to certain persons and those grantees had not paid
kandayam/taxes which resulted in confiscation of the lands and
purchase was made in a public auction in the year 1943 and 40
9
years thereafter, after several hands changed, the petitioners have
come in possession of the property. Sy.No.26 to an extent of 60
acres and 20 guntas was declared as a State Forest in terms of
Notification dated 14-12-1935. The occupation of the petitioners is
now said to be unauthorized. They are in possession of Sy.No.26,
which after Phodi is now Sy. Nos. 59 to 64. He would contend that a
survey was conducted and in the survey, the surveyor has given a
sketch and a report which clearly depict that the petitioners are not
in encroachment of any forest land. Their land only borders the
land belonging to the forest and not the forest land. He would
submit that the action is taken after 94 years of the proceedings
and after 42 years of possession of land by the petitioners. He
would seek quashment of the orders and the petitioners be left in
peace with the property, without any interference from the hands of
the State, through the Forest Department.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General
Sri Kiran V. Ron would vehemently refute the submissions
contending that once a forest it is always a forest. Any
encroachment can be detected and de-encroached at any point in
10
time. There can be no limitation for taking over the encroached
forest land. He would submit that this is a settled principle of law.
He would contend that the grant that is spoken to in the year 1931
does not find its place in the original records. He has placed the
original records for the perusal of the Court. It is his contention that
there was no grant at all and if there was no grant, the entire area
was declared to be a forest land in the year 1935 and, therefore,
the petitioners are admittedly in encroachment of forest land. No
fault can be found with the orders passed by the original authority
holding the land to be a forest land and the order of the Appellate
Authority confirming the same. Insofar as survey is concerned, the
learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the survey
is erroneously made. It is contrary to the records. Therefore, it
should not be given any credence, notwithstanding that the survey
is conducted by another wing of the Government. He would seek
dismissal of the petition.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
11
11. The afore-narrated facts though not in dispute would
require a little elaboration. The story in the case at hand would
commence from the year 1931. The proceedings that have
happened from the years 1931 to 1933 are appended to the
petition. It is necessary to notice those proceedings. The
proceedings dated 20-10-1933 read as follows:
" ಾ ಮ: ೖಲಸಂದ ೋಬ : ೆಂ ೇ
ಸ ನಂ 60ರ ದರ ಾಸು ಪ ನಕಲು.
ಾ ನಂಬರು: 2 ೊಸ ನಂಬರು: 60 ಸ ನಂ:26
ಸ ನಂ 60 ದುರಸು ಪ ನಕಲು
ನ ೆ
ಸರ ಾ RÄ¶Ì PÉA¥ÀÄ "ಾಗು
ಕ$ಾ%: . ೆ.$ಾ&ೕದರಂ
ಪ ' ೇತ .
ನ ೆ
¸Á ಗು )ೕಳ+
gÀ 3 0
,ೈ- ."ೆ/ ಆ1ೆ
6 1 10
7 2 13
------------------
4 24
2ಾಗ ಆ1ೆ
gÀ 6 gÀÆ
12
ಊ ಂದ ದೂರ ೖಲು
4. ಆ ಾರಬಂ4ನಂ5ೆ6 ಮೂಳ ನಂಬರು ಪ78ಾ ಖ8ಾ:ನ ;ದು< ಈ ನಂಬರು ,ೈ- 8ೆ>ನೂ? ಇAಾ ೆ
ಹುಕುಂ ೕ8ೆ ೆ ಖು¶Ì "ಾಗುವ ೆ ಮಂಜೂರು EಾFರುವ ೊಸ ಸGೆ% ನಂಬನರು ಪ ಾರ ಅ$ೇಶವ£ÀÄß
$ಾಖAಾJFರು5ೆ.
6. ಈ ಆ ಾರ ಬಂ4ನ ; ಮೂಳ ನಂಬರು ಪ78ಾ ಖ8ಾಬು ಈಗ ¥ÉÆÃFKಾLರುವ ಕದ% "ಾ ೆ ಬಂದ ಈ
ನಂಬ ೆ ಖ8ಾಬು ನ ಾMೆಯ ; ಕಂಡ ಬ ೆP ಾಯಂ
7. QೕRಾದ< ಂದ ೊಸ$ಾL ಅFಕಲು;ಗಳ+ ಮತು ಕಲು;ಗಳನುS ಗುರುತು EಾFರು5ೆ.
8. QೕRಾದ ನಂಬರು ಾ ಮ ನ ಾMೆ $ೊ8ೆಯದ< ಂದ ದುರಸು EಾFಲ;.
9. ಋಣಗಳ+ Kಾವತೂ ತKಾ8ಾLರು5ೆ,
ಸ.
20.10.33."
All the four survey numbers that form part of these 90 acres bear
consideration in the proceedings dated 20-10-1933. When things
stood thus, a notification comes about on 14-12-1935 from the
Government of Mysore declaring certain parts of Thurahalli to be
lands belonging to the Forest Department. The notification insofar
as it is germane reads as follows:
"GENERAL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS
G.O.N.G.4902.5-Ft 154-35-2, dated 14th December 1935
Forest Settlement
Approves of the - of the Badamanevarthe Forest Block in
the Bangalore Taluk as a State Forest.
READ
13
Government Notification No.G.1572-Ft. 56-33-2 dated 2nd
September, 1933 issued under Section 4 of the Forest
Regulation, in the matter of the proposed constitution of the
Badamanevarthe Forest Block in the Bangalore Talulk.
2. Letter No.C.1235-35-36, dated 18th November, 1935,
from the Revenue Commissioner in Mysore, forwarding the
Forest Settlement Officer's report on the conclusion of the
settlement of the block and stating that the Chief Conservator of
Forests is agreeable to the issue of the final notification in the
matter.
ORDER NO.G.4902-5-Ft. 154-35-2, DATED BANGALORE
THE 14TH DECEMBER, 1935
The settlement effected by the Forest Settlement Officer
and agreed to by the Revenue Commissioner and the Chief
Conservator of Forests, is approved. The Notification under
Section 17 of the Forest Regulation constituting the block a
State Forest with effect from 15th January 1936, will be
published in the Gazette.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District is
requested to duly promulgate the boundaries of the block in the
village concerned.
M.VENKATANARANAPPA
Secretary to Government,
Development Department.
ORDER NO.G.4902-5-Ft. 154-35-2,
DATED 14th DECEMBER 1935
ANNEXURE
No.G.4906-FT. 154-35-3, dated 14th December, 1935.
The Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore
are pleased to declare, under Section 17 of the Mysore Forest
Regulation, XI of 1900, that from 15th January 1936, the area,
14
the boundaries of which are set forth in the schedule appended
to this notification, shall be deemed to be a "State Forest"
subject to the exercise of rights specified at foot thereof.
By order,
M.VENKATANARANAPPA
Secretary to Government,
Development Department.
To - The Compiler, Mysore Gazette.
Schedule
District Taluk Hobli Village Area Name of block Situation
Bangalore Bangalore Kengeri Kengeri A. G. Badamanevarte This block
Mailsandra 514 state forest is situated
Badamanevarte 29 at a
Kaval Hemagiri Or distance
80 of about
Sqr 10 miles
Miles south-
west of
Bangalore
town and
2 miles
south-east
of kengeri
Boundaries
North.- Starting from a point about 6 chains south-east
from the south-east corner of Survey No.56 of Mailsandra, the
line runs south-east through Sy.No.22 of Mailsandra for about
27 chains to a point about 5 chains south-west from the south-
east corner of Sy.No.21 of the same village.
East.- Then south-west along the western boundary of
Sy.No.23 of Mailsandra for about 29 chains to its south-west
corner; then north-west along the common boundary of Sy.Nos.
22 and 26 for about 5 chains; then south-west through
Sy.No.26 of Mailsandra, 67 & 68 of Kengeri, for about 42 chains
to a point about 6 chains south-west from the south-west corner
of Sy.No.25 of Mailsandra; then south-east through Sy.No.65 of
Kengeri and 170 of Badamanevarte Kaval for about 11 chains to
a point about 5 chains south-west from the south-east corner of
Sy.No.25 of Mailsandra; then south-east through Sy.No.170 of
15
Badamanevarte Kaval and 86 of Hemagipurada Majare Gubbala
chikkanhalli for about 103 chains at a distance of 5 chains
margin all along the western and southern boundary of Sy.Nos.
13, 11 and 10 of Sanakallu to a point about 5 chains south-east
from the north-east corner of Sy.No.89 of Hemagipurada Majare
Gubbalachikkanahallli; then south-east along the western
boundary of Sy.No.89 of the said village for about 12 chains to a
point about 5 chains north-west from the north-east corner of
Sy.No.85 of the said village.
... ... ... ..."
This is ostensibly declared a forest land in terms of the Mysore
Forest Act, 1900 and the Mysore Forest Regulations of the said
year. The Act and the Regulations insofar as they are germane read
as follows:
"The Mysore Forest Act, 1900 -
Section 3 - Power to constitute State Forests - "Any land
at the disposal of Government may be constituted a State
Forest in the manner hereinafter provided"
Section 2(9) - "Land at the disposal of Government"
means land in respect of which no person has acquired -
a) A permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and
occupancy under any law for the time being in force; or
b) Any right created by grant or lease made or continued by, or
on behalf of, Government."
The Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900
Section 3 - Power to constitute State Forests - "Any land
at the disposal of Government may be constituted a State
Forest in the manner hereinafter provided"
16
Section 2(9) - "Land at the disposal of Government"
means land in respect of which no person has acquired -
a) A permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and
occupancy under any law for the time being in force; or
b) Any right created by grant or lease made or continued by, or
on behalf of, Government."
Section 3 of the Mysore Forest Act empowered the then
Government of Mysore to constitute State Forest. Any land at the
disposal of the Government could be constituted as State Forest in
a manner provided therein. Section 2(9) defines the 'land at the
disposal of the Government' to mean that the land in respect of
which no person has acquired a permanent, heritable and
transferable right. The Regulations are to the same effect. Prior to
the Mysore Forest Act, which was a local legislation, the Indian
Forest Act, 1878 also confers power to reserve forest. Section 3 of
the Indian Forest Act, 1878 reads as follows:
" The Indian Forest Act, 1878
Section 3 - "Power to reserve forests - The Local
Government may from time to time constitute any forest-land or
waste-land which is the property of Government, or over which
the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any
part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled,
a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided."
17
This was replaced by the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Section 3 of the
Indian Forest Act, 1927 reads as follows:
"The Indian Forest Act, 1927
Section 3 - "Power to reserve forests - The Local
Government may from time to time constitute any forest-land or
waste-land which is the property of Government, or over which
the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any
part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled,
a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided."
Here again, the local Government was empowered from time to
time to constitute any forest land or waste land which is the
property of the Government or over which the Government has
proprietary right to be a reserved forest. These are the relevant
legislations which prevail at the time when the subject lands were
allegedly declared to be belonging to the forest in terms of
notification dated 14-12-1935.
12. After the declaration of lands as forest lands in terms of
the notification dated 14-12-1935, much water flows. The
petitioners come in possession of the property after the property
changed hands at various levels. Sy.No.26 was phoded into
Sy.Nos. 59 to 64. After the phoding was done now it is as follows:
18
Sy.No Total Area Kharab Net Area
59 5A-08G 04G 5A-04G
60 5A-03G 02G 5A-01G
61 5A-04G 02G 5A-02G
62 5A-06G 02G 5A-04G
63 5A-06G 02G 5A-04G
64 4A-35G 0 4A-35G
30A-22G 12G 30A-10G
The remaining extent of land apart from the lands of the petitioner
in Sy.No.26 are now as follows:
Sy.No.26 - 91A-02G
Less: Sy.No.59-64 - 30A-22G
Remaining area in 26: - 60A-20G
As observed hereinabove, the lands were granted in favour of P.M.
Puttaraju and T.K. Damodhar. They are the original grantees. Due
to non-payment of taxes, the granted lands were taken possession
of by the State and sold in public auction on 30-06-1943. One
Karimsab purchases the property. These are matters on record.
After Karimsab purchasing the property, the property changed
hands till the petitioners.
13. The coordinate Bench while hearing the matter, at the
outset on 18-08-2022, passes the following order:
19
"Both the sides having argued the matter at length, are
now in agreement that there is a dispute as to where the
boundary between petitioners' land and the notified forest land
does lie. There is no dispute as to 1930-31 grant of certain
lands to private entities in old Sy. No.26 i.e., new Sy. Nos. 59,
60, 61, 62, 63 & 64, the Grant being of the year 1930-31, Phodi
having taken place in 1933 or so pursuant to said Grant.
In the year 1935, certain lands came to be reserved as
Turahalli State Forest vide Notification dated 14.12.1935 at
Annexure - F and in the annexure to the said Notification, there
is specific description of the forest land by fixing the boundaries.
Of these boundaries, the Eastern one appears to be relevant for
the purpose of identification of the boundary line between the
private land of the petitioners and the forest land of the Govt.
This aspect assumes importance inasmuch as, the map a copy
whereof avails at Annexure-H to the petition does not appear to
have been drawn keeping the description of the said boundaries
within which the said forest land is comprised. Therefore, much
significance cannot be attached to this map.
It hardly needs to be stated that the dispute about the
boundary is not as to its existence as such, but as to where the
boundary line lies. This can be ascertained by undertaking the
Spot Inspection & Survey of both the lands in question involving
the experienced survey officers of Department of Survey,
preferably ADLR, Bengaluru, assisted by jurisdictional Range
Forest Officers and Revenue Officers as well. The participation of
petitioners' side is also permitted as a stakeholder. This exercise
has to be accomplished and Survey Report be submitted to this
Court within an outer limit of four weeks.
It hardly needs to be stated that both the sides can bank
upon the documents and records in support of their version
facilitating the survey in question.
Post this matter for Further Hearing on 29.09.2022."
The coordinate Bench holds that there is no dispute as to 1930-31
grant of certain lands to private parties. Phodi takes place in the
20
year 1933 pursuant to the said grant. The order captures the entire
gamut of the contentions of both the petitioners and the
respondents. The coordinate Bench further holds that the dispute
about the boundaries is not as to its existence as such, but as to
where the boundary line lies. This could be ascertained by a spot
inspection is what the coordinate Bench directed. It directed the
Department of Survey to depute an ADLR assisted by the
jurisdictional Range Forest Officer and Revenue Officer and after
hearing the stake holders, the exercise of survey should be
accomplished and a report should be placed before the Court within
four weeks. The ADLR issues a notice on 05-09-2022 to all the
stake holders to be present at the time of survey. The notice reads
as follows:
"¨sÀÆzÁR¯Éಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ V$ೇ%ಶಕರ ಾKಾ%ಲಯ, WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು WೆಂಗಳXರು.
ಕಂ$ಾಯ ಭವನ, 1[ೇ ಮಹF ೆ.:.ರ"ೆ WೆಂಗಳXರು-560009.
ಸಂ ೆ?: ಭೂ.ಸ.V/\.ಆ]/ಇತ8ೆ:284/2022-23. ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.09.2022
'ಳ+ವ ೆ ಪvÀæ
>ಷಯ:- WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ೆಂ ೇ ೋಬ , ೖಲಸಂದ ಾ ಮದ ಹ_ೆ
ಸ.ನಂ.26 ೊಸ ಸ.ನಂ.59 ಂದ 64 ರ ಜ`ೕVನ ಕದ%, ಪ ,
ಆ ಾರಬಂದು ದುರaKಾLರುವ 4[ಾಂಕವನುS ನಮೂ4a ಘನ ಉಚe
[ಾ?Kಾಲಯದ ಆ$ೇಶದಂ5ೆ ನ ೆ VೕಡWೇ ಾL ಮನ>.
21
G¯ÉèÃR:- 1. Eಾನ? ಘನ ಉಚe [ಾ?Kಾಲಯದ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಸಂ ೆ?: ಡಬೂ;f.\.ನಂ.
6889/2015 ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.08.2022 DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ.
2. F.ಮುV8ಾಜು ಮತು ಇತರರು (F. ೇಮಣg, F. ೋ,ಾh, F.ಕೃಷg,
F.[ಾ8ಾಯಣ "ಾj` ಮತು F.Mಾ?k) ೖಲಸಂದ ಸ.ನಂ.59 ಂದ
64) ರ ; Gಾಸ ೆಂ ೇ ೋಬ , WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು,
WೆಂಗಳXರು ರವರ ಮನ> 4[ಾಂಕ:01.09.2022.
****
ೕಲlಂಡ >ಷಯ ೆl ಸಂಬಂmaದಂ5ೆ, WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು, ೆಂ ೇ ೋಬ ,
ೖಲಸಂದ ಾ ಮದ ಹ_ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.26 ೊಸ ಸ.ನಂ.59 ಂದ 64 ರ ವ8ೆ ೆ QೕFದುರaKಾLದು<,
ಜ`ೕVನ ಗF2ಾಗದ ; ತುರಹ n ಾ ಮ ೆl ಒಳಪಡುವ ಅರಣ? ಇAಾ ೆರವ8ೊಂ4 ೆ ಜಂ ಅಳ5ೆ
ಾಯ% Vವ%.a ಗF ಗುರು'ಸಲು ಉAೆ;ೕಖ(1) ಆ$ೇಶದ ; ಸೂಚ[ೆ ಇರುತ$ೆ.
ಅದರಂ5ೆ ಪ "ಾ\ತ ಜ`ೕನುಗಳ ಗFಗಳನುS ಗುರು'ಸಲು ಅರಣ? ಇAಾ ೆರವ8ೊಂ4 ೆ ಜಂ
ಅಳ5ೆ ಾಯ% ೈ ೊಳ+nವ ಸಲುGಾL ನಮJ ಕpೇ qಂದ Vrೕ:aರುವ ಭೂEಾಪಕರುಗಳ+ ಾಗೂ
¥ÀAiÀÄð«ÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ 4[ಾಂಕ:09.09.2022 ರಂದು ಾಜ8ಾಗುವವ ದು<, ಸದ 4ನದಂದು ಜಂ ಸsಳ
ತV ೆ ೆ, vÀªÀÄä°ègÀĪÀ zÁ ಾಲ'ಗ_ೆX ಂ4 ೆ ಸsಳದ ; ಾಜ ದು< ಅಳ5ೆ ೆ ಸಹಕ ಸಲು ೋ $ೆ.
ರವ ೆ,
1. vÀºÀ²ÃzÁÝgï,
WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
2. ಉಪ ಅರಣ? ಸಂರv1ಾm ಾ ಗಳ+,
WೆಂಗಳXರು >2ಾಗ,
WೆಂಗಳXರು.
3. ವಲಯ ಅರಣ?m ಾ ಗಳ+,
ಕಗP ೕಪxರ ವಲಯ,
ಕಗP ೕಪxರ.
4. ಆ]. .a $ಾರ8ಾದ
1) ²æà F.ಮುV8ಾಜು ಮತು ಇತರರು
2) F. ೇಮಣg
3) F. ೋ,ಾh,
4) F.ಕೃµÀÚ,
22
5) F.[ಾ8ಾಯಣ "ಾj`
6) r. ±ÁåªÀiï
ೕ ನ ಆ]. .a$ಾರರ >_ಾಸ:
ೖಲಸಂದ ಸ.ನಂ.59 ಂದ 64)
ರ ; Gಾಸ ೆಂ ೇ ೋಬ ,
WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು,
WೆಂಗಳXರು
¸À»/-
ಭೂ$ಾಖAೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ V$ೇ%ಶಕರು
WೆಂಗಳXರು ದYಣ 5ಾಲೂ;ಕು,
WೆಂಗಳXರು."
The report is as follows:
"¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½ ªÉÄÊ®¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ
D.ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ, D. ºÉêÀÄtÚ, D. PÀȵÀÚ, D.£ÁgÁgÀt ¸Áé«Ä, D. ±ÁåªÀiï DzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (ADLR) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÄÀ
ºÉý §gɹzÀ ºÉýPÉ.
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁll PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½ ªÉÄÊ®¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA26 gÀ°è ºÉƸÀ
¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 59-60, 61-62, 63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£ GZÀÑÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ W.P. No.6889/2015 DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ
ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉgÀªÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ
E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉýzÀ§½PÀ ¤Ãr F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.09.2022 gÀAzÀÄ
C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdjzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ.
ºÀ¼É ¸À.£ÀA. 26 gÀ UÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀvɬÄAzÀ ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 59,
60, 61, 62, 63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ UÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÄÀ
dAnAiÀiÁV C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ºÁdjzÀÄÝ
¸À.£ÀA. 26 gÀ°è ºÉƸÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï DVgÀĪÀ ¸À.£ÀA. 59, 60-61, 62-63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ UÀr
UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý 2 ¢£À PÉý ¸Àj JAzÀÄ M¦à F PɼÀUÉ ¸À»
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÁæPÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.10.1933 gÀAvÉ
ºÀ¼É £ÀA§gï 26 gÀ ¥ÉÊQ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 64 gÀ ªÀÄÆ® L.
R n¥ÀàtÂUÀ¼À DzÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁ° ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr UÀr UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÁÝgÉ
JA§ÄzÁV F PɼÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:
23
G.O.No.G.4902-5.Ft.154-35-2 ¢£ÁAPÀ 14 r¸ÉA§gï 1935 gÀ vÀÄgÀºÀ½î gÁdå
CgÀtå ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ UÀr «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄAvÉ CgÀtåzÀ UÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ:
1. sd/-
(D.MUNIRAJU)
2. Sd/-
(D.HEMANNA)
3. Sd/-
(D.GOPAL)
4. Sd/-
(D.KRISHNA)
5. Sd/-
(D.NARAYANASWAMY)
6. Sd/-
(SHAM D)
¸À»/-
09.09.2022
(ADLR, Bangalore South)."
The report is indicative of the fact that Sy.Nos. 59 to 64 though
borders the forest land, is not a forest land. The report is placed on
record by the Additional Government Advocate. Long thereafter,
when the matter was being heard, the State itself sought to file its
objections to the survey report contending that it was not in
24
accordance with law. In the objections what is contended is as
follows:
".... .... ...
14. It is submitted that on 04.03.2015, the final
Notification dated 14.12.1935 containing 'C' statement is
produced. It is submitted that by oversight and inadvertently,
the 'B' statement to the said Notification was not produced and
the entire final Notification issued under Section 17 of the
Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900 along with 'B' and 'C'
statements are being produced as ANNEXURE 'R13' for kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
15. It is submitted that on reading of the final
Notification, it is clear that a Preliminary Notification was issued
on 02.09.1933 under Section 4 of the Forest Regulation, 1900.
Pursuant to the issuance of Section 4, the Forest Settlement
Officer came to be appointed and the said Forest Settlement
Officer, after following the procedures in accordance with the
Regulations, has settled the claims of the persons whose rights
were affected. The entire 'B' statement along with the
Notification shows the settlement of rights by the Forest
Settlement Officer.
16. It is submitted that the Mysore Forest Regulation,
1900 being a self contained regulation, contemplated
declaration of any lands of State Reserve Forest by following the
procedures prescribed under Sections 4 to 17 with the
declaration of the final notification under Section 17, all rights of
any person interested in it is put to an end. In the instant case,
it is absolutely clear that 'B' statement clearly reveals that there
were no claims put-forth by any person before the Forest
Settlement Officer insofar as Sy No.26 of Mylasandra Village is
concerned.
17. It is relevant to submit that insofar as the Mylasandra
Village is concerned, which is at Sl.No.4, 'B' statement in the
column pertaining to the nature and extent of claims preferred,
it is stated as 'no takrars from this village'. Thus, it is absolutely
clear that there were no claims whatever preferred before the
25
Forest Settlement Officer by the Petitioners alleged erstwhile
vendors. Moreover, in para 2 of the Petition, the Petitioners
have stated that re-Sy.Nos.59 to 64 in Sy.No.26 came to be
granted by Revenue Authorities in the year 1930-31. A
Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 of the
Mysore Forest Regulation is on 02.09.1933. If the grant as
alleged in Para 2 of the Petition, was genuine, then, the
grantees ought to have approached the Forest Settlement
Officer with their claims. Even in the proceedings, the
Petitioners have failed to produce the alleged original grant
certificate. In the absence of the same, the case of the
Petitioners that the lands came to be granted in the year 1930-
31 cannot be believed."
The contention is that, the petitioners land came to be granted in
the year 1931 is itself doubtful. If contemporaneous documents of
1933 are noticed, they clearly match with the survey report of the
State itself which survey takes place pursuant to the orders of this
Court and the report of it, is placed by the Government itself before
this Court which clearly indicates that there is no encroachment by
these petitioners. It would be unacceptable for the State to argue
against its own survey contending that the survey is not properly
done. The survey is not done keeping the stake holders in
darkness. It is admittedly done after issuing notice and in the
presence of all the stake holders. The stake holders included the
officials of the Forest Department even. Merely because officers in
the Forest Department changed, it cannot be said that the said
26
survey was erroneously done. If the survey takes place in the
presence of all the stake holders, including the petitioners, pursuant
to the orders of this Court, nothing further need be analyzed by this
Court.
14. The order dated 18-08-2022 albeit, interim, has not been
questioned by the State or by any stake holders and the
observations in the order dated 18-08-2022 have today become
final. The observation is made after hearing both the parties - State
and the petitioners. The observation is that the grant has
admittedly happened in the year 1931. Therefore, it did not have
the characteristic of a Government land at the time of issuance of
notification dated 14-12-1935. It had lost that status. If it was not
a Government land, the Forest Department in terms of the
legislations then, would not have declared it to be a forest land. If
it could not have declared it to be a forest land, it remained as a
private land or a revenue land. Hands have changed and the Forest
Department has now based upon report of an Investigating Officer
in the year 2006 tries to dig into the issue after about 80 years of
the grant, which resulted in the impugned proceedings of both the
27
Assistant Range Forest Officer and the Chief Conservator of Forests
declaring the lands belonging to the petitioners as forest lands.
15. No doubt the forest land abuts the lands of the
petitioners. But, that does not mean that the boundary of the forest
land can stretch into private land declaring the entire extent of land
holding of the petitioners to be forest land. Finding the orders
themselves to be erroneous and that erroneousness getting
vindicated by the report of the survey, the unmistakable inference
would be quashment of the orders that stare at these petitioners
declaring the lands to be forest lands.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 23-09-2006 passed by the 3rd respondent/Assistant Conservator of Forests in FOC No.142/06-07 and its confirmation order dated 19-12-2014 passed by the 2nd respondent/Chief 28 Conservator of Forests-Appellate Authority in Appeal No.135 of 2008 stand quashed.
(iii) Petitioners are held entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the orders impugned.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ