rp246.12 con. cases chikmangalore forest -...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
R.P.No.246/2012 AND R.P.Nos.367-378/2012 c/w
W.P.Nos.48830-48841/2013 AND R.P.Nos.245/2014
& 273-285/2014
IN R.P.No.246/2012 AND R.P.Nos.367-378/2012
BETWEEN:
1.SRI. H.K.SUBRAMANYA, S/O H.V.KALASAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT HORATIMANE, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, MUDIGERE TALUK. 2.SRI. MURALIDHARA, S/O H.V.KALASAIAH, AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT HORATIMANE, MAVINAKERE GRAMA MUDIGERE TALUK. 3.SRI. CHENNAPPA GOWDA, S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT KARGADDE DEVARAGUDDA, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK. 4.SRI.B.N.THIMMARAS PURANIK, S/O B.N.PURANIKA, AGED 65 YEARS,
2
R/AT GANDAIHALLI ESTATE, HALNALLI POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 142. 5.SRI.G.V.VASUDEV RAO, S/O G.VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT GORASANGNDIGE, TALGODU VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK. 6.SRI.KALASA, S/O BELLA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT THOTADAR, THOTADAR POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, PIN: 577 142. 7.SRI.DHARNAPAIAH, S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT HORANADU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 142. 8.SRI.MANGALAIAH, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT HORANADU POST, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124. 9.SRI.B.P.VARDHAMANA, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE, THOTADAMANE, HORANADU P.O., MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124. 10.SRI.CHANDRA RAJAIAH, S/O NAGARAJAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS,
3
R/AT HASLE, HORANADU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124. 11.SRI.NEEMIRAJAIAH, S/O CHANDAPPAIAH, AGED 85 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE HORANADU POST, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124. 12.SRI.APPU, S/O KEMPE GOWDA (YENE) KEMPA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE, HONNE KADU, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, HORANADU (POST), MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124. 13.SRI.H.S.RAJASHEKAR, S/O H.V.SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAKOPPA, THOTADUR POST, MUDIGERE TALUK. 14.SRI.H.S.PRASANNA, S/O H.V.SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAKOPPA, THOTADUR POST, MUDIGERE TALUK. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: ARUN SHYAM.M., ADV. FOR DHARMASHREE ASSTS. ADVs.) AND:
1.SRI.M.SHEKAR SHETTY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT MANGALAGIRI ESTATE, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR.
4
2.SRI.VISHWANATH RAI, S/O SUBBARAYA RAI, AGED MAJOR. (DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2013) 3.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE. 4.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALUR. 5.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SRI KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA. 6.THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 7.THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR. 8.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHIKMAGALUR. 9.GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 10.SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR.
5
11.KALASAIAH, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, 12. GIDDAIH, S/O SUBBAIAH, MAJOR, 13. KRISHNA, S/O SOMAIAH, MAJOR, 14. BELLAIAH, S/O MAMANJAIAH, MAJOR, R11 TO R14 ARE R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR. 15. A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU. 16. R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 46 YEARS, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALURU. 17. K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA VILLAGE,
6
MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 18. UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKAMAGALUR. 19. T.V.VENKATASUBBIAH S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O TALAGODU, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR. 20. B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, TOTADUR GRAMA, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 21. ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASAS POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 22. SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 23. SRI.M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABHADRA NELLI, MAJOR, R/AT MELADIA, HALURALLY POST,
7
KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 24. SRI.VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 25. SANNA BIRAIAH, SINCE DECEASED, BY LRS, 25(a) SRI NAGAISH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 26.SRI.B.V.JAYAGANAPATHI, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 27.SRI.B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 28.SRI.SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, MAJOR, R/AT BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR.
29.SRI.V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO,
8
MAJOR, R/AT VALABAIL MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 30.SRI.M.D.SADASHIVA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 30(a) SRI.M.J.SADASHIVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 30(b) SRI.M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 30(c) SRI.M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, R/AT HATTIKADLU POST, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 30(d) SRI.M.J.VENKATESH, S/O JANARSHNAYYA, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 31.SMT.HANAJI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, R/AT MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR. 32.SRI.NAGAPPA, S/O VENKATAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
9
32(a) SMT.LAKSHMI, W/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 32(b) SMT.MOHINI, D/O NAGAPPA,
32(c) SMT. SHANTHA, S/O NAGAPPA, 33.SRI.G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GAJENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: G.NARENDRA, LEARNED AGA FOR R3, R4, R6 TO R8, SRI.G.LAKSHMEESHA RAO, ADV. FOR R1, SRI.M.H.SAWKAR, ADV. FOR R21, R22, R24, SRI.C.N.KAMATH, ADV. FOR R23 AND R27, SRI.L.M.SOURABHA JEEVALA FOR R5, SRI.HEGDE AND RAO FOR R17, SRI.B.G.SRIRAM, ADV. FOR R29, SRI.K.GOVINDARAJ FOR R33, SRI.V.SANJAY KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R30(a); R9, R10 TO R16 ARE SD; R17 TO R20, R25(a), R26, R28, R30(b) TO 30(d), R32(a) TO R32(c) SD; R2 IS DELETED V/O DATED 11/01/2013)
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20-04-2012 PASSED IN WA NOS.1453-1464/2005 (KLR-RES) C/W WA NO.1558/2007 (GM-FOR) & WP NO.9573/1999 (LR-PIL), ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
*********
IN W.P.Nos.48830-48841/2013
BETWEEN:
1.SRI.VENKATANATHA BHAT, AGED 49 YEARS,
10
S/O. SRI PARAMESHWARA BHAT, R/A. SOORAMANE, KALASA POST, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, MUDUGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101. 2.SRI.JINNARAJAYYA, S/O.CHANDAPPAYYA, AGED 75 YEARS, R/A HUNTANAKALLU, BALIGE, MAVINKERE GRAMA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101. 3.SRI.ASHOK, S/O.CHANDREGOWDA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/A HILIGUDDE SITE, KARAGADDE, MAVINKERE GRAMA, MUDUGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101. 4.SRI.BELLAIAH, S/O.MANJAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/A. KONABAIL, MAVINKERE GRAMA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101. 5.SRI.A.P.JINNARAJAYYA, S/O.PADMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/A. ATTIKANDA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101. 6.SMT.N.P.SUGANDHINI, W/O VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, HOSAMANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101.
11
7.SRI.GAJENDRA BHAT, S/O CHANNAKESHAVA BHAT, AGED 80 YEARS, R/A. BILIGUMPU, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA POST, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101 8.SRI.NARESH.M, S/O A.MADHAVA, AGED 38 YEARS, MANAGER, MAVINKERE ESTATE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
9.SRI.M.S.VENKAPPAIAH, S/O.SUBBARAO, AGED 68 YEARS, R/A. MUZEKHAN, HALAVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR. 10.SRI.M.M.SATISH, S/O.MANJAPPAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, R/A. MUZEKHAN, HALAVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101. 11.SRI.A.P.CHANDRAJAIAH, S/O.PADMAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/A.ATTIKANDA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101. 12.SMT.NEETHA.S.SHENOY, W/O.R.SURENDRA SHENOY, AGED 40 YEARS, R/A AMBATHIRTHA CROSS, HORNADU ROAD, KALASA-577 124. ... PETITIONERS
12
(BY SRI: P.N.MANMOHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1.SRI M.SHEKAR SHETTY, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAJOR, R/AT MANGALAGIRI ESTATE, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 2.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 4.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SRI KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA-577 124. 5.THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 6.THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 7.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 8.THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BALEHONNUR SUB-DIVISION, BALEHONNUR-577 101.
13
9.MR.GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101. 10.SRI.SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101. 11.SRI.KALASAIAH, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, 12.SRI.GIDDAIH, S/O SUBBAIAH, MAJOR, 13.SRI.KRISHNA, S/O SOMAIAH, MAJOR, 14.SRI.BELLAIAH, S/O MAMANJAIAH, MAJOR,
RESPONDENT Nos. 11 TO 14 ARE R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101.
15.SRI.A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU-577 101.
14
16.SRI.R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 46 YEARS, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALURU-577 101. 17.SRI.K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101. 18.SRI.UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101. 19.SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBIAH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT TALAGODU BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101. 20.SRI.B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/AT TOTADUR GRAMA, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101. 21.MR.ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASAS POST,
15
MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101. 22.SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 23.SRI.M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABHADRA NELLI, MAJOR, R/AT MELADIA, HALURALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 24.SRI.VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. SRI.SANNA BIRAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, 25.SRI NAGAISH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 26.SRI.B.V.JAYAGANAPATHI, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 27.SRI.B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK,
16
MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 28.SRI.SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, MAJOR, R/AT BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 29.SRI.V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO, MAJOR, R/AT VALABAIL, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. SRI.M.D.SADASHIVA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 30.SRI.M.J.SADASHIVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 31.SRI.M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 32.SRI.M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
17
33.SRI.M.J.VENKATESH, S/O JANARSHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 34.SMT.HANAJI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, MAJOR, R/AT MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. SRI.NAGAPPA, S/O VENKATAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 35.SMT.LAKSHMI, W/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 36.SMT.MOHINI, D/O NAGAPPA, MAJOR,
RESPONDENT Nos. 35 AND 36 ARE R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA-577 124. 37.SRI.G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GAJENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101. 38.THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
18
(SL.Nos. IN CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V.C.O.DATED 12/02/2014 PASSED ON IA 1/2014) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: G.NARENDRA, LEARNED AGA FOR R2, 3, 5 TO 8 AND 37, SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R17 AND R20, SRI.M.H.SAWKAR, ADV. FOR R21, SRI.L.M.SOURABHA JUVALA, ADV. FOR R4; R9 TO R12, 14 TO 16, 18, 19, 22 TO 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 TO 33, 35 TO 37 - SD)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO JUDGEMENT & ORDER DT.20.4.12, IN WA.NOS.1453-1464/05, [KLR-RES] C/W WA.NO.1558/07 [GM-FOR] & WP NO.9573/1999 [LR-PIL] PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
*********
IN R.P.Nos.245/2014 & 273-285/2014
BETWEEN:
1.ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O YOUSUF, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT BALEHOLE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179. 2.PUTTACHARI, S/O VENKATACHARI, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT BALAKUDU HADU MANE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179. 3.A.NAGESH RAO, S/O RANGAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS,
19
ATTIKUDIGE, HALLUVALLI POST, KALASA, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179. 4.K.R.GOPINATH PAI, S/O K.RAMACHANDRA PAI, AGED 68 YEARS, KALASA MAIN ROAD, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: P.N.MANMOHAN, ADV.) AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 3.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SHREE KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 4.THE LAND TRIBUNAL MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179. 5.THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.
20
6.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 7.M.SHEKAR SHETTY, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MANGALAGIRI ESTATE, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 8.VISHWANATH RAI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, S/O SUBBARAYYA RAI, R/AT “ASHIRVAS” BALEHOLE, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179 9.T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 10.M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABADRA NELI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MELADIA HALURALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 11.VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BETAGERY HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE,
21
CHICKAMAGALUR. 12.NAGAIAH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179. 13.B.V.JAYAGANAPATHI, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT TALAGODU VILLAGE, BALEHOLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577179. 14.B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HALUVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 15.SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 16.V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, VALABAIL, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE,
22
KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 17.M.J.SADASHIVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMGALUR-577179. 18.M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577179. 19.M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 179. 20.M.J.VENKATESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577179. 21.HAJANI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 22.LAKSHMI, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
23
R/AT GANTE MAKKI, MAIN ROAD, KALASA-577124. 23.MOHINI, D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA-577124. 24.SHANTHA, D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA-577124. 25.G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GANENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 26.GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179. 27.SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179. 28.KALASAIAH, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
24
29.GIDDAIAH, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, 30.KRISHNA, S/O SOMAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, 31.BELLAIAH, S/O MANJAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R28 TO R31 ARE R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179. 32.A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577179. 33.R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 34.K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI,
25
MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179. 35.UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 36.T.V.VENKATASUBBAIAH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT TALAGODU, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 37.B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT BOMMANA BELALU, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179. 38.ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179. 39.THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR CIRCLE, CHIKMAGALUR-577179.
26
40.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KALASA SUB-DIVISION, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179. ... RESPONDENTS
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 20/04/2012 PASSED IN W.A.NOS. 1453-
1464/2005 (KLR-RES) C/W W.A.NO. 1558/2007 (GM-FOR) &
W.P.NO.9573/1999 (LR-PIL), ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THE JUDGMENT IN THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN
RESERVED ON 09/04/2014 AND IT BEING LISTED FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT TODAY, NAGARATHNA J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
1. In these petitions, the petitioners have in effect
sought review of judgment and order dated 20.04.2012
passed by this Court W.A. Nos.1453-1464/2005 C/w. W.A.
No.1558/2007 & W.P.No.9573/1999. By that order, the
writ appeals as well as writ petitions were allowed. In the
alternative, a declaration is sought to the effect that the
27
order dated 20.04.2012 passed in the aforesaid matters is
not binding on the petitioners. Certain notices issued by
the 8th respondent - the Assistant Conservator of Forest,
Balehonnur Sub-Division, Balehonnur, are also assailed.
In addition, a prayer is made for quashing the Notification
dated 06.03.1928.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that, Kalaseshwara
Swamy Temple of Kalasa, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur
District, was dedicated approximately 16,000 acres of land
in Mavinakere, Talagodu, Totarur Villages of Kalasa Hobli,
Chikmagalur District. The endowment was made with a
condition that agricultural and forest produce from the said
lands would be utilized for maintenance and management
of the said temple, which also included infrastructure and
other facilities for devotees who visited the temple. It is
averred by the petitioners that many persons were in
occupation of the said lands and they were cultivating it
and providing a portion of the agricultural produce to the
temple. It is further stated that in the year 1922, the
28
Diwan of Mysore visited Kalaseshwara Swamy Temple and
had discussions with the Muzarai Commissioner regarding
its financial resources. A Report dated 25/06/1925 was
submitted by the Muzarai Commissioner making certain
recommendations. Accepting the same, the erstwhile
Maharaja of Mysore issued Notification dated 09/10/1925
stating that in an extent of 11,000 acres of land, there was
illegal removal of forest produce. Therefore, by that
Notification, the Government ordered for control of the
forest produce and to prevent waste by smuggling and
illegal removal. Subsequently, Notification dated
06/03/1928 was issued by the erstwhile Maharaja of
Mysore invoking Section 35(iii) of the Mysore Forest
Regulation of 1900 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1900
Regulation”) in respect of five block namely, Devarabetta,
Karimane Kalgode, Mavinakere Talgode, Totadur and
Balagi, which were five forest blocks endowed to the
temple along with their boundaries. Thereafter, by order
dated 25.10.1943, it was declared that the aforesaid five
blocks notified under Section 35(iii) of the Regulations was
29
deemed to be forest taken over for management by the
Forest Department under Section 36(d) of the Mysore
Forest Act, 1900 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1900 Act’) and
that all provisions of Chapter II and IV thereof and the
rules made thereunder were to apply to those blocks. A
copy of that Notification is produced as Annexure-“F-1”. It
is the case of the petitioners that the Forest Department
never took over possession of the said lands and the same
continued to be revenue lands.
3. More specifically, it is the case of the petitioners that
although Notification dated 15/03/1928 was issued
declaring the area as Reserved Forest, that Notification
was not given effect to and in the revenue records, the
lands were shown as Devadaya Kalaseshwara Swamy
Inam Lands and the lands were shown as “Bhagayat
Kushki Tari” and used for growing coffee, tea and pepper
and not forest lands. Some portions of Devadaya Inam
Lands were given to private persons for mining activities
and royalty was payable to the Temple. Subsequent to the
30
enforcement of Karnataka (Religious and Charitable)
Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
“KRCIA Act”), the Inam Lands of the temple were vested
with the State Government and the temple authorities
received compensation to an extent of 4,000 acres of land
and the matter was under consideration with regard to
another 10,000 acres of land. That the State Government
granted various parcels of land to persons, who were in
possession and enjoyment of the same, under the
provisions of the KRCIA Act and Land Reforms Act as well
as under the Land Grant Rules. According to the
petitioners, they are also in possession and enjoyment of
their respective extents under various grants made by the
State Government. Copies of grant or allotment orders are
at Annexures – “Q” to “Q-6” annexed to W.P.Nos.48830-
48841/2013. That by Circular dated 18/08/1981, issued
by the State Government, various extents of ‘C’ and ‘D’
Class lands were transferred from the Revenue
Department. According to the petitioners on account of
some personal and ulterior motive, some persons filed
31
W.P.No.9573/1999 before this Court as a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) questioning the grants made in favour of
certain persons, who were respondents in that writ
petition. That writ petition was heard along with
W.A.Nos.1453-1464/2005 and connected matters and by
judgment dated 20/04/2012, the writ appeals were
allowed and the PIL in W.P.No.9573/1999 was disposed of
with certain directions. That order is sought to be
reviewed in the writ petitions as well as in the review
petitions while assailing the notices issued by the
concerned authorities, pursuant to the judgment dated
20/04/2012. In fact, as against that order, certain
persons who were not parties therein had filed Special
Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by
order dated 18/11/2013 the Special Leave Petitions were
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek review of that
order before this Court. It is under these circumstances,
the writ petitions as well as review petitions have been
connected and are heard and disposed of by this order.
32
4. The main contention urged on behalf of the
petitioners by learned counsel, Sri. Manmohan, was that
the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated
20/04/2012 was passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice as these petitioners were not parties to
those proceedings and therefore, were not heard in the
matter. That, no adverse order could have been passed
against the petitioners by making it binding on them as
they were not parties to those proceedings. Elaborating
the said contentions, it was submitted that, in the PIL,
there were no pleadings against the petitioners herein and
that litigation was restricted to the private respondents
arrayed in that petition. But this Court passed a general
order invalidating the grants made in respect of the
petitioners herein. Therefore, it was contended that the
judgment dated 20/04/2012 is not binding on these
petitioners. On merits, it was contended that the
Government Notification dated 06/03/1928 has not been
given effect to since then, as no survey whatsoever was
conducted, nor any boundaries were earmarked. In that
33
Notification, though it was stated that the lands were
Reserved Forest, that had no effect as the lands continued
to be revenue lands. In this context, it was submitted that
the very issuance of a Notification under the 1900 Act was
not sufficient to make the lands as Reserved Forest Lands
without further steps being taken. That for the first time,
by order dated 20/04/2012, Notification dated 06/03/1928
was being given effect to, which is after more than eight
decades and which is not permissible in law. Therefore, it
was contended that the Division Bench could not have held
that the grants made in favour of the petitioners as well as
others were invalid and thereby given directions for the
resumption of land. In support of these submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain
decisions.
5. Sri. Aruna Shyam M., learned counsel for the
petitioners in R.P.No.246/2012 and connected matters has
adopted the submissions made by Sri. Manmohan P.N.,
learned counsel appearing in W.P.No.48830/2013. The
34
contentions of the petitioners were submitted by way of
written arguments, which we have perused.
6. Per contra, Sri.Narendra G., learned Addl.
Government Advocate appearing for the State, in his
written arguments has contended that the Division Bench
in its judgment dated 20/04/2012, has kept in mind
principles of natural justice. The Division Bench has not
directed a summary eviction of the parties, but has
directed an enquiry into the matter before taking any
precipitative action. Therefore, the Bench was alive and
conscious of the implication of its order and hence,
ensured that there was fairness on all counts. It was next
contended that the order made in the PIL is in rem and it
is binding on all and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek
reopening of that judgment by way of fresh petitions. It
was also contended that in the instant case, PIL was filed
in the year 1999 and it was disposed of in the year 2012
and the pendency of the matter before this Court was a
known fact to the petitioners herein. It was also contended
35
that the PIL was not restricted against the private
respondents arrayed in that petition but in respect of
notified lands, though no specific pleadings pertaining to
these petitioners were made in that petition, the order
being in rem, is binding on all parties to the proceedings as
well as other persons who are similarly situated and hence,
by this proceeding, that order cannot be interfered with. It
was further contended that in 1928 itself, the notification
was given effect to and when once a Notification is issued
declaring an area to be Reserved Forest, the provisions
regarding restrictions on the use of forest land would
ensue. Placing reliance on certain decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, particularly in T.N.Godavarman
Thirumulkpad V/s. Union of India & others [(1997)2
SCC 267] (Godavarman), it was contended that there
was no merit in these petitions.
7. Before we consider the rival contentions, it would be
useful to note the salient points of the impugned order
36
dated 20/04/2012 as that is the bone of contention
between the parties.
(a) W.P.No.9573/1999 was filed by certain
residents of Balehole, Chickmagalur District,
assailing the grant made by the Land Tribunal
under the “KRCIA Act”. It was contended by
the petitioners therein that those lands claimed
by respondent Nos.7 to 18 therein as
occupants were not Inam Lands as on the date
of coming into force of KRCIA Act. According
to the petitioners therein, originally the land
belonged to Kalasheshwara Swamy Temple.
That out of 14,357 acres, more than 10,000
acres were thick forest land consisting of
valuable trees and they were notified as
‘Reserved Forest’. Only 4,109 acres remained
as Inam Lands in which grants could have
been made, but rest of the land was forest
land, in which no grants could have been made
37
under KRCIA Act. It is, in this context, that
the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur
District, passed certain orders directing certain
lands to be entered as Forest Lands in the
revenue records and directed the occupants of
those lands to handover vacant possession to
the Forest Department. That action led to a
spate of writ petitions being filed before this
Court. The action of the Deputy Commissioner
was based on the Government Notification
dated 06/03/1928 issued under the Mysore
Forest Regulation declaring an extent of about
6,800 acres as Reserved Forest. Certain
persons had challenged the order of the
Deputy Commissioner, while certain others had
assailed show-cause notices issued by him,
while others had challenged Government
Notification dated 06/03/1928. Learned Single
Judge of this Court did not quash Notification
dated 06/03/1928, but held that the lands
38
were endowed to the Temple. The writ
petitions were allowed and the orders of the
Deputy Commissioner were quashed. In
certain other writ petitions, learned single
Judge permitted the petitioners therein to file
their reply to the impugned notices. These
orders were passed in W.P.Nos.26882-
26883/2001 and connected matters. Being
aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge, quashing the order of the Deputy
Commissioner, Chickmagalur District, the latter
as well as State of Karnataka filed
W.A.Nos.1453-1464/2004. The petitioner in
W.P.No.28612/2003 had challenged the order
of the Conservator of Forests-cum-Appellate
Authority, Chickmagalur, in Forest Appeal
No.27/2001 dated 29/05/2003. That writ
petition was dismissed by order dated
06/06/2007. That petitioner had filed
W.A.No.1558/2007.
39
(b) The Division Bench noted that though the
matters were pending in separate proceedings
and on different causes of action, the issue in
all those proceedings was, as to whether the
lands involved in those cases were forest
lands. In that context, Government Notification
dated 06/03/1928 was considered. That
Notification was published in the Mysore
Gazette on 15/03/1928 under which various
extents of lands in Devarabetta, Karimane
Kalgod, Mavinakere Talagode, Thotadur and
Balagi were notified as Reserved Forest under
Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900. Prior to that,
by proceedings dated 03/11/1924, the Muzurai
Commissioner was requested to submit a
Report with regard to the transfer of
management of the temple’s forest lands to
the Forest Department. The Dharmadarshis of
the Temple had agreed to the proposal without
prejudice to their right to remove leaves etc.,
40
for agricultural purposes. After following the
procedure contemplated in law, Notification
dated 06/03/1928 was issued. Subsequently,
on 25/10/1943, the erstwhile Maharaja had
issued one more notification declaring that the
lands notified under the Notification dated
06/03/1928 as well as other Notifications as
deemed forest be taken over for management
by the Government through the Forest
Department. It was, therefore, contended on
behalf of the State that the notified lands were
Reserved Forest and were not Inam Lands as
on the date of KRCIA Act coming into force.
Therefore, the Land Tribunal or its Appellate
Authority or the Deputy Commissioner for
Inams Abolition had no jurisdiction to grant
lands. The State, therefore, contended that
the grants were not sustainable in law. In fact,
this was the very plea made in the PIL.
41
(c) On the other hand, the grantees of
various parcels of notified lands contended that
Notification dated 06/03/1928 was not valid as
the Regulation did not provide for declaration
of lands in possession of private individuals as
Reserved Forest. That the lands were owned
by the temple and therefore, Inam Lands and
continued to be so and were in occupation and
cultivation of private parties. That subsequent
to the enforcement of KRCIA Act, the
occupants had the right to get their names
registered in respect of those lands. Therefore,
the private respondents in the writ appeals as
well as in the PIL contended that Notification
dated 06/03/1928 did not apply to the Inams
lands and that the PIL was a motivated one.
(d) The Division Bench noted that as the
learned single Judge had not quashed the
Notification dated 06/03/1928, it continued to
42
be in force. But it contemplated on the
question as to whether the said Notification
had declared the notified lands as Reserved
Forest. Regulation 35(i)(iii) of the Regulations,
1900 were considered in light of the prior
proceedings leading upto the issuance of the
Notification dated 06/03/1928. The Division
Bench considered the meaning of District
Forest, Reserved Forest and Lands at the
disposal of the Government, the definition and
meanings under the Regulations as well as
under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred to as “the
Act”) and held that the Notification dated
06/03/1928 was not contrary to 1900
Regulations and neither was it issued without
any competence. The said Notification was
also considered in light of the 1963 Act, which
was enforced on 27/02/1964, particularly
Sections 117 and 106 of that Act.
43
(e) The Division Bench also considered the
claim of the private respondents therein and
other such persons, who were not parties to
those proceedings with regard to occupancy
rights under KRCIA Act and under Karnataka
Land Grant Rules in light of the Notification
dated 06/03/1928 and the nature of the lands.
Admonishing the State Government for the
sorry state of affairs, the Division Bench
considered the Report of the Court
Commissioner, Sri.R.M.N. Sahai, Conservator
of Forest and General Manager, Karnataka
State Forest Industries Corporation Ltd.,
Bangalore, dated 18/07/2000, which stated
that the lands in question were thickly wooded
and tropical moist deciduous/semi-evergreen
type of forest area. The Commissioner’s
Report was also filed before Hon’ble Supreme
Court in W.P.Nos.202/1995 C/w. No.171/1996
on 12/12/1996 (Godavarman).
44
(f) In the aforesaid backdrop, the Division
Bench considered the right of grantees under
KRCIA Act, which was enforced on 01/07/1970
and held that the lands which were notified by
Notification dated 06/03/1928 were Forest
Lands and on the enforcement of the 1963 Act,
it had to be considered as Reserved Forest and
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FC Act”,
for short), a Central Act which was enforced
from 25/10/1980 was applicable. Taking note
of the provisions of KRCIA Act, the nature and
history of the lands as forest lands, the
Division Bench held that no right was created
under KRCIA Act in respect of the notified
lands. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Godavarman and mandate of
FC Act, which came into force in 1980, the
Division Bench held that neither the Land
Tribunal or its Appellate Authority nor the
Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam
45
abolition had any jurisdiction to grant forest
lands subsequent to 25/10/1980 when the FC
Act was enforced without approval of the
Central Government as that Act had an
overriding effect over all other laws. Hence,
the grants made in respect of the notified lands
without approval of the Central Government
were deemed to be void and invalid. Finally in
paragraphs 28 and 33 to 35 the Division Bench
observed as follows and issued directions as
under:
“28. Taking all the above aspects into
consideration it is necessary for us to
crystallize the position and indicate the further
course of action. In that direction, the entire
sequence would clearly establish that the lands
which are subject matter of the notification
dated 06/03/1928 were Inam Forest Lands.
Pursuant to the notification, it had become
Protected Forest and on coming into force of
the Act 1963 it was to be considered as
Reserved Forest. Hence, the Revenue
46
Authorities had no jurisdiction to make any
grants under the Karnataka Land Grants Rules
or such other grants under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, more particularly after the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (the FC Act for short)
had come into force on 25/10/1980. In fact
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Karnataka & Others –vs-
I.S.Nirvane Gowda & Others (2007 (15)
SCC 744) has held that the grants made by
the Revenue department in respect of Forest
Lands is of no consequence and would not
confer title to the land. Therefore, any
contrary notification under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act to indicate the lands as Revenue
Lands for any purpose also would not be valid
unless dereservation is made in accordance
with law under Forest Act. All such grants are
therefore to be set aside. In so far as the
encroachments, they shall not be permitted
and they are liable to be evicted. The question
however is with regard to persons claiming
under KCRIA Act as they contend that they had
become tenants under the Temple and at one
point, it was Inam land, though nature of the
land was thickly wooded forest.
47
* * *
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 07.08.2003. 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 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 24.04.1992 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.
48
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 06.03.1928. 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 KRCIA Act to bring
to the notice of the Conservator of Forests that
the forest land had been broken up for
cultivation prior to 27.02.1964 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 27.02.1964
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
49
revenue records shall not be acceptable. 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 07.08.2003 who are the respondents in
W.A.No.1453-64/2005 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 respondent No.7
to 8 in W.P.No.9573/1999 (PIL). Insofar as
the appellant in W.A.No.1558/2007, it is seen
that the Conservator of Forests as the
50
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 04.10.1989 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
as such he is liable to be evicted. The learned
Single Judge was therefore justified in his
conclusion.
35. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) W.A Nos.1453-64/2005 are allowed in
the above terms. The order dated 07.08.2003
passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside
to the extent assailed.
ii) W.A.No.1558/2007 is dismissed.
iii) W.P.No.9573/1999 is allowed in terms of
the above with the following directions:
iv) The Conservator of Forests,
Chickmagalur Circle is directed to take steps to
evict all persons who are not entitled to remain
51
in possession of the forest lands which is the
subject matter of the notification dated
06.03.1928 as indicated above in paras 28, 33
and 34 and take possession of the same.
v) The Conservator of Forests,
Chickmagalur Circle shall file the action taken
report before this Court on or before
31.12.2012.
vi) Parties to bear their own costs.”
(Underlining by us)
8. As no Report was prepared, by order dated
26/12/2012, six weeks time was granted to the State to
file Action Taken Report. Thereafter, further period of six
months was granted to evict the persons from the forest
land and to file the Report and subsequently, this Court
granted a further period of three months by Order dated
30/08/2013. In the meanwhile, these review petitions and
writ petitions had been filed and they were ordered to be
listed along with the disposed of writ appeals. The interim
order operating in the writ petitions and review petitions
was not extended and this aspect was clarified by order
52
dated 28/10/2014. By order dated 11/03/2014, further,
extension of time to file the Report was granted till
30/05/2014. Subsequently, these review petitions as well
as writ petitions were heard and reserved for orders.
9. The Notification dated 06/03/1928 was issued under
Regulation 35(iii) of the Mysore Forest Regulation 1900,
which was passed on 16/11/1900 and came into force on
01/01/1901. The aforesaid Regulations are in pari materia
with Mysore Act No XI, which is the Mysore Forest Act,
1900. Under Section 117 of the Act, it is expressly stated
that the Karnataka Forest Act, 1900 (Karnataka Act No.X
of 1900) has been repealed along with the other Acts
applicable to forest paths of the Karnataka State. The
aforesaid provisions have been considered by the Division
Bench in juxtaposition with the provisions of the Karnataka
Forest Act, 1963 as well as Forest Conservation Act, 1980
(‘F.C.Act’ for short) which is a Central Act.
53
10. Therefore, the question addressed by the Division
Bench was whether the grants made in favour of the
respondents in the PIL in the absence of FC clearance was
legal or not. The Division Bench held the grants to be void
but at the same time, issued specific directions in the
context of the Act as well as the F.C. Act. In order to
answer the question as to whether the Division Bench was
right, it has to be noted that the issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act would constitute the
lands as “forest” requiring FC clearance under the F.C. Act.
Although the notification dated 06/03/1928 has been
issued under the 1900 Act, constituting the notified lands
as Reserved forest, that notification must be deemed to be
continued in view of proviso to Section 117 of the Act. In
this context we draw sustenance from our Order in
W.P.No.10319/2013, (Sri Girish and Others v. State of
Karnataka and Others).
11. In the aforesaid matter, the issue before another
Division Bench of this Court of which we were members
54
was, with regard to the grant of licences for quarrying
building stone in certain lands in Harappanahalli,
Davanagere District, which had been notified under Section
4 of the Act as Reserved Forest. This issue was considered
in light of the provisions of F.C.Act as has been done in the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench under
consideration. The concerned authority had issued notices
and communications stating that quarrying activity in
reserved forest area could not be continued and those
notices were assailed in the writ petitions. In those writ
petitions, the effect of issuance of Notification under
Section 4 of the Act in the context of carrying on any non-
forest activity as defined in the F.C.Act in the areas
covered under the Notification was considered.
The F.C. Act is a Central Act but does not define the
word “forest”. Section 2 of the FC Act reads as follows:-
“2. Restriction on the de-reservation of
forests or use of forest land for
non-forest purpose:- Notwithstanding
55
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force in a State, no State
Government or other authority shall make,
except with the prior approval of the Central
Government, any order directing-
(i) that any reserved forest (within the
meaning of the expression “reserved
forest” in any law for the time being in
force in that State) or any portion
thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be used for any non-
forest purposes;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be assigned by way of
lease or otherwise to any private
person or to any authority,
corporation, agency or any other
organization not owned, managed or
controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be cleared of trees which
have grown naturally in that land or
portion, for the purpose of using it for
re-afforestation;]”
56
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section
“non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or
clearing of any forest land or portion thereof
for-
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices,
rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture
crops or medicinal plants;
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation,
but does not include any work relating or
ancillary to conservation, development and
management of forests and wild-life, namely,
the establishment of check-posts, fire lines,
wireless communications and construction of
fencing, bridges and culverts, dams,
waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks,
pipelines or other like purposes.”
(Emphasis added)
A bare reading of the said Section would make it
apparent that it begins with a non-obstante clause and it
overrides any other law for the time being in force in a
State. No State Government or any other authority can
make an order directing that any forest land or any portion
thereof be ceased to be reserved; that any forest land or
57
any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest
purposes; that any forest land or any portion thereof may
be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private
person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any
other organization not owned, managed or controlled by
the Government; that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown
naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it
for re-afforestation. The expression “non-forest purpose”
is defined in the explanation to mean the breaking up or
clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for – (a) the
cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing
plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any
purpose other than re-afforestation, but does not include
any work relating or ancillary to conservation,
development and management of forests and wildlife,
namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines,
wireless communications and construction of fencing,
bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks,
boundary marks, pipelines or other like purpose.
58
12. The F.C.Act can be considered in juxtaposition with
the Act at this stage as has been done in
W.P.No.10319/2013. On a reading of the explanation to
Section 2 of F.C.Act, it becomes very clear that agricultural
activity is non-forest activity. No doubt, Section 4 of the
Act empowers the State Government to declare the
decision to constitute any land as a reserved forest, but
would the declaration of any land as reserved for forest
per se be sufficient to extend the nomenclature of “forest”
to such a land for the purpose of the Central Act, so as to
require F.C. clearance, is the question. Having regard to
the object of the Central Act, and the fact that it has an
overriding effect on all State laws, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has enunciated what the expression “forest” under
that Act would mean, in Godavarman. In that case, it
has been held that the term “forest”, occurring in Section 2
of the Central Act would not only include “forest” as
understood in the dictionary sense, but also any land
recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective
of ownership. Thus, the expression “forest” would include;
59
i) all forests as understood in the dictionary sense ii) all
statutorily recognized forest, whether designated as
reserved, protected or otherwise; and iii) forest land
recorded as forest in the Government records;
13. As per Chambers English Dictionary “forest” means,
a large uncultivated tract of land covered by trees; woody
ground and covered with upright objects and unfenced
woodland.
As far as statutorily recognized forest is concerned,
the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was operating in British India
and after Independence, extended to the whole of India,
except the territories immediately before the 1st
November, 1956 comprised in part B States. That Act was
enacted to consolidate the law relating to forests, the
transit of forest-produce and the duty leviable on timber
and other forest-produce. Chapter II of that Act pertains
to Reserved Forests. It enabled the State Government to
constitute any forest-land, or waste-land, which is the
property of the Government or over which the Government
60
has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the
forest-produce of which the Government is entitled as a
reserved forest. Sections 3 to 22 of that Act are almost in
pari materia with Sections 3 to 18 of the Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963. The Karnataka Forest Act of 1963 was enacted
pursuant to the integration of Karnataka State so as to
consolidate and amend the law relating to forests and
forest produce in the State. Under that Act, Section 2
defines the “District Forest” to include “all lands at the
disposal of Government and not within the limits of any
reserved or village forest nor assigned at the survey
settlement as free grazing ground or for any other public
or communal purposes.” However, the State Government
is competent to modify or set aside such assignment and
constitute any such land as reserved, village or district
forest, or devote the same to any other purpose it may
deem fit. Section 2(8) defines ”land at the disposal of the
State Government” to mean “land in respect of which no
person has acquired: a) permanent, heritable and
transferable right of use and occupancy under any law for
61
the time being in force; or, b) any right created by grant
or lease made or continued by or on behalf of
Government.”
Section 2(13) defines “Protected Forest” to mean
any area at the disposal of Government which has been
placed under special protection under clause (ii) of sub-
section (2) of Section 33 or is declared to be a protected
forest under Section 35. Section 2 (14) defines a
“Reserved Forest” to mean any land settled and notified as
such in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II
(comprised of Sections 3 to 28) of the Act. As seen earlier
all forest lands recorded as forest in the Government
records come within the nomenclature of forest as per the
judgment in Godavarman (supra). Thus, the provisions of
Central Act, would apply to all forest lands, as understood
in its extended meaning, irrespective of ownership or
classification thereof.
14. Therefore, by virtue of Section 2 of the FC Act, prior
approval of the Central Government is mandatory as well
62
as a pre-condition for the grant of forest lands for non-
forest purposes. The expression “prior approval” would
mean that before a grant of lease is made, there should be
a previous approval of the Central Government. It cannot
be construed to mean that, after the grant of land or a
lease, the approval of the Central Government would be
obtained. It has to be prior to commencement of
non-forest operations. The requirement of approval by the
Central Government under Section 2 is thus a mandatory
condition precedent to the grant of land in a forest area,
for a non-forest activity as held in Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1989 SC
594) and Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat
(AIR 1987 SC1073). Thus, Section 2 of the Central Act
places a restriction on the State Government or other
authority to grant any part of the forest land or any
portion thereof for non-forest purpose except with the
prior approval of the Central Government. In fact, when
an application is made for grant of lease of land for
non-forest purpose, it would be incumbent upon the State
63
Government to first ascertain all relevant particulars as to
whether the grant of land is legally permissible and viable
or not. If the State Government decides that such a forest
land should be granted, then requirement of prior approval
of the Central Government would arise.
15. It may be also noted that the definition of “District
Forest” in Section 2(2) of the Act, is inclusive and wide
enough to expressly include all land at the disposal of
Government except the land within the reserved or village
forest or the land assigned as free grazing ground or for
any other public or community purposes. And the
provisions of Section 33 of the Act empowers the
government to make rules to provide for regulating or
prohibiting non-forest activity including quarrying of stones
over the land at the disposal of the Government. But in so
far as the lands in question are concerned, we again
reiterate that mere issuance of a notification under Section
4 of the Act is sufficient to constitute the land comprised in
64
it as “forest”, in which any non-forest activity would
require prior approval under Section 2 of the Central Act.
16. The decisions cited at the Bar could be referred to at
this stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon
the following decisions:-
(a) In V.K.Majotra v. Union of India and Others
[(2003) 8 SCC 40], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
writ Courts had to decide the petitions on the points raised
in them and not overstep their jurisdiction in giving a
direction beyond the pleadings or the points raised by the
parties during the course of arguments, otherwise parties
would be taken by surprise. This decision is cited in
support of the contention that there was no prayer to pass
orders of a general nature in the Public Interest Litigation
and therefore, the directions had to be restricted to the
grants of the respondents therein. The submission was
that in the absence of pleadings and prayers, this Court
65
could not have passed a general order. The aforesaid
decision is not applicable to this case having regard to the
fact that in the PIL, the grants of the private respondents
therein, which were sought to be quashed were only
illustrative and that the main thrust of the petition was to
save the forest land notified by Notification dated
06/03/1928 from private cultivation and exploitation.
(b) Delhi Development Authority v. Ram Prakash
[(2011) 4 SCC 180], has been cited in support of the
proposition that administrative or executive action must be
taken in time and not after the great deal of delay. In that
case, the demand after a lapse of about 25 years for
misuser charges was quashed on the ground of delay.
That decision cannot be applied to the instant case to
contend that inspite of the Notification of the year 1928 being
in existence all along, it was not acted upon by the State and
therefore, it had lost its efficacy. The Division Bench has
categorically observed that when once the Notification of
1928 notified the reserved forest area, it continued to be so
66
under the Act also and no grants could have been made
particularly after the enforcement of F.C.Act.
(c) In Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of
Maharashtra [2007 (5) SCC 211], it has been stated
that no order can be ignored altogether unless a finding is
recorded that it is illegal, void or not in consonance with
law. It was contended that in the instant case, in the
absence of there being proceedings initiated against the
grants made in favour of the petitioners herein, that they
could not have been declared to be invalid by the Division
Bench. That unless the necessary proceedings are taken
in law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it
quashed, it would remain as effective for its ostensible
purpose as the most impeccable of orders. It was also
noted in that judgment that there is no doubt that an order
does not bear a brand of its invalidity on its forehead.
That its invalidity can only be pronounced in its proper
proceeding.
67
Placing reliance on the aforesaid observations, it was
urged that the grants made in favour of the private
respondents in the PIL and all other similar grants were
held to be void by the Division Bench, but grant orders in
respect of the petitioners herein, who were not parties in
the earlier litigation, were required to be set aside by a
competent Court of Law as such orders are valid until set
aside by a competent Court of law. It was also urged that
an order cannot be declared to be void in a collateral
proceeding and that too in the absence of authorities who
are the authors thereof. The aforesaid pleas would not
apply in the instant case as the Division Bench only opined
that the grants had been rendered void on account of the
enforcement of the F.C. Act r/w the provisions of the Act.
Further, an opportunity has been given to the grantees to
establish the validity of their grants and for that purpose,
the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chikmagalur Circle, was
directed to take steps to evict all persons who are not
entitled to remain in possession in accordance with law, as
68
stated in Paragraph Nos.28, 33 and 34 of the
order/judgment.
We have perused the dates on which the grants have
been made in the case of the present petitioners. They
have all been made subsequent to the enforcement of
1963 Act and in some cases after the enforcement of the
Forest Conservation Act. Bearing in mind the judgments
and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this
Court, under those cases, the grants in favour of various
grantees have been quashed which would also include the
grants made in favour of the petitioners also in case the
F.C. Act has been ignored while making the grants. The
Division Bench has ensured that the grantees would have
an opportunity to explain about the validity or otherwise of
their grants before the Conservator of Forest,
Chikmagalur. The proceedings already initiated or to be
initiated by the Conservator of Forest, Chikmagalur,
precisely give an opportunity to the petitioners and other
69
similarly situated persons to establish their rights vis-à-vis,
the lands in their possession.
(d) K.T.Plantations v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9
SCC 1], has been cited in the context of Article 300-A of
the Constitution which protects private property against
executive action. Article 300-A proclaims that no person
can be deprived of his property save by authority of law,
i.e., merely by an executive fiat, without any specific legal
authority or without the support of law made by a
competent legislature. Article 300-A is irrelevant in the
instant case as the question that was considered by the
Division Bench was as to whether lands notified to be
reserved forest could have been the subject matter of
grant to private persons. This is not a case where private
property is being taken away by the State Government
without complying due process of law. On the other hand,
the judgment impugned protects reserved forest which is
public property.
70
The aforesaid decisions do not support the pleas of
the petitioners herein.
17. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the
State has relied on the following judgments:-
(a) In Godavarman (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has delineated the true scope of the Forest
Conservation Act and the meaning of the word “forest”
used therein. We have followed that decision in
W.P.No.10319/2013 and connected matters, disposed of
on 25/10/2013 supra, on which reliance has been placed
and therefore, it would not be necessary to once again
discuss at this stage.
(b) In K. Balakrishnan Nambiar v. State of
Karnataka and Others (2011) SCC 353, it has
been stated that after the enforcement of the Forest
Conservation Act from 25/10/1980, no State Government
or other authority can pass an order or give a direction for
de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or
71
permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any
non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc., in respect of
forest land to any private person or any authority,
corporation, agency or organization which is not owned,
managed or controlled by the Government. Also, if any
forest land or any portion thereof has been used for non-
forest purpose, like undertaking mining activity for a
particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the
1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended
by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25/10/1980
without obtaining prior approval of the Central
Government. This judgment is squarely applicable to the
grants made in the instant case, either prior to or
subsequent to the date of enforcement of F.C. Act.
(c) In State of Karnataka and Others v. I.S.Nirvane
Gowda and Others [(2007) 15 SCC 744], it has been
categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when
the lands were included in reserved forest, the entries in
the revenue records were of no consequence and further,
72
mere saguvali chits did not confer any title on the suit
lands. That apart, the Revenue Authorities were not
competent to deal with the property which was part of the
reserved forest. The aforesaid decision has been relied
upon by the Division Bench.
(d) In Avishek Goenka (2) v. Union of India and
Another [(2012) 8 SCC 441], the controversy was with
regard to use of black films of any VLT percentage or any
other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (Front
and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles through out the
country.
In Avishek Goenka (1) v. Union of India
[(2012) 5 SCC 321], the ban was imposed having regard
to the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.
That judgment was passed in a Public Interest Litigation
and the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
held to be operative in rem. When a question arose as to
whether all persons dealing with black films had to be
notified, the Apex Court observed that it was neither
73
expected of the Court nor was it a requirement of law that
the Court should have issued notice to every shopkeeper
selling the films, every distributor distributing the films and
every manufacturer manufacturing the films.
That the matter was widely covered by the press and the
persons to be affected by the order could have always
approached the Court. It was also observed that the writ
petition was pending for almost a year and therefore,
persons who did not approach the Court during the
pendency of the proceedings could not subsequently state
that they were adversely affected by the order.
In the instant case, the Public Interest Litigation was
filed in the year 1999 and was disposed of in April 2012
and the writ appeals of 2005 arose out of the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions
which were filed as early as in the year 1999. Therefore,
for over a decade, the petitions were pending for
adjudication before this Court. Those who were affected
by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner or the notices
74
issued by various authorities, had assailed them in writ
petitions. The forest lands in question are all situated in
Chikmagalur District. The pendency of the proceedings
before this Court would have been a matter of public
knowledge and it cannot be believed that these petitioners
were not aware of the pendency of the Public Interest
Litigation and appeals before this Court.
The aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned
Additional Government Advocate are squarely applicable to
the facts of the present case.
In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
B.S.Mohinuddin by his L.Rs. v. State of Karnataka
(W.A.No.203/1982 disposed of on 01/07/1986) has
held that in respect of forest lands, an Inamdar cannot
claim occupancy rights. Though the said decision is under
the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the aforesaid reasoning would
apply under the provisions of KRCIA Act in view of Section
6 of the latter Act.
75
Another relevant judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court could also be cited at this stage. In Nature Lovers
Movement v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 5
SCC 373], the facts were that large tracts of
reserved forest/forest land were unauthorizedly
occupied/encroached and used for non-forest purposes.
The State Government regularized unauthorized
occupants/encroachments of forest land made prior to
01/01/1977 and sought to remove those encroachments
which were made on or after that date. However, before
that decision could be implemented, the F.C. Act was
enacted by Parliament and in view of the non-obstante
clause contained in Section 2 thereof, the State
Government could not pass any order for regularizing
unauthorized occupation/encroachments of forest land.
Nearly six years later, the State Government requested the
Central Government for permission to regularize
unauthorized occupation/encroachments by issuance of
title deeds under the relevant State Land Assignment
Rules. The Central Government granted conditional
76
approval for regularization of pre 01/01/1977
encroachments of forest land subject to fulfillment of
certain conditions. In the meanwhile, the State
Government had framed Special Rules, 1993 for
regularization of occupation of forest lands by way of
assignment subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The
Central Government by letter dated 31/01/1995 accorded
the final approval under Section 2 of the F.C. Act for
diversion of 28,588.159 hectares of forest land in the
districts concerned for regularization of pre 01/01/1977
unauthorized occupation/encroachments. While
considering the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 in juxtaposition
with Forest Conservation Act, 1980 at Paragraph 35 and
36, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“35. An analysis of the
above-reproduced provisions of the 1961 Act
makes it clear that once a land was declared as
reserved forest, no right could be acquired by
anyone after issue of notification under Section
4 except under a grant or contract in writing
made or entered into by or on behalf of the
77
Government, or by or on behalf of some
person in whom such right or power to create
the same was vested or by succession from
such person and no activity of clearing such
land or collection of forest produce could be
made. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 (sic
Section 7) of the 1961 Act also imposes
prohibition against grant of patta in such land
without previous sanction of the Government.
36. The 1980 Act was enacted by virtue of
Entry 17-A of List III in the Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution. Section 2 (as originally
enacted) contains a non obstante clause. It
lays down that notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being
in force in a State, no State Government or
authority shall without prior approval of the
Central Government make any order directing
that any reserved forest or any portion thereof,
shall cease to be reserved or that any forest
land or any portion thereof may be used for
any non-forest purpose.”
78
The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by
referring to various decisions including Godavarman and
held as follows:-
“48. Another principle which emerges
from these judgments is that even if any forest
land or any portion thereof has been used for
non-forest purpose, like undertaking of mining
activity for a particular length of time, prior to
the enforcement of the 1980 Act, the tenure of
such activity cannot be extended by way of
renewal of lease or otherwise after 25-10-1980
without obtaining prior approval of the Central
Government.”
At Paragraph 52(2) it held as under:-
“52. In the result, the appeal is disposed
of in the following terms:
(1) XXX
(2) After the enforcement of the 1980 Act,
neither the State Government nor any other
authority can make an order or issue direction
for dereservation of reserved forest or any
portion thereof or permit use of any forest land
or any portion thereof for any non-forest
79
purpose or assign any forest land or any
portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to
any private person or to any authority,
corporation, agency or organization not owned,
managed or controlled by the Government
except after obtaining prior approval of the
Central Government.
(3) XXX
(4) XXX”
The reason for the aforesaid conclusion was that
after the enforcement of F.C. Act, the State Governments
were denuded of their power to dereserve reserved forest
or forest land and permit use thereof for non-forest
purposes. They could do so only after obtaining prior
approval of the Central Government. The object of the F.C.
Act is conservation of forests and to prevent depletion
thereof. Therefore, the Court is bound to interpret that Act
to further its objects.
Having regard to the facts of the case and the
applicable law we are in complete agreement with the
conclusions arrived at and directions issued by the Division
80
Bench in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the impugned
judgment/order. In fact, the petitioners herein have the
opportunity of complying with the directions issued by the
Division Bench as in that process, their individual cases
would be considered by the concerned authority as has
been stipulated in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the
judgment/order of the Division Bench.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit
in the writ petitions as well as in the review petitions.
They are, hence, dismissed without any order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
s/*mvs