Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 640 (KAR)

D. K. MOHAMMAD HAJI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-08-14

K.R.PRASADA RAO, M.F.SALDANHA

body2001
( 1 ) WE have heard the appellant's learned Advocate and the learned government Advocate at considerable length and on merits. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge in this case has confirmed the order whereby the land measuring approximately 4,10 acres has been granted to the appellant and the reason for it is because it was pointed out by the Forest Department that the land comes within the boundary of the reserve forest and that under the Forest Reservation Act there is a total bar to grant any such lands. The learned Single Judge has come down very strongly on the authorities for what has transpired and has also directed an enquiry to be held for the purpose of identifying the officers responsible for this and has also opined that appropriate action be taken against those officers. We fully endorse that finding. ( 3 ) THE main point canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that he had applied for regularisation and that the State Government had set up a committee to examine these cases and that the committee had recommended the grant of land. The submission was that the procedure prescribed by law has been followed and that it now transpires that the land is on the edge of the forest and that the appellant should not be made to suffer for it. It was also pointed out to us that the appellant has got a small plantation there and that he is also living in the said area and the submission canvassed was that after all that has happened, that it would be extremely harsh and unfair to the appellant if action were to be taken against him. We prefer not to go into any of these aspects for the present for the simple reason that the law on the point has been very carefully examined and a conclusive finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the point which provides a basic and total bar to the grant of forest lands. The Forest Conservation Act was specifically promulgated in order to stop the State Governments from misusing their powers. Despite the promulgation of that Act in the year 1980, in case after case, we have noticed that the State Governments have indiscriminately gone about granting forest land or regularisation encroachments on forests. The Forest Conservation Act was specifically promulgated in order to stop the State Governments from misusing their powers. Despite the promulgation of that Act in the year 1980, in case after case, we have noticed that the State Governments have indiscriminately gone about granting forest land or regularisation encroachments on forests. Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly come down heavily on the State Governments and the concerned authorities, there does not appear to be any stop for what is happening. That however is a different issue but, despite everything that has been pointed out by the appellant's learned Counsel, we find that where the law prescribes a total bar on the granting of forest land, the records produced conclusively establish that the allocation of the land is perfectly unjustified. ( 4 ) APPELLANT's learned Advocate submitted that his client has applied to the concerned authorities for permission within the framework of the forest Conservation Act namely, to the Central Government and he further submits that pending disposal of that application, that the respondents should be directed not to take any further steps. The reason why we are unable to accede to this request is that the grant of sanction by Central Government is a condition precedent for allocation of forest land. The law is to the effect that if the Central Government in an appropriate case for whatever reason were to accord sanction within the framework of the Forest Conservation Act, then alone can forest land be used for non-forest purposes. It pre-supposes that sanction has to be first applied for and obtained and until then, the forest land cannot be utilised for any such purposes. In a case where the forest land has already been put to some other use, it would not be proper for the Court to grant a relief on the assumption that the Central Government would grant permission. It is for this reason that we have declined the request of the appellant's learned Advocate to defer any further action until the application in question is examined and decided. We make it clear however that this order has nothing to do with the merits of those applications which the Central Government is free to decide independently. It is for this reason that we have declined the request of the appellant's learned Advocate to defer any further action until the application in question is examined and decided. We make it clear however that this order has nothing to do with the merits of those applications which the Central Government is free to decide independently. ( 5 ) AFTER having examined both the facts and law in this appeal, we are of the firm opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. The appeal accordingly fails on merits and stands disposed off. No order as to costs. ( 6 ) AS regards the order passed by the learned Single Judge for payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-, the appellant's learned Advocate submits that at the very highest, the appellant was in error in having applied for regularisation without knowing that there is a legal bar and the order having gone against him, he had only come higher up to the High Court and consequently, it is his submission that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner should have been penalised. Having regard to the overall complexion of the facts and circumstances, the order for payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- is set aside. --- *** --- .