Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 655 (KAR)

Managing Director v. Special Deputy Commissioner

2023-04-21

R.DEVDAS, RAJESH RAI K.

body2023
JUDGMENT R.DEVDAS, J. - The respondent herein had sought for issuance of certificate of title in respect of 5 acres 10 guntas of land in R.S.No.154 of Siddanahalli village of Belagavi taluk as a forest dweller, in terms of the provisions contained in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Amendment Rules, 2012. 2. The respondent had initially filed two writ petitions in W.P. No. 138914/2020 seeking a direction to the appellant authorities to issue Hakku Patra and in W.P. No. 146578/2020, the respondent had sought for a direction to the appellant herein to pay compensation as per the proposal for acquisition initiated for the benefit of the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited. During the course of the writ proceedings since an order was passed on 29/5/2019 by the District Level Committee rejecting the application, the respondent filed a third writ petition in W.P. No. 102683/2021. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dtd. 22/4/2022 allowed the writ petitions, quashed the orders dtd. 30/5/2019 and 15/7/2021 directing the respondent authorities to issue a certificate of title (Hakku Patra) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A writ of mandamus was also issued directing the respondents to pay compensation in respect of the entire 5 acres 10 guntas of land in R.S. No. 154 since the land was notified for acquisition for the benefit of the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited. 3. The State of Karnataka and its authorities have filed three appeals in W.A. No. 100320/2022, 100371/2022 and 100473/2022 and the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited has filed W.A. No. 100550/2022 aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. This Court had heard this matter for extensive length of time. This Court found during the course of the proceedings that the District Level Committee which had initially accepted the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Level Committee (for short 'SLDC') and recommended issuance of Hakku Patra, nevertheless revisited the said recommendation on the ground that false information were furnished by the respondent. This Court found during the course of the proceedings that the District Level Committee which had initially accepted the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Level Committee (for short 'SLDC') and recommended issuance of Hakku Patra, nevertheless revisited the said recommendation on the ground that false information were furnished by the respondent. Thereafter the second order/ recommendation was passed by the District Level Committee rejecting the claim of the respondent on the ground that the respondent himself had appeared before the Committee and categorically stated that he does not have any other document to prove that he and his ancestors were in occupation of the land in question and were eaking out livelihood from the land. It was held by the District Level Committee that earlier two documents were furnished on behalf of the respondent and the two documents, namely, a statement made by the elderly person regarding the possession of the lands and a report said to have been prepared by the Deputy Range Forest Officer showed the occupation of the lands in question at the hands of the respondent. However, it was found on verification that the Deputy Range Forest Officer had not prepared such a report. The learned Single Judge however, while noticing the provisions contained in the Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules, 2007, held that there was no provision for the District Level Committee to review its own order. 5. However, during the course of these proceedings the learned counsel for the respondent had pointed out to various other documents which could prove the occupation of the lands and establish the forest rights in favour of the respondent in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, and some of them were in fact produced before the authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent had pointed out to copies of the voter identity card, ration card, house tax paid receipt, etc. which formed part of the documents as provided in Rule 13 of the Rules, which was acceptable as evidence for determination of forest rights. Learned counsel for the respondent had pointed out to copies of the voter identity card, ration card, house tax paid receipt, etc. which formed part of the documents as provided in Rule 13 of the Rules, which was acceptable as evidence for determination of forest rights. In that view of the matter, this Court came to a conclusion that the respondents should be given one more opportunity to produce all these documents before the District Level Committee and the Committee is required to ascertain the genuineness of the documents and consider the same in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rules. We should observe that such documents as enumerated in Rule 13, if produced by the respondent before the District Level Committee, the District Level Committee cannot ignore such document including the voter identity card, ration card, house tax paid receipt, etc. which are found at clause (b) of 13 Sub Rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules, 2007. 6. Consequently, the writ appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Matters stand remanded back to the District Level Committee to provide one more opportunity to the respondent herein to furnish documents which according to him are the documents of evidence in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, 2007, before the District Level Committee, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such documents are tendered by the respondent before the District Level Committee as directed hereinabove, the District Level Committee shall ascertain the genuineness of the documents and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date when the documents are tendered by the respondent before the District Level Committee. Ordered accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeals, all pending IAs also stand disposed off.