Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 369 (KAR)

Dharmaiah v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-03

S.G.PANDIT

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Since prayers in both the writ petitions are similar, both the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Saileela for Sri.M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.V.Seshu for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-H communication dtd. 29/8/2015 from Range Forest Officer ("RFO" for short) Yesaluru Range, Yesaluru to Divisional Assistant Commissioner -cumSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, Hassan sub-Division, Hassan wherein the RFO stated that Sy.No.9 is a deemed forest and there is no scope for grant of the said land. Further, petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application dtd. 30/10/2013 and 20/8/2014 respectively at Annexure-D in both the writ petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' lands were acquired for Hemavathi Reservoir Project. The Government issued a notification stating that a person who looses less than 4 acres of land would be entitled for 4 acres of dry land. Hence, the petitioners submitted applications in terms of Annexure-D dtd. 30/10/2013 and 20/8/2014 respectively, requesting the revenue authorities to grant land in Sy.No.9 of Kothanahalli village. The opinion of the RFO was sought by the Assistant Commissioner and the RFO under impugned communication at Annexure-H dtd. 29/8/2015 furnished his opinion, opining that the land in question i.e, Sy.No.9 is deemed forest. Further, it is stated that the Forest Department has reserved the land in question as Neduthopu. Therefore, the RFO opined that the Forest Department would not be in a position to handover the land to the Revenue Department. Learned counsel would pray for quashing the internal correspondence and to direct the respondent-Revenue Authorities to grant the land in Sy.No.9 of Kothanahalli village. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that since the opinion of the Forest Department is that the land in question is deemed forest and as the same is reserved as Neduthopu, the petitioners cannot seek for the land in Sy.No.9 of Kothanahalli village. Further, learned HCGP would submit that as a matter of right, the petitioners cannot seek land on the ground of displaced person. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Further, learned HCGP would submit that as a matter of right, the petitioners cannot seek land on the ground of displaced person. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, I am of the view that the petitioners would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition. 7. The petitioners claim that they are displaced persons, as the Government acquired their lands for the purpose of Hemavathi Reservoir Project, the Government had taken a decision to grant 4 acres of land to persons who lost land less than 4 acres. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioners submitted their applications for grant of land in Sy.No.9 of Kothanahalli village. The internal correspondence between the RFO, Yesaluru Range and the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner would indicate that Sy.No.9 is a deemed forest and the said area is reserved as Neduthopu. No forest land could be granted to individuals and forest is to be maintained as forest. The provisions of Karnataka Forest Act would not permit the State Government to allot forest land except by denotifying the land as forest in accordance with provisions of Karnataka Forest Act. 8. A displaced person as a matter of right cannot seek for grant of land in addition to what is already granted to him. In the instant case, the petitioners seek for grant of land in Sy.No.9 of Kothanahalli village which is declared as deemed forest as could be seen from Annexure-H dtd. 29/8/2015. It also indicates that the Forest Department has developed Neduthopu in the said area. The deemed forest is also part of forest, as such the petitioners cannot seek grant of land in Sy.No.9 of Kothanahalli village. 9. It is open for the petitioners to request for grant of any other land as they are displaced persons. If such a request is made by the petitioners, I am sure that the respondents would consider the same. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.