IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54268 OF 2017 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
SRI.K.T.GIRIANNA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT NO.797, ‘ANNAPOORA’ 10TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011.
(BY SRI. K.G.RADHAVAN, SR. ADV. A/W SRI.PRATEEK RATH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANGALORE CIRCLE ARANYA BHAVAN … PETITIONER CHOWDAIAH ROAD, NH-4, KODANDARAMPURA MALLESHWARAM WEST BANGALORE-560 012.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BANGALORE CITY DIVISION ARANYA BHAVAN CHOWDAIAH ROAD, NH-4, KODANDARAMPURA MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE-560 012.
3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER KAGGALIPURA RANGE KAGGALIPURA BANGALORE-560 082.
4. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PONNANNA, AAG A/W SRI.VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL AGA FOR R-5) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 DATED: 27.10.2017 IN APPEAL NO. 12/2006-2007 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Prateek Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General, along with Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 64-A(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1969 and Rule 69 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Bench of this Court in W.P.No.89/2009 has raised a similar contention with regard to Conservator of Forests and the Appellate Authority was directed to be heard the appeal on merits and in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the aforesaid order. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid order, a direction was also issued to the Appellate Authority to conduct survey in the presence of the petitioner, responsible Officers of the Revenue Department and Forest Department and to find out as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the Forest property or not and thereafter, to decide the appeal in accordance with law. It is further submitted that after the survey was conducted by the Officers of the Forest Department, the petitioner had filed objections before the Appellate Authority. Further, the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 has not considered the objections preferred by the petitioner and the survey directed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition has also not been conducted by the Appellate Authority.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the Appellate Authority itself is not expected to conduct the survey and the survey was conducted by the Officers of the Forest Department in the presence of the petitioner. However, it was fairly submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the survey report has not been considered by the Appellate Authority.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Paragraph No.5 of the order dated 23.07.2012 reads as under:-
“5. The impugned order stands quashed. The Conservator of Forests and the Appellate Authority, Bangalore Circle, Bangalore is directed to re-hear Appeal No.12/2007 on merits and in accordance with law keeping in mind the aforesaid observations. The survey shall be conducted by the Appellate Authority once again in presence of the petitioner, responsible officers of the Revenue Department and Forest Department to find out as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the forest property or not. Thereafter the decision shall be taken by the Appellate Authority as per law.”
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the objection, after the survey was conducted by the Officers of the Forest Department. The aforesaid objections which was preferred by the petitioner has not been considered by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh by a speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing both the sides and to consider the objections preferred by the petitioner to the survey conducted by the Officers of the Forest Department and to deal with the appeal in accordance with law within a period of four months from today. Accordingly writ petition is disposed of.
8. The parties shall be at liberty to raise the contentions as available in law before the Appellate Authority.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB