IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.33601 OF 2010(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PADMAVATHAMMA W/O LATE SRI PATEL MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SRI A.M.MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI PATEL MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3. SRI A.M.RAJESH S/O LATE SRI PATEL MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 4. SMT.K.N.UMA DEVI D/O LATE SRI K.M.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. SRI N.RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SRI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. SRI NAGARAJAPPA S/O SRI ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1 TO 6 ARE R/O ACHATANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
7. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE SRI SUBBAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 8. SMT.BACHAMMA D/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 7 AND 8 ARE R/O DODDAKUNTHUR, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.R.BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE VIDE ORDER DATED 11.6.2012 CLAIM OF P-6 IS ABATED) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR.
4. THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK, KOLAR.
5. RANGE FOREST OFFICER MALUR TALUK, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.9.2010 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT IN R.A.NO.1 OF 2010-11 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 5.3.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR IN R.A.NO.515 OF 07-08 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2007 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MALUR TALUK, MALUR VIDE ANNEXURE-H, G AND F RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioners is that on 05.12.1967, the Tahsildar, Malur taluk passed an order granting lands in favour of those persons situated in Survey No.68 of Karinayakanahalli, Kasaba Holi, Malur Taluk. Saguvali chit was issued and the names of the grantees were entered in the records. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an order on 23.10.2003 deleting the names of the petitioners and directed entry of the name of the forest department.
2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed. The same was challenged in W.P.No.8449 of 2006. By the order dated 27.02.2007, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for a fresh enquiry. The Tahsildar once again passed the same order.
3. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed. A revision petition was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, which was also rejected. Thereafter, a suit was filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.223 of 2003. Hence, the present petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands having been granted to the petitioners, the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled. That they have been in possession of the lands for quite sometime. Therefore, dispossession is inappropriate.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that there is no merit in the writ petition. That the lands in question are forest land. Therefore, the same cannot be granted to any persons. Even otherwise, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.223 of 2003, O.S.No.224 of 2003, O.S.No.234 of 2003, O.S.No.235 of 2003, O.S.No.236 of 2003, O.S.No.242 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar, seeking for declaration and injunction. The suits were dismissed. Regular Appeal Nos.83 and 84 of 2005, 81 of 2005, 85 of 2005 and 86 of 2005, were filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar. They were also dismissed. Regular Second Appeal Nos.1101 of 2006 connected with 1016 of 2006, 1100 of 2006, 1102 of 2006, 742 of 2006 and 1103 of 2006, were filed before this Court, which were also rejected. Hence, the learned Government Advocate pleads even the plea of the petitioners seeking for a declaration injunction having been rejected, no interference is called for.
6. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition.
7. Firstly, on the fact that the lands in question are forest land. Forest land cannot be granted under any circumstance whatsoever. The nature of the land is to be continued as they are, unless they are changed by the Government in a manner known to law. The same has not happened in the present case. Even otherwise, the suits filed by the petitioners as mentioned herein are dismissed upto the High Court. Hence, on this ground also, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
SD/- JUDGE JJ