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