JUDGMENT : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions to quash the order dated 27.09.2008 made in No.A3.Shreepura/ENC/VIVA/200/2007-08 by the respondent No.2 Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, as per Annexure-A and the order dated 06.06.2014 made in Appeal No.137/2007 passed by the respondent No.3 Appellate Authority, as per Annexure-B and to direct the respondents to conduct joint survey, consisting of Revenue Department, Forest Department, Survey Department and Land Record Department in respect of land in Sy.No.84, Srinivasapura Village to identify whether the land belongs to Forest Department or Revenue Department. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were in unauthorized possession of the land in question i.e., Sy.No.84 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas each and the Revenue Authorities, after considering the entire material produced by the petitioners, by an order dated 24.03.1997 granted the said lands and also issued saguvali chits in favour of the petitioners. On the basis of the grant, the Revenue authorities have entered the names of the petitioners in the revenue records i.e., mutation and RTC and as such, the petitioners are in possession of the land stated supra for more than 35 years by raising mango plantation and now they are yielding. When things stood thus, the Forest authorities initiated proceedings claiming right over the lands in question based on 1910 Circular issued by the then Government of Mysuru and the petitioners disputed the claim of the respondents by producing relevant records. The respondent Authority, namely respondent No.2, without considering the entire material on record produced by the petitioners, proceeded to pass the impugned order exercising powers under Section 64-A(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'), which was the subject matter of Appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, respondent No.3, as per Annexure-B, under the provisions of Section 64-A(3) of the Act. The Appellant Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed. 3. The State Government has filed objections and denied the averments made in the writ petitions and contended that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction over the land in question as the land comes within the area of reserved forest in terms of the Notification dated 26.07.1910 issued by the then Government of His Highness Maharaja of Mysore in respect of land in Sy.No.84, Srinivasapura Village. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim any right and the petitioners have no locus standi to continue in physical possession. It is further contended that Sy.Nos.84 and 51 of Srinivasapura Village were Sy.Nos.130 and 97 respectively. During that time, by the State Forest Notification dated 26.07.1910 over an extent of 4060 acres comprising of 14 villages in Srinivasapura Taluk of Kolar district were notified as forest lands. It is further contended that the petitioners are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the lands in question and the Revenue Authorities without noticing the Notification dated 26.07.1910 has granted the land and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned Tahsildar of Srinivasapura Taluk for improper change of Khatha and land grant made by him. The concerned Tahsildar challenged the same before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the application. It is contended as against the said order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, the Tahsildar filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.20662/2017 and the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26.03.2018 dismissed the said writ petition by upholding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Tahsildar. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri L. Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to the material on record. The respondents have not considered the documents produced by the petitioners such as saguvali chit and revenue entries issued by the Revenue Authorities. He further contended that the Revenue Department is also working in the same Government. Whether the land belongs to Revenue Department or Forest Department, it is for the Government to set right their house properly. The petitioners are in possession of the lands for more than 35 years by raising mango plantation and now the respondents cannot deprive the petitioners unilaterally. 6. He further contended that till the impugned orders passed by the authorities, the Government or its authorities never interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioners, suddenly proceedings were initiated and the impugned orders came to be passed without verifying the records. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are in utter violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are in utter violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Revenue Authorities have granted lands to the petitioners who are poor agriculturists and they are not aware of the rules and regulations. The petitioners continued to be in possession of the lands only based on the grant made by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. 7. He would further contend that till today the grant is not yet cancelled by any competent authority. In the absence of cancellation of the grant made by the authorities concerned, the respondent authorities cannot initiate proceedings against the petitioners. He also brought to the notice of this Court that in identical circumstances this Court in W.P.Nos.10606- 10612/2013 dated 25.03.2015, while setting aside similar order passed in respect of very Sy.No.84 of Srinivasapura Village and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry. The matter is still pending for adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions. 8. Per contra, Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, has contended that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to grant forest land in favour of the petitioners as the property in question was declared as forest lands in the year 1910 itself. The Revenue Authorities without verifying the records has granted the same. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned Tahsildar. Challenging the same, an application came to be filed before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and writ petition was filed by the Tahsildar, which came to be dismissed and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Tahsildar is still pending adjudication. He further contended that the petitioners are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Government land. Therefore, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 and its confirmation by the respondent No.3 and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the jurisdictional Tahsildar considering the applications filed, as long back as on 24.03.1997 granted 4 acres 38 guntas each to the petitioners and issued saguvali chit. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the jurisdictional Tahsildar considering the applications filed, as long back as on 24.03.1997 granted 4 acres 38 guntas each to the petitioners and issued saguvali chit. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the grant, the Revenue Authorities entered the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and the petitioners are in possession of the land for more than 35 years as alleged by the petitioners. It is also not in dispute, that it is the duty of the Tahsildar, before granting the lands, has to publish the availability list of the lands as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Considering the entire material on record, the jurisdictional Tahsildar granted the land in favour of the petitioners. It is the duty of the concerned Tahsildar or the Government before granting the lands to verify the nature of the land, whether it is a forest land or revenue land. After granting the lands in favour of the petitioners more than 3 decades ago, abruptly, the authorities of the Forest Department, who are working in the same Government, cannot take action to evict the petitioners on the ground of unauthorized occupation, when the grant was made is still in existence. 10. Though, learned Government Advocate brought to the notice of the Court that the State Government initiated proceedings against the Tahsildar who granted the forest lands without verifying the records and subsequently, he was dismissed from service. Because of the blunder committed by the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners cannot be continued to be in possession of the forest lands. The said submission though attracted, but the fact remains that for more than 35 years either the authorities of the Revenue department or the Forest Department working in the same Government have not raised any voice and suddenly, have initiated proceedings. 11. Before initiating the proceedings, the Forest Department, in particular, respondent No.2 ought to have considered the entire material produced by the petitioners with regard to grant and their possession based on the revenue records and ought to have held proper enquiry by identifying the lands in question, whether forest lands or revenue lands. 11. Before initiating the proceedings, the Forest Department, in particular, respondent No.2 ought to have considered the entire material produced by the petitioners with regard to grant and their possession based on the revenue records and ought to have held proper enquiry by identifying the lands in question, whether forest lands or revenue lands. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent No.2 has not recorded any finding in the impugned order at Annexure-A that whether he has inspected the spot and held enquiry and identified the lands granted to the petitioners in Sy.No.84, whether it is forest land or revenue land and if it is forest land, what are the materials relied upon by the Authority to declare it is forest land and without verifying the records, proceeded to pass the impugned order as at Annexure-A, exercising power under Section 64-A(1) of the Act. The impugned order does not depict the petitioners were given opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. Same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority reiterating the very findings rendered by the original authority. The Appellate Authority ought to have considered the entire material produced by the petitioners before confirming, but the same has not been done. 12. For the reasons stated supra, without adverting to the merits and demerits urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it is suffice to direct the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to verify whether Sy.No.84 to an extent of 4 acres 38 guntas each of the petitioners are forest lands or revenue lands and submit a report to the State Government respondent No.4. On such determination, it is for the respondent No.4 State to take necessary steps through the respondent Nos.2 and 3 after giving opportunity to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners are permitted to produce documents before the Deputy Commissioner as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3, who shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. 13. In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.09.2008 as per Annexure-A and 06.06.2014 as per Annexure-B are hereby quashed. The petitioners are permitted to produce documents before the Deputy Commissioner as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3, who shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. 13. In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.09.2008 as per Annexure-A and 06.06.2014 as per Annexure-B are hereby quashed. The respondent Deputy Commissioner to hold enquiry after hearing both the parties and submit its report to the Principal Secretary, Forest Department as well as Principal Secretary, Revenue Department of the State Government. Based on the report, it is for the respondent No.4 State Government to take appropriate steps through the concerned authorities and proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.