Karnataka High Court
Ganesh Nayak S/O Babunayak Lamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10863-DB
WA No. 100468 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100468 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. GANESH NAYAK
S/O. BABUNAYAK LAMANI,
AGE 34 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALE NIDNEGILU,
TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI 581111.
2. SANKARIBAI
W/O. BABUNAYAK LAMANI,
AGE 56 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALE NIDNEGILU,
TQ. HIREKERUR,
Digitally DIST. HAVERI 581111.
signed by ...APPELLANTS
JAGADISH T R
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
Dharwad
Bench
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ARANYA BHAVANA,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-03.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT RECOGINATION OF
FOREST BOARD, HAVERI,
DIST. HAVERI 581110.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10863-DB
WA No. 100468 of 2022
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST
HAVERI DIVISION, OPP DIET,
KARJAGI ROAD, HAVERI 581110.
4. THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT,
TRIBLE WELFARE OFFICE,
HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
15.07.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.102169/2022 IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
Appellants are grieving against the dismissal of their
W.P. No.102169/2022 (GM-FOR) by the learned Single
Judge vide judgment dated 15.07.2022. In the said
petition, they had challenged the rejection of their
applications filed under Rule 13 of the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10863-DB
Forest Rights) Rules, 2008, on the ground that the
prescribed conditions inter alia in terms of Section 2(c)
read with 2(o) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
vociferously submits that, his clients have been residing in
the forest and cultivating the subject lands uninterruptedly
since 1960 and the same has been vouched by the
evidentiary material such as affidavits of co-residents of
the forest in question; that being the position, the
answering respondents are not justified in rejecting their
subject applications. He further submits that this aspect of
the matter having not been duly considered by the learned
Single Judge, there is error apparent on the face of the
impugned judgment.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents opposes the appeal
making submission in justification of the impugned
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10863-DB
judgment and the reasons on which it has been
constructed. He points out the provisions of law and
submits that their requirement having not been met, the
orders of the authority impugned in the writ petition are
inexplicable.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we do not find any
error of fact or law in the impugned judgment. In the very
applications filed by the appellants before the authorities,
1960 is specifically mentioned as the year from which the
appellants and their ancestors started dwelling in the
forest and cultivating the forest land. Learned HCGP is
right in pointing out that, Section 2(o) prescribes the
requirement of three generations prior to the 13.12.2005
primarily residing in the forest and depending on the forest
or forest land for bonafide livelihood needs. Explanation to
this clause defines "generation" to mean a period
comprising of 25 years. Three generations specified by the
provision arithmetically would work out to 75 years and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10863-DB
that should be on or before 13.12.2005. If we travel
reverse in the timeline, for the limited purpose of this
case, we would land in the timescape of 1930 or so. The
year specified by the appellants being 1960, the shortfall
is, thirty years. Therefore, the authorities are right in
rejecting their claim.
5. It needs to be stated that the 2006 Act is made
as a welfare legislation and it is obviously, a special
statute intended to protect the rights of forest dwelling
scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.
Strict proof as to the claimants being the scheduled tribes
or other traditional forest dwellers, who have been living in
the forest for earning their livelihood from the forest or
forest land, is necessary. Mere affidavits of the claimants
or others would be unsafe and insufficient for vouching the
claim made under the provisions of the Act/Rules. In
adjudging the claims under the Act, the competent
authorities have to bear in mind that, they are not dealing
with the claims of elite people but the forest dwellers.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10863-DB
Expertise, in matters like this, should be the hallmark.
However, this does not mean that the claims can be
favoured even when there is insufficient evidentiary
material. An otherwise view would lead to undeserving
persons sneaking into the forest in the guise of being
scheduled tribes dwelling in the forest or other traditionally
forest dwelling communities.
6. We need to remind the authorities that,
absolutely, no scope should be left for abusing the
provisions of this Act. It cannot be disputed that this Act
like any nascent legislation will have abundant abuse
potential. Courts have been observing that many
unscrupulous persons have abused the provisions of
reservation policies resulting into worthy candidates being
deprived of what is due to them. The same should not
happen with this welfare legislation. It also needs to be
kept in mind that human entry into the forest would pose
obvious difficulties to the traditional forest dwellers and to
the forest itself. Of course, we are not saying anything
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10863-DB
about what kind of evidence needs to be placed for
proving the claims made under the Act, since it remains in
the domain of the competent authorities. More is not
necessary to specify.
7. In the above circumstances, this appeal being
devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed
costs having been made easy.
Registry to send, by Speed-Post, a copy of this order
to the Principal Secretary, Department of Forests &
Ecology, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, and to the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavana,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, for information and needful
action.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RH/KMS
ct-an
