ORDER : Mr. S. Vijayshankar, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner moves a court hall memorandum. He submits that he has been instructed not to press the challenge made to Annexure-A to the writ petition, being a notification issued by the Government of Karnataka. Let the memorandum filed in Court be kept with the records. 2. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner, in substance, assails the decision of the authorities claiming the coffee plantation in question as a part of Chamarajanagara reserved forest area, as also, the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Chamarajanagara, dated October 21, 2016, inter alia, holding that the nature of inquiry has been to ascertain the rights of the writ petitioner company over the lands. 3. The said Chief Conservator of Forests issued a notice to the writ petitioner company on December 16, 2015, proposing an inquiry under Section 99 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, (‘the said Act’ in short) read with Rule 69 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, inter alia, claiming that the estate fell within the Chamarajanagara reserved forest area. The writ petitioner was directed to file the original or the certified copies of the complete records as to acquisition of the property, lease rent paid, details of timber value and details of any other land parcels under the occupation of the company. 4. The company filed a reply claiming that, originally, the property was settled by the former Maharaja of Mysuru in favour of one Mr. C.W.G. Morris sometime in the year 1895. He converted the land into a coffee plantation and was cultivating coffee and incidental crops. The property was conveyed from time to time by the original grantee and his successors in interest. The writ petitioner acquired the property by virtue of a registered deed of sale in the year 2007. In the revenue settlement record of rights and in the khata the name of the writ petitioner has been mutated as the owner of the property and the writ petitioner has been regularly paying the taxes as assessed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 5. Mr. Vijayshankar challenges the very initiation of the proceeding by the said respondent No.2 and submits that the entire process was without jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Vijayshankar challenges the very initiation of the proceeding by the said respondent No.2 and submits that the entire process was without jurisdiction. He submits that the respondent No.2 is not the authority to question and determine the title of the writ petitioner under the said Act. 6. Mr. Vijayshankar draws our attention to the order sheet of the proceedings, particularly to the order dated October 21, 2016, where it was categorically recorded by the respondent No.2 that the proceeding was initiated to ascertain the rights of the writ petitioner over the land, whereas the authorities claimed the land as a part of the reserved forest area. 7. In order to appreciate the submission advanced by Mr. S. Vijayshankar, we need to consider certain provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the said Act defines the expression “Forest Officer” as under:- “Forest Officer means any person appointed by or under the orders of the State Government to be the Principal Chief Conservator, Additional Principal Chief Conservator, Chief Conservator, Additional Chief Conservator, Conservator, Deputy Conservator, Assistant Conservator, Forest Ranger, Forester, Forest Guard or Forest Watcher, or to discharge any function of Forest Officer under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder to be done by a Forest Officer.” 8. Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the said Act, defines “Reserved Forest” as any land settled and notified as such in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the said Act. 9. The clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act provides for appointment of Forest Settlement Officer to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed by or alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits or in or over any forest produce, and to deal with the same as provided in the Chapter II of the said Act. 10. He is a different person from a Forest Officer. It was expressly provided under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act that an officer appointed as Forest Settlement Officer shall be a person not holding any forest office except that of a Forest Settlement Officer. However, the State Government may appoint a Forest Officer to represent it in the inquiry under Chapter II by the Forest Settlement Officer. 11. However, the State Government may appoint a Forest Officer to represent it in the inquiry under Chapter II by the Forest Settlement Officer. 11. We find that respondent No.2 is a Forest Officer within the meaning of sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the said Act and, therefore, is not competent to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of the right, title and interest claimed by the writ petitioner, inasmuch as it may be determined by a Forest Settlement Officer appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. 12. We find from the order dated October 21, 2016, that the proceeding was initiated for the purpose of ascertaining the rights of the writ petitioner, proceeding on the assumption that the property has been a reserved forest. The initiation of the proceeding and the inquiry by the respondent No.2, who has been a Forest Officer, is without jurisdiction. Thus, the entire initiative by the respondent No.2 is void ab initio. 13. We, thus, quash the notice at Annexure-B to the writ petition dated December 16, 2015 and all subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof. 14. We reserve the right of the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law after affording opportunities to the writ petitioner. 15. Before we part with, we record that we had appointed Mr. H. Venkatesh Dodderi, a practising advocate of this court, as the Special Officer, to supervise the cultivation, harvesting, plucking and sale of the produce in the coffee plantation during the pendency of the writ petition. He was directed to maintain accounts. He has meticulously executed the directions and has submitted the reports periodically. We accept the reports of Mr. Venkatesh Dodderi, and discharge him as the Special Officer. The writ petitioner is directed to pay further remuneration of Rs.34,000/-(Rupees thirty four thousand) only, to Mr. Venkatesh Dodderi. 16. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 17. We make no order as to costs.