Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 990 (KAR)

Thavru S/o Dulya v. State of Karnataka

2020-06-05

R.DEVDAS

body2020
ORDER : R. DEVDAS J. Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by notices dated 21.02.2014 issued by the second respondent Assistant Forest Conservator, Regional Forest Division, Gulbarga calling upon the petitioners to evict from the lands in question i.e. Sy.Nos.154 and 154/1 of Hannikera village, Chittapur Taluk, on the premise that the said lands are forest lands and the petitioners are unauthorized occupants of forest lands. 3. Learned counsel Sri R.V. Nadagouda appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to a grant certificate dated 24.12.2009 at Annexures-A and B which were issued by the Tahsildar, Chittapur, granting the lands in question in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel therefore submits that before issuing the notices, it was incumbent upon the second respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners and seek their explanation. The learned counsel submits that without even verifying as to whether the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation or that their occupation is in pursuance of a grant made in their favour, the second respondent has issued the impugned notice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the lands in question are forest lands and the revenue authorities could not have granted the lands in favour of the petitioners. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA, this Court finds that these petitions were filed on 20.06.2014 and by order dated 03.07.2014 this Court had directed the respondents not to precipitate the matter. Further as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the second respondent could not have come to a conclusion without verifying the fact that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the lands in question. Admittedly, the revenue authorities have granted the lands in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, before issuing the impugned notices calling upon the petitioners to evict from the lands in question, the second respondent was duty bound to issue a show cause notice to find the veracity of the title held by the petitioners and the manner in which they have come to occupy the lands in question. Therefore, before issuing the impugned notices calling upon the petitioners to evict from the lands in question, the second respondent was duty bound to issue a show cause notice to find the veracity of the title held by the petitioners and the manner in which they have come to occupy the lands in question. At any rate, the second respondent has fallen into an error by declaring that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the lands in question. Right or wrong, the revenue authorities have granted the lands in favour of the petitioners. If the lands in question are not revenue lands and they are found to be forest lands, then the revenue authorities could not have granted the lands in favour of the petitioners. Nevertheless, the factum of grant of lands in favour of the petitioners by the revenue authorities cannot be denied. It is in this background that this Court is of the opinion that before issuance of the impugned notices, a show cause notice should have been issued by the second respondent or any authority who is competent to issue the notice. Further, if there is any dispute as to whether the lands in question are forest lands or revenue lands, it is for the authorities to sort out the issue. 6. In the light of the above, these petitions are partly allowed. The impugned notices dated 21.02.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the second respondent or any other authority under the Karnataka Forest Act or any other statute who is empowered, may issue a show cause notice to the petitioners calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be evicted from the lands in question. If a reply is given by the petitioners producing the relevant documents to show that the lands have been granted by the revenue authorities in their favour, then the forest authorities will have to secure information from the revenue authorities and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.