IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.46569-570 OF 2013 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT THULASAMMA W/O LATE B. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A UKKUNDA VILLAGE INDAVARA POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR.
2. SHANKAR KUMAR S/O LATE B. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A UKKUNDA VILLAGE INDAVARA POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR.
(BY MR. H C SUNDARESH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATIVE OF FOREST CHIKKAMAGALUR SUB DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
3. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATORS OF FOREST … PETITIONERS CHIKKAMAGALUR SUB DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577101.
4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER CHIKKAMAGALUR RANGE CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
(BY MR. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.6.7.1998 PASSED BY THE DY. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CHIKKAMAGALUR AS PER ANNX-Q SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO HIDUVALI LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS, 2 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.NO.35/P2 AND 3 ACRE 35 GUNTAS OF LAND IN OLE SY.NO.35 NEW NO.119 OF UKKUNDA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TQ.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 06.07.1998 as well as orders dated 26.12.2002 passed under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Facts giving rise to filing of these petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners claim to be owners and in possession of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.35/P and 3 acres 35 guntas of land in old Sy.No.35 New No.119 at Ukkanda Village in Chikmagalur District. The petitioners claim to have purchased the aforesaid lands by registered sale deeds dated 08.06.1973 and 18.03.1977 from its erstwhile vendors. It is further pleaded that the names of the petitioners have been mutated in the revenue records. It is also averred in the writ petition that the land bearing Sy.Nos.32 and 35 comprise 100 acres and 30 acres respectively. However, entire land is treated to be a forest land, whereas, land measuring 6 acres and 28 guntas is not a forest land. However, proceeding under Section 64A of the Act was initiated against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the forest land. The competent authority by an order dated 06.07.1998 held the petitioners to be encroachers in respect of 5 acres and 35 guntas of Hukkunda Village.
Being aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order 26.12.2002 upheld the order passed by the competent authority. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners have approached this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the authorities under the act have proceeded on the assumption that the entire land of Sy.Nos.32 & 35 is a forest land. Whereas land measuring 6 and 28 guntas is not a forest land and the land held by the petitioners are not covered under the notification dated 06.11.1936. However, the authorities under the Act have failed to carry out any joint survey to ascertain whether the land in occupation of the petitioners forms part of the forest land. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the lands in question including the land of the petitioners was declared to be state forest by a gazette notification published in the gazette dated 6.11.1936. it is also submitted that in view of Section 6 of the Act, no right, title or interest would pass on to the petitioners in respect of the land in question. It is further submitted that neither in the writ petition nor before the authorities, the petitioners have disclosed as to how his vendor acquired the title in respect of the land in question. It is also pointed out that prior to initiation of proceeding under the Act, survey was conducted by the range officer by which the petitioners were found in unauthorized occupation of the forest land and during the pendency of the petition the encroachment by the petitioners in respect of forest land has been renewed on 19.10.2013. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate has referred to decision of supreme court in ‘STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTEHRS VS. I.S.NIRVANE GOWDA AND OTHERS’, (2007) 15 SCC 744.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, by a Notification dated 6.11.1936, the land in question was declared to be a forest land. Thereafter, any acquisition of right in respect of the forest land is not permissible under Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners either before the authorities under the Act or in the writ petition has not disclosed as to how the petitioners vendor acquired title in respect of the land in question. A survey was conducted prior to initiation of proceeding under the Act. The petitioners have not made any prayer for joint survey before the authorities under the Act. The authorities under the Act have concurrently held that the lands in occupation of the petitioners are part of the forest land and the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the forest land. The aforesaid concurrent findings of fact are based on meticulous appreciation of material on record before the authorities which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the petitions. The same fails and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS