Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 368 (KAR)

Gangamuniyappa v. State of Karnataka

2015-04-01

K.L.MANJUNATH, R.S.CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Challenging the concurrent findings of the order passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest dated 26-9-2006 in FOC No. 151/2006-07 and the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest dated 23-4-2012 in Appeal No. 134 of 2008 so also the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 20452 and 38107 to 38111 of 2012, dated 24-9-2012, the present appeals are filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It is the case of the appellants that they are the owners of Survey No. 10/1 measuring 7 acres 28 guntas, Survey No. 10/2 measuring 5 acres 39 guntas and Survey No. 10/14 measuring 5 acres 18 guntas inclusive of kharab land situate at B.M. Kaval, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The aforesaid lands were acquired by the K.I.A.D.B. for the formation of Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor in the year 2003. All of a sudden, the Assistant Conservator of Forest issued a notice to the appellants on 26-9-2006 stating that these lands are declared as reserved forest by the State of Karnataka vide notification dated 14-12-1935 and thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 64-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Subsequently, an order of eviction has been passed. Challenging the order of respondent 3, an appeal was filed before respondent 2. The respondent 2 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, writ petitions were filed. 3. The Learned Single Judge on the premise that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition concerning reserved forest area has rejected the petitions. Therefore, the present appeals are filed. 4. The main contention of the appellants' Counsel is that since the appellants' predecessors are in possession much prior to declaring these lands as forest lands vide Government order dated 14-12-1935, the appellants could not have been considered as unauthorized occupant of reserved forest because they are the owners of the properties and their ownership has not been taken away by the Government in the manner known to law. Several documents show that Survey No. 10/1 was purchased in a public auction in the year 1927 and all the revenue records are standing in the name of appellants' predecessors. Several documents show that Survey No. 10/1 was purchased in a public auction in the year 1927 and all the revenue records are standing in the name of appellants' predecessors. The Forest Authorities and the learned Single Judge did not consider the documents relied upon by the petitioners that they are the actual owners of the lands and not encroachers of the forest land. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by dismissing the writ petitions by confirming the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3. 5. The learned Government Advocate supporting the orders of respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Single Judge submits that since the land is declared as reserved forest, the order of eviction passed by respondents 2 and 3 is justifiable and requested the Court to dismiss the appeals. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what we have noticed is that several documents produced by the petitioners to show that Survey No. 10/1 of B.M. Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, was purchased in a public auction conducted by the Government. If the lands are purchased in a public auction conducted by the Government and subsequently, the area has been declared as forest land, it is for the Government to give compensation to the appellants and to take decision in accordance with law. 7. Without considering these points and without considering the documents relied upon by the appellants, respondents 2 and 3 have committed an error by declaring that the appellants as unauthorized occupants of the forest land. Since there is no application of mind by respondents 2 and 3 with regard to the documents produced by the appellants, these appeals are required to be allowed as an error is committed by learned Single Judge in not considering the documents of the appellants. In the result, appeals are allowed. The orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 so also the order passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent 2. All the contentions of the parties are kept open and all the contentions to be urged shall be considered by respondent 2 in accordance with law. Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. Appeal Allowed.