JUDGMENT R. Devdas, J. - Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. These two petitions are heard together since common questions of law and facts arise for decision making. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions claim to have been granted agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.140 and 162 of Mogadampur village, Chincholi taluk, Kalaburagi district, way back in the year 1967. It is contended that by order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi, the Tahsildar granted the said lands in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.225706/2020 and in favour of one Dandu Pochager who is said to be the grand father-in-law of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and have been paying the taxes regularly. However, it is submitted that the taxes for the latest period may not have been paid. Somewhere in the year 2003, the officials of the Department of Forest tried to evict the petitioners on the premise that the lands in question are forest lands. The petitioners were informed that around 60 acres in Sy.Nos.140 and 162 notified as forest lands are allegedly in unauthorized occupation of the petitioners and other villagers. It is submitted that during the said period the names of the petitioners were removed from the revenue records. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the petitioners continued to be in possession and peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question. It is further submitted that off late, the forest officials are making hectic efforts to evict the petitioners from the lands in question. Therefore, these writ petitions are filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question. A prayer is also made seeking a direction to the respondents to reenter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. 4. Therefore, these writ petitions are filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question. A prayer is also made seeking a direction to the respondents to reenter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents brings to the notice of this Court that the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Kalaburagi Sub-Division has passed an order dated 15.12.2019 which would show that the local villagers, including the petitioners herein had encroached upon the forest lands in Sy.Nos.140 and 162 of Mogadumpur village and therefore the villagers were summoned and a summary enquiry was held. Thereafter, the order of summary eviction has been issued on 15.12.2019. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the information provided in the said order is incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no such enquiry was held and neither was the said order dated 15.12.2019 served upon the petitioners. 5. The learned Government Advocate would further draw the attention of this Court to Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') to submit that where any person is in unauthorized occupation of any forest land, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the occupier under the other provisions of the Act, a forest officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forest can summarily evict the unauthorized occupant. 6. However, to a pointed question posed by this Court as to how the Assistant Conservator of Forest could come to a conclusion that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants, since they were pattadars, having been granted with the lands by the competent authority of the Department of Revenue, the learned Government Advocate is unable to give a satisfactory answer. Insofar as Section 64A of the Act is concerned, the proviso to clause(1) of Section 64A of the Act very clearly provides that before evicting a person under the sub-section, he or she shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In the light of the assertions and the documentary evidence that have been produced by the petitioners along with these writ petitions, prima facie, the Assistant Conservator of Forest could not have held that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants. 7. In the light of the assertions and the documentary evidence that have been produced by the petitioners along with these writ petitions, prima facie, the Assistant Conservator of Forest could not have held that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants. If an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, they would have substantiated their possession and occupation of the lands in question by production of title deeds and revenue records. If a proper enquiry was held, it is possible that the petitioners would be able to substantiate their authorized occupation with respect to the lands in question. It is also possible that the petitioners may have encroached upon lands beyond what was granted to them. On enquiry, if the competent authority of the Forest Department finds that though the petitioners were granted lands by the competent authority of the Revenue Department even before the notification of Sy.Nos.140 and 162 as forest lands, then the other question would arise as to whether the petitioners could be declared as unauthorized occupants of forest lands. These are all questions that may arise during the course of enquiry. Since two departments of the State Government are involved in this issue, necessarily joint inspection and joint survey has to be held and recorded in the presence of the officials of both the departments as well as the petitioners. 8. Be that as it may, on a plain reading of the order dated 15.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, it does not animate such an enquiry. Therefore, the action on the part of the officials of the Forest Department including passing of the summary eviction order dated 15.12.2019, requires to be held as illegal and arbitrary. 9. During the course of argument, the learned Government Advocate had also pointed out that the officials of the Forest Department have taken up afforestation in the lands in question. It is the contention of the officials of the Forest Department that saplings have been planted in the lands in question, and they need protection till the enquiry is conducted by the competent authority. However, the said submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that a summary eviction order even according to the respondents was issued only on 15.12.2019 and without the same being brought to the notice of the petitioners. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed in part. However, the said submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that a summary eviction order even according to the respondents was issued only on 15.12.2019 and without the same being brought to the notice of the petitioners. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed in part. The order dated 15.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Kalaburagi Sub-Division, which was produced by the learned Government Advocate during the course of the hearing is hereby quashed and set aside, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. However, it is made clear that the competent authority of the Forest Department, acting under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act or any other statute, may proceed in accordance with law by issuing a notice to the petitioners, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, conduct joint inspection or joint survey in the presence of the officers of the Department of Forest, Revenue and the petitioners herein and thereafter proceed to pass orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents are hereby directed not to dispossess or interfere in the petitioners' peaceful possession of the lands belonging to the petitioners, to the extent stated in the writ petitions. 11. In the light of the said situation, it is also incumbent that the enquiry has to be conducted in a time bound manner. Therefore, the forest officials are required to hold an enquiry in accordance with law and thereafter pass orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then the parties are required to maintain status-quo with respect to the possession of their respective lands. 12. As regards the second prayer of the petitioners that the respondents should be directed to re-enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records, the same cannot be granted at this stage since admittedly the entries have been removed way back in the year 2003. The petitioners are required to follow the due procedure of law as contemplated in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to redress their grievance. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.