ORDER : 1. Land bearing Sy. No.170 measuring 45 acres 0.1 gunta situated in Horanadu village, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, was absolutely owned by the petitioner having inherited the same from his ancestors. The same was forfeited by the State Government due to non-payment of arrears of land revenue. However, as asserted by the petitioner, possession of the land continued with the ancestors of the petitioner and thereafter with the petitioner. On 07.06.1993, this land along with other lands totally measuring 2.58 lakh hectares was transferred from Revenue Department to the Forest Department for establishing land bank. The notification which is produced at Annexure-B and the consequent Government Order dated 20.07.1994 which is produced at Annexure-C provide that the said extent of 2.58 lakh hectares of C & D category lands was transferred for creating land bank on condition that the land shall not be categorized as forest land; they shall continue to be classified of C & D class lands and shall not be notified or treated as Reserved Forest by issuing any notification and they shall be available for the Revenue Department for being utilized for public purpose and for purposes felt necessary by the Government. 2. The State Government issued notification dated 07.09.2000 amending sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, (for short, ‘the Rules’), providing for restoration of the forfeited lands to the land owners. Petitioner submitted applications well within time on 30.09.2000 and 05.10.2000 requesting for restoration of the land. The Tahsildar, Mudigere – respondent no.4 herein conducted spot inspection and issued a communication dated 11.10.2000 informing the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, that petitioner was in possession of the land; that this land had been purchased by the ancestors of the petitioner in public auction as back as on 23.08.1892 and that the said land was transferred for creating land bank. This communication is at Annexure-E. The Deputy Commissioner issued a communication dated 26.12.2000 requesting the State Government to recall the order of transfer in so far as Sy. No.170 was concerned. This communication is at Annexure-F. As the application of the petitioner was not considered, petitioner filed W.P.No.11334/2007 seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the application. This Court by order dated 24.07.2007 disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the application filed by the petitioner. No.170 was concerned. This communication is at Annexure-F. As the application of the petitioner was not considered, petitioner filed W.P.No.11334/2007 seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the application. This Court by order dated 24.07.2007 disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider the application filed by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner addressed a communication dated 20.08.2007 requesting the State Government to transfer the land from the land bank. In this order, the Deputy Commissioner made it clear that as the order passed by this Court was required to be complied with expeditiously within a period of four months and as State Government had not yet withdrawn the land from the land bank created in the Forest Department, it had become difficult for the Deputy Commissioner to comply with the order passed by the High Court on 24.07.2007. Hence, order transferring the land to create the land bank with the Forest Department be withdrawn by issuing necessary orders. This letter is produced at Annexure-G. That petitioner was growing coffee, arecanut, etc., in the land and possessed license by the Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, Kalasa, and that his house was situated in the land apart from a Sanskrit School and a Temple in the said land, are forthcoming from Tahsildar’s communication dated 11.10.2000 – Annexure-E; Deputy Commissioner’s communication dated 26.12.2000 – Annexure-F; License No.133/1991 issued on 13.11.1991 for curing activities and the communication dated 12.03.2007 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, to the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, as per Annexure-J. 3. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 27.11.2009 rejected the applications filed by the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to show his continuous possession of the property. He also opined that the land consisted of valuable trees as reported by the Forest Department. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.36324/2009. The said writ petition, on contest, was allowed on 26.06.2012. This Court recorded a clear finding that even according to the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner had satisfied the parameters in sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Rules and that the land was in possession of the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the order passed by this Court, it was observed as under: “12. This Court recorded a clear finding that even according to the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner had satisfied the parameters in sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Rules and that the land was in possession of the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the order passed by this Court, it was observed as under: “12. In view the same, question that arises would be whether petitioner is entitled for being restored with the possession of land by virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 119. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Patil, learned HCGP land in question has been diverted by the Government under a Government order bearing No.RD 106 LGP 88 dated 25.7.1994 to the Land Bank for being transferred to various departments of the Government. However, factually the land in question has continued to be in possession of the petitioner as consistently held by the respondents including the 2nd respondent authority which has passed the impugned order. In fact, one of the basic criteria for considering an application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 is that applicant should have continued to be in possession of the land, though said land was forfeited to the Government for non-payment of revenue. In other words, possession should not have been diverted. Thus, the criteria prescribed in this regard is duly satisfied by the petitioner even according to the respondent authority themselves. However, to avoid any technical plea being raised and obivoulsy by way of abundant caution, second respondent has requested the Government by communication dated 26.12.2000 and communication dated 23.8.2007 Annexure-E and J requesting the first respondent Government to cancel/annul the orders under which the land in question is said to have been diverted i.e., Government order dated 20.7.1994. In the absence of any order having been passed by the first respondent Government, no order could have been passed by the second respondent by considering the claim of the petitioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner was placed in a situation in which, he was facing a direction issued by this court in Writ Petition No.11334/2007 dated 24.7.2007 whereunder he was directed to dispose of the application within time frame and non-compliance of said order would have resulted in proceedings being initiated against him and he had yet to receive reply from the Government for his requests made under letters dated 26.12.2000 and 23.08.2007 vide Annexures E & J respectively. In this background and left with no other option and inspite of there being no orders having been passed by the first respondent Government withdrawing or canceling the order dated 20.7.1994 he was perforced to pass the impugned order. The reasons assailed by the second respondent to reject the applications cannot be accepted by this court. For the reasons aforesaid. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 4. Having said so, this Court further observed that the State government shall bestow its attention to the recommendations made by the Deputy Commissioner as per his communication dated 26.12.2000 followed by various reminders including communication dated 23.08.2007 and pass orders expeditiously. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “(1) Writ Petition is allowed. (2) Impugned order dated 27.11.2009 Annexure-P stands quashed by reserving liberty to the second respondent to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 30.9.2000 and 5.10.2000 at Annexures M & M1 afresh on merits by taking into consideration the reports of respondents 3 & 4, observations made herein above and also on receipt of recommendation or reply from the State Government to the communication of the second respondent dated 26.12.2000 and 23.8.2007. (3) No order as to costs. (4) Ordered accordingly.” 5. It is thus clear that the State Government was directed to bestow its attention to the recommendations made by the Deputy Commissioner as per his various communications and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the request made by the petitioner for restoration of his land upon receipt of reply from the State Government to his communications dated 26.12.2000 and 23.08.2007. 6. What emerges from the order passed by this Court is, that a clear finding has been recorded that factually the land in question continued to be in possession of the petitioner. Thus the basic criteria for considering the application filed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Rules prescribing that applicant should have continued to be in possession of the land though the land had been forfeited to the Government for non-payment of land revenue had been duly satisfied by the petitioner and that it was only by way of abundant caution and to avoid any technical plea being raised, the Deputy Commissioner had requested the Government to cancel the order transferring the land to create land bank in the custody of the Forest Department. There was no other factual aspect to be examined by the Deputy Commissioner in view of the clear finding recorded by the Court except to pass an order restoring the land in favour of the petitioner once the State Government made its stand clear in that regard. 7. However, very strangely in utter disregard and defiance to the order passed by this Court, the Range Forest Officer, Kalasa Division, Kalasa, issued a communication dated 16.09.2013 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the land within 15 days as the Chief Conservator of Forests had passed an order in that connection on 19.08.2013. This eviction notice is at Annexure-N and the communication of the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests dated 19.08.2013 is at Annexure-P. As per Annexure-P communication, the Addl. Chief Conservator of Forests has come to the conclusion that as the land in question was in the name of the Forest Department, the same has to be taken possession of by evicting the unauthorized occupants. It is in this background, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 19.08.2013 Annexure-P passed by the Additional Chief Conservator of forests and the eviction notice dated 16.09.2013 – Annexure-N. Petitioner has also challenged the Government Order dated 20.07.1994 transferring the land in question in favour of Forest Department for creating land bank. 8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.G. Shivanna, Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State and its authorities. 9. The questions that fall for consideration are, (i) whether the petitioner was entitled as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Rules for restoration of the land bearing Sy. No.170 measuring 45.01 acres situated at Horanadu village, Chikkamagaluru District, which was forfeited for non-payment of land revenue? (ii) whether the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to act as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.36324/2009 disposed of on 26.06.2012? (iii) whether the eviction notice and the order passed by the Addl. Chief Conservator of Forests are sustainable law? (iv) what order? 10. Point No.1:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner/his ancestors were the absolute owner of the property in question. (iii) whether the eviction notice and the order passed by the Addl. Chief Conservator of Forests are sustainable law? (iv) what order? 10. Point No.1:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner/his ancestors were the absolute owner of the property in question. The same was forfeited to the Government for non-payment of land revenue and that by virtue of amendment to sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Rules, extending the time for restoration of the forfeited land, petitioner had filed application seeking restoration of the land well within the extended time. The all important question which entitles the petitioner to seek restoration of forfeited land is, whether petitioner continued to be in possession of the land. This aspect of the dispute has been concluded by the clear and categorical findings already recorded by this Court in W.P.No.36324/2009. Indeed, these findings are extracted herein above. This order passed by this Court has attained finality. It is also necessary to notice that these findings are based on the spot inspection conducted and the reports/communications addressed by the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, attempt made by the State and its authorities to assert to the contrary is to say the least abhors judicial consensus has it challenges findings recorded by this Court that have attained finality. The State and its authorities cannot be permitted to take up any such ground to defend their inaction and omission. 11. Point No.2:- As already pointed out above, this Court having recorded a factual finding that the land continued to be in possession of the petitioner and also after coming to the conclusion that as the State Government had failed to pass any order as requested by the Deputy Commissioner vide his communications dated 26.12.2000 and 23.08.2007 for annulling the order transferring the land in question in favour of the Forest Department for creating land bank, made a specific observation in paragraph 14 that the State Government shall bestow its attentions to the recommendations made by the Deputy Commissioner as per his letters dated 26.12.2000 and 23.08.2007 and pass orders or reply to the Deputy Commissioner expeditiously. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to take note of the favourable report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar and consider the applications filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the land. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to take note of the favourable report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar and consider the applications filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the land. This direction of the Court is negated and frustrated by the State Government by not taking any action to withdraw/cancel the order diverting the land to the land bank/forest department. Instead, the State Government appears to have encouraged the officials of the Forest Department to act directly contrary to the directions issued by this Court and to frustrate the same. This is evident from the Chief Conservator of Forests issuing communications to his subordinates to evict the petitioner from the land in question by initiating legal action against him. State Government is not only a silent spectator to this action of the officials of the Forest Department, but has very courageously placed on record statement of objections of respondents 5 & 6 – Range Forest Officer and Chief Conservator of Forests, respectively, to contend in paragraph 9 of the statement of objections that provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, were attracted and that petitioner had encroached the valuable forest land and further that order passed in W.P.No.36324/2009 was passed on incorrect statements made before the Court (see paragraph 15 of the statement of objections). It is urged in paragraph 2 of the statement of objections that the land in question was a Government forest land vested with forest department and was under the control and jurisdiction of the forest department. 12. It is relevant to point out at this stage that while transferring this land along with several other lands to forest department to create land bank, (a) it was made clear in the Government Order dated 07.06.1993 and 20.07.1994 produced at Annexures-B & C, respectively, that the Revenue Department shall be permitted to draw on lands from the land bank whenever necessary for Government and public purposes; (b) that the lands even after transfer shall continue to be classified as C & D class lands and shall not be notified or treated as Reserved Forest. 13. It is thus wholly impermissible for the forest department to claim that the land has become forest land and is governed by the provisions of the Forest Act. 13. It is thus wholly impermissible for the forest department to claim that the land has become forest land and is governed by the provisions of the Forest Act. The assertion made by the Forest Department that petitioners had encroached upon the Forest land and that he was not in possession of the same, is contrary to the report of the Tahsildar dated 11.10.2010 which clearly discloses that the land was found to be in possession of the petitioner and that the petitioner had grown coffee, arecanut in the land and his residential house and other constructions were in existence and therefore his application deserved to be considered after obtaining permission from the State Government. The Forest Department has no right over the land in as much as the land is created as a land bank in the forest department on specific condition that the Revenue Department had right to draw upon the land and utilize the same for any purpose if necessary. A further condition was imposed while creating the land bank that the land shall not be notified as forest land and that they shall be continued as C & D class lands. Therefore, the action of the forest department is wholly illegal and contrary to the order passed by this Court. The State Government has kept quiet without passing any order despite clear directions issued by this Court on 26.06.2012. The inaction of the State and the Deputy Commissioner has to be seriously viewed. They have taken the orders passed by this Court granted. The Government must act as a model litigant. It has to act to enforce rule of law by adhering to the judicial verdicts, but the conduct exhibited here is highly deprecable. The omission and inaction on the part of the State Government in passing the order based on the communication addressed by the Deputy Commissioner on 26.12.2000 and 23.08.2007 as directed by this Court in paragraph 14 of the order dated 26.06.2012 is sought to be justified by the learned Addl. Advocate General contending that as the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Government transferring the land creating land bank in favour of the forest department, the State did not take any action as the matter was seized by this Court. This explanation is untenable and does not appeal to logic or reason. Advocate General contending that as the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Government transferring the land creating land bank in favour of the forest department, the State did not take any action as the matter was seized by this Court. This explanation is untenable and does not appeal to logic or reason. The State has committed the mistake of ignoring the direction issued by this Court right from 26.06.2012 till today without any justification. Even now it has not remorse. It has come up with an unjustified stand due to pendency of this writ petition they did not take any action, particularly because the order of transfer was challenged. There is no interim order directing the State not to comply with the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the stand taken in this regard is untenable. 14. Point No.3:- The materials on record disclose that there is a residential house belonging to the petitioner and other constructions apart from the temple. This is evident from the report of the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner which have been referred to herein above. Indeed photographs of these buildings have been produced by the petitioner at Annexures-Q, Q1 & Q2. Admittedly, petitioner has been cultivating coffee and arecanut in the land. Therefore, this Court has rightly recorded the finding on facts that petitioner was in possession of the property. Respondents cannot be permitted to take any stand contrary to the said findings which have attained finality. Hence, the action of the authorities of the forest department in issuing notice of eviction is totally illegal and without authority of law. 15. Therefore, this Court has rightly recorded the finding on facts that petitioner was in possession of the property. Respondents cannot be permitted to take any stand contrary to the said findings which have attained finality. Hence, the action of the authorities of the forest department in issuing notice of eviction is totally illegal and without authority of law. 15. Though it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner would consider the matter in accordance with law keeping in mind the direction issued by this Court, the conduct of the respondents continuously ignoring the findings and directions issued by this Court way back in the year 2012 and in coming up with wholly untenable grounds of defence quite contrary to the findings recorded by this Court earlier makes it clear that specific direction needs to be issued by this Court fixing a time frame based on the findings of fact already recorded by this court in the previous writ petition lest it will not only protract the litigation but would deny the legitimate rights of the petitioner recognized in law. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, by its President & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Land Revenue & Others, ILR 2010 Kar 1449, has held while dealing with the forfeiture of lands for non-payment of land revenue that forfeiture order could be made only to the extent of land revenue arrears due and payable and if the land owners come forward to pay the land revenue arrears, the land has to be restored. In the aforesaid case, a mandamus was issued to the respondents to work out and communicate the quantum of arrears of land revenue. In the judgment rendered in the case of Comptroller & Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another Vs. K.S. Jagannathan & Another, (1986) 2 SCC 679 , in paragraph 20, the Apex Court has observed as under: “20. In the judgment rendered in the case of Comptroller & Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another Vs. K.S. Jagannathan & Another, (1986) 2 SCC 679 , in paragraph 20, the Apex Court has observed as under: “20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such direction has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.” 17. Therefore, in a fit and proper case in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself give directions which the Government and its authorities could had it property land lawfully exercised its discretion. Similar is the view taken in a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Flour Mills Vs. Union of India, ILR 1993 Kar 2228, in paragraph 19, which reads as under: “19. Similar is the view taken in a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Flour Mills Vs. Union of India, ILR 1993 Kar 2228, in paragraph 19, which reads as under: “19. In this view of the matter when respondent No.2 a public authority has failed to exercise discretion conferred on him by ignoring relevant considerations and materials in such a manner as to frustrate or defeat the very object of implementing the policy, statute or rule, for which purpose discretion has been conferred and that too inspite of the direction given by this Court in the aforementioned judgment in W.A.No.1349/92 and the statement made on behalf of the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents that the case of the petitioner would be considered under Clause-21 of the new Policy, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 has the power to issue a writ of mandamus as sought for by the petitioner in this case.” 18. Even in this case, as already stated above, despite clear directions issued by this Court, State Government has not issued any communication to the Deputy Commissioner, as a result, the Deputy Commissioner has not discharged his duties by considering the application of the petitioner. No disputed questions are required to be ascertained in the light of findings recorded by this Court in the earlier writ petition bearing 36324/2009 decided on 26.06.2012 vide Annexure-M. Therefore, petitioner is eligible and entitled in law for restoration of his land. The State Government including the Revenue Department and the Forest Department are duty bound to act in accordance with law i.e., as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Rules and the findings recorded and orders passed by this Court on 26.06.2012. This Court cannot be a silent spectator for the continued defiance shown by the State and its authorities to the rights of the petitioner and the direction issued by this Court. Hence, this is a fit case where a positive direction has to be issued to the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner and the authorities of the Forest Department who are all arrayed as party respondents in this case to restore the land to the petitioner within a time frame. Hence, the following order. 19. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned communications Annexure-N & P are quashed. Hence, the following order. 19. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned communications Annexure-N & P are quashed. A direction is issued to all the respondents to withdraw the land of the petitioner transferred as land bank with the forest department and restore the same to the petitioner, so as to enable him to exercise all rights as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Rules, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.