Karnataka High Court

M.K. Chandrashekhara vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2025

                                                   -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:19470
                                                          WP No. 55577 of 2014


                      HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                           WRIT PETITION NO.55577 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)


                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    M.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA
                            AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

                      2.    M.K. SREEDHARA
                            AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

                      3.    M.K. LAXMINARAYANA
                            AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

                      4.    M.K. NAGESHA
                            AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,


Digitally signed by
                            ALL ARE S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH,
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA                       R/O MUJEKHAN, HALUVALLI POST,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                            MUDIGERETALUK,
KARNATAKA                   CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 124.
                                                                 ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
                            M.S.BUILDING,
                            DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
                             -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:19470
                                         WP No. 55577 of 2014


HC-KAR



     BENGALURU -560 001,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
     CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.

3.   THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
     CHIKKAMAGALUR CIRCLE,
     CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP )

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY    COMMISSIONR,      CHIKKAMAGALURU            DISTRICT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DATED 05.08.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO
THE WRIT PETITION      AND THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION
DATED 12.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, CHIKKAMAGALURU CIRCLE, CHIKKAMAGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-R TO THE WRIT PETITION; DIRECT THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER,    CHIKKAMAGALURU           DISTRICT,    CHIKKA-
MAGALURU TO RESTORE THE OCCUPANCY OF THE LANDS IN
SY.NO.707/544   MEASURING      20    ACRES    4   GUNTAS    OF
MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU     DISTRICT,        AS   DIRECTED     BY   THE
KARANTAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED
27.3.2000 IN APPEAL NO.471/1999 IN ANNEXURE-H AND THE
ORDER DATED 03.1.2005 AND 09.03.2010 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.45820/2004 AND WRIT
                                      -3-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:19470
                                                 WP No. 55577 of 2014


HC-KAR



PETITION NO.13552/2006 RESPECTIVELY AS PER ANNEXURE -J
AND ANNEXURE-L.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                            ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioners herein are assailing the

endorsement/communication issued by the Deputy

Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, dated 05.08.2013

(Annexure-M) and communication dated 12.05.2014 issued by

the Chief Conservator of Forests, Chikkamagaluru District as

per Annexure-R to the Writ Petition, inter alia, sought for a

direction to the competent authorities to consider the case of

the petitioners for continuing to cultivate the land in question.

2. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of Writ

Petition are that, petitioners claim to be the sons of late

Krishnaiah. It is stated that the petitioners are in possession

and cultivation of the land measuring 20 acres in

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

Sy.No.707(544) of Mavinakere Village, Kalasa Hobli,

Chikkamaguluru District since ancestors of the petitioners were

in cultivation of the same for more than a century. It is also

stated that on account of non payment of the land revenue in

respect of the subject land, the respondent - Government has

forfeited the land in question during 1899-1902 without hearing

the petitioners' ancestors, however, the father of the

petitioners was not dispossessed from the land and as such,

father of the petitioners was cultivating the land in question. It

is also stated in the Writ Petition that after death of their

father, petitioners have continued to cultivate the land in

question. It is stated that Government has brought amendment

to Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, by

Notification dated 18.11.1998 (Annexure-A) and pursuant to

the same, the restoration of the land in question was made in

favour of the petitioners. It is also stated in the Writ Petition

that the petitioners herein have approached the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.471/1999 (Annexure-H),

wherein, the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was

allowed by Order dated 27.03.2000 and as such, the

respondent - authorities were directed to restore the land in

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

favour of the petitioners. Petitioners have also produced the

Order of this Court dated 03.01.2005 in

W.P.No.45820/2004(Annexure-J), wherein this Court has

directed the respondent therein to comply with the order

passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-H. It

is also forthcoming from the Writ Petition that respondent -

authorities have issued endorsement dated 15.07.2005 and

same was questioned before this Court in W.P.13552/2006 and

this Court, by Order dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure-L) directed

the authorities to comply with the endorsement and the Order

passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, as per Annexure-

3. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 has issued the

endorsement dated 05.08.2013 to the petitioners stating that

the land in question is a forest land, and therefore, the

petitioners have to vacate the land in question. It is also

forthcoming from the Writ Petition that a notice dated

01.03.2014 (Annexure-N) and another notice dated 16.04.2014

(Annexure-P) was issued to the petitioner, directing the

petitioner to remove their encroachment in the forest land. The

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

petitioners have also produced the acknowledgement for having

submitted documents to the Kalasa Grama Panchayat on

26.06.2014 as per Annexures-S, T and V, seeking claim in

respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the

impugned notices, present petition is filed.

4. I have heard Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Manjunath K., learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that, ancestors of the petitioners were

the owners of the land in question and thereby the petitioners

are in cultivation of the land in question. It is also submitted

that on account of non payment of the land revenue, the

Government has forfeited the land in question, however the

same was rectified as per the Order passed by the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-H to the Writ Petition. He also

refers to the Order of this Court in W.P. No.45820/2004

(Annexure-J) and W.P.No.13552/2006 (Annexure-L) and

contended that, since the respondent - authorities without

implementing the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

Tribunal, have issued the endorsement dated 05.08.2013

(Annexure-M), which requires to be interfered with in this Writ

Petition. It is also further contended by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that, since the petitioners herein

have made a representation to the respondent - authorities as

per Annexures-S, T and V and during the pendency of said

representation made by the petitioners, the respondent-

authorities have no authority under law to issue the impugned

endorsement/communication, and accordingly, sought for

interference of this Court.

6. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for

the petitioners has referred to Section 4 and 5 of the Scheduled

Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of

Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the order passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of "THE DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR

AND ANOTHER Vs. GIDDA AND ANOTHER" reported in 2013 (2)

KLJ 612(DB), and contended that, the impugned endorsement

issued by the respondent - authorities requires to be interfered

with in this Writ Petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

7. Per contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, reiterates

the averments made in the statement of objections. It is the

principal submission of the learned Additional Government

Advocate, that petitioners have to establish their right in

respect of the land in question as no authenticated document

has been produced before this Court to demonstrate that

petitioners are in cultivation of the land in question. It is also

argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate that

since the land in question has been declared as the forest land

under the provisions of the Mysore Forest Act, 1900, and in this

regard, he refers to The Mysore Gazette Notification dated

15.03.1928 (Annexure- R1) and submitted that the Writ

Petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. He also referred to

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.

GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS, dated 15.05.2025, and contended that, the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners cannot be accepted since the land in question is a

forest land.

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of

the writ papers would indicate that though the petitioners

herein have made a claim that the land bearing

Sy.No.707(544) of Mavinakere Village, Kalasa Hobli,

Chikkamaguluru District, belongs to the petitioners, however,

no RTC extracts or mutation records have been produced to

establish their right over the land in question. Further it is

forthcoming from the writ papers that in the proceedings in

Appeal No.471/1999 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as

per Annexure-H, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by Judgment

dated 27.03.2000 allowed the appeal preferred by the

petitioners and as such the respondent-authorities were

directed to restore the land to the petitioners herein, after

collecting the required fees. It is also noticed that judgment

passed by this Court in W.P.No.45820/2004 and

W.P.NO.13552/2006 (Annexures - 'J and L' respectively),

wherein this Court has directed the respondent - authorities to

implement the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal. However, taking into consideration the factual aspects

on record, as the petitioners herein have not produced any

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

material to establish their right in respect of the land in

question and as the endorsement has been issued by

respondent - authorities at Annexure-M stating that the land in

question is a forest land and also refers to the earlier

Judgments passed by this Court in W.A.No.1453-1464/2005,

W.A.No.1558/2007 and the Order dated 20.04.2012 in

W.P.No.9573/1999, I am of the view that, no interference is

called for in this Writ Petition. It is also to be noted that

recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.

GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD (supra), dated 15.05.2025 has

considered the claim of the individual with regard to forest land

and the operative portion of the order passed therein reads as

follows:

" 95. We, therefore, dispose of the Interlocutory Applications and the Writ Petition in the following terms:

(i) We hold that the allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land in Survey No.21 (old Survey No.20A) Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune for agriculture purposes on 28th August 1998 and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of RRCHS on 30th October 1999 was totally illegal;

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

(ii) We further hold that Environmental Clearance granted by the MoEF on 3rd July 2007 to RRCHS is illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside;

(iii) Since the State of Maharashtra has recalled the communication dated 4th August 1998 approving the allotment of the subject land to the 'Chavan Family', we uphold the same;

(iv) We direct that the possession of the subject land, which is reserved as a Forest Land, but is in possession of the Revenue Department, should be handed over to the Forest Department within a period of three months from today;

(v) We further direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Investigation Teams for the purpose of examining as to whether any of the reserved Forest Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to any private individuals/institutions for any purpose other than the forestry purpose;

(vi) The State Governments and the Union Territories are also directed to take steps to take back the possession of the land from the persons/institutions in possession of such lands and handover the same to the Forest Department. In case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, the State Governments/Union Territories should recover the cost of the said land from the persons/institutions to whom they were allotted and use

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

the said amount for the purpose of development of forests; and

(vii) We further direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Teams to ensure that all such transfers take place within a period of one year from today.

Needless to state that hereinafter such land should be used only for the purpose of afforestation."

9. It is also to be noted from the Judgment of this Court in

the case of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR

DISTRICT (supra), wherein this Court at para 33 and 34 has

held as follows:

"33. Keeping all these aspects in perspective, since we have arrived at the conclusion that no right is created either for granting occupancy right or being continued as tenants keeping in view the nature and history of the lands, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the relief to the extent done by the order dated 7-8-2003. Further, as noticed, the FC Act, 1980 had also come into force with effect from 25-10-1980. Therefore, in respect of forest land neither the Tribunal, Appellate Authority nor Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition would have jurisdiction to grant the forest land subsequent to the said date without approval of the

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

Central Government which has overriding effect over all other law. In that view, the distinction made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the orders passed prior to 24-4-1992 by the Tribunal to uphold the same is inconsequential and is also not sustainable. Hence, all grants made in respect of the lands in question without such approval of the Central Government are deemed to be void and invalid.

34. The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle shall therefore issue notice to all such occupants and grantees and take steps to evict them from the lands which are part of the notification dated 6-3-1928. However, having noticed the contention put forth that some of the grantees belong to the second or third generation and their forefathers/ancestors have been in cultivation having obtained the land from Temple and since all of them are not before this Court, it would be open to such of those beneficiaries of the order passed under the MRCIA Act to bring to the notice of the Conservator of Forests that the forest land had been broken up for cultivation prior to 27-2-1964 i.e., the date on which the Karnataka Forest Act came into force. However, to establish that they were in possession and cultivation prior to 27-2-1964 there should be authentic material to indicate that the tenancy is granted by the Temple/Competent Government Authorities. Further, since it is contended that there is coffee cultivation, proof of such cultivation in terms of the requirements under the Coffee Act, 1942 shall also be produced. Mere stray entries in revenue records shall not be acceptable.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19470

HC-KAR

If the said requirements are found to be satisfied and in such cases, if the Land Tribunal/Land Reforms Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams has granted, the same shall form material for recommending to the Central Government/Central Advisory Committee under FC Act for consideration. If the recommendation is not accepted by the Central Government, it shall become final and they shall thereafter be evicted. If the above requirements are not satisfied and despite the same, if grants are made by the Authorities indicated above, such grants shall remain void and invalid as already stated. The Conservator of Forests shall undertake the above exercise even in respect of persons who have had the benefit of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7-8-2003 who are the respondents in W.A. Nos. 1453 to 1464 of 2005 and if they do not satisfy the condition stipulated above, they shall also be evicted. The said procedure shall also be followed in respect of respondents 7 to 8 in W.P. No. 9573 of 1999 (PIL). Insofar as the appellant in W.A. No. 1558 of 2007, it is seen that the Conservator of Forests as the Appellate Authority has already rejected the case of the appellant. The appellant therein had claimed right in respect of a portion of the property as having purchased under sale deed dated 4-10-1989 from its previous owners and in respect of the other portion since it is contended that the Revenue Authorities have collected T.T. Fine, it is obviously on encroached land. Not only survey has been conducted to indicate it as forest land, we have also concluded that they are forest lands and