ORDER : E.S. INDIRESH, J. Heard Sri.M.S.Rajendra, Sri.Thilak Raj S.V., learned counsels appearing on behalf of Sri.H.N.Basavaraju, Sri.Ashok K.L, learned counsels representing the petitioners and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondents. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are calling in question the orders passed by the respondent - Authorities under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'Act, 1963') and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 64A(3) of the 'Act, 1963'. 3. It is the case of the petitioners in the above petitions except the petitioners in W.P.No.2982/2014 that the petitioners have been granted land bearing Sy. No.67 of Bhuthanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District by the respondent-Authorities. In W.P.No.2982/2014, the petitioners are claiming ownership of the land granted in Sy. No.70 of Bhuthanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted by referring to the order of grant made by the respondent-Authorities that the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioners in Sy.No.67 and Sy. No.70 of Bhuthanahalli Village and the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and the RTC extracts stand in the name of the petitioners and further, the Government has passed an order for regularisation of the encroachment of the forest land by the petitioners and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court on the ground that the respondent-Authorities, while passing the impugned orders under Sections 64A and 64A(3) of the 'Act, 1963', had not considered the aspects relating to the grant made in favour of the petitioners by the Revenue Authorities and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Sri.M.S.Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, in addition to the averments made in the petition, has submitted that the respondent - Government has issued the Gazette Notification dated 10.02.1934 as per Annexure-G in W.P.No.39910/2014 and submitted that the land in question granted in favour of the petitioners is a vast Gomala Land in Bhuthanahalli Village carved out of the Kalkere Block and in this regard, he referred to the Notification dated 14.03.1932 and submitted that the land in question has been diverted by the respondents for de-forestation and therefore, the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent-Authorities and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. 6. Per contra, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing for the respondent-Authorities invited the attention to the Gazette Notification dated 17.03.1934 (Annexure-R.1) and the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee, which is filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in W.P.(C)NO.202/1995 (Annexure-R.2) and submitted that, since the land in question has been granted by the Revenue Authorities, which have no jurisdiction to grant the Forest Land, in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petitions and to confirm the orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are claiming right over the property in question as per the grant made in favour of the petitioners, by the revenue authorities in land bearing Survey Nos.67 and 70 of Bhuthanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. On careful consideration of the Grant Certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities to the petitioners and that apart, the subsequent purchasers of the original Grantees in which the writ petitions are filed, wherein the schedule to the land is not mentioned in the Grant Certificate. However, an extent of land has been granted, by specifying the land as a Gomala Land in the land bearing Survey Nos.67 and 70 of Bhuthanahalli Village and on the other hand, on perusal of the Notification dated 17.03.1934 (Annexure-R.1) would indicate that the land bearing Survey No.67 is a part of Gomala land to an extent of 525 acres of Bhuthanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, which has been classified as the Bhuthanahalli Minor Forest in the Anekal Taluk, issued under Section 35 of the Mysore Forest Regulation (XI of 1900). 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are claiming right over the property based on the Grant Certificate in which the schedule is not mentioned and further subject land, which is classified as a Bhuthanahalli Minor Forest in the Anekal Taluk under the Mysore Forest Regulation as per Annexure-R.1, I am of the view that, the Revenue Authorities have no authority under law to divert the forest land in favour of the petitioners as a revenue land. In this regard, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. I.S.NIRVANE GOWDA AND OTHERS reported in (2007)15 SCC 744 has held that the Revenue Authorities have no competency to allot the State Reserve Forest land in favour of any person, much less the petitioners therein. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case as well as the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in ( 2025) 9 SCC 359 , I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out a case for interference insofar as the observation made by the respondent-Authorities under Section 64A and Section 64A(3) of the Act. 9. In that view of the matter, as the land in question has been declared as a forest land under the Notification dated 17.03.1934 and in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases, I am of the view that, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted based on the sole ground by relying upon the Notification dated 10.02.1934 (Annexure-G) in W.P.No.39910/2014, wherein the Notification in the said case was with regard to the Kalkere Village, which cannot be made applicable to the Bhuthanahalli Village, which is the subject matter in the present writ petitions. 10. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD (referred supra) and after having applied the Regulations in the Mysore Forest Act XI of 1900, wherein unless the Notification is de-notified under Section 30 of the above Notification in a manner known to law, I am of the view that, the Revenue Authority has no jurisdiction to grant the land in favour of the petitioners. Even otherwise, the schedule is not mentioned in the Grant Certificate by the revenue authorities. Therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the petitions are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed.