Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1218 (KAR)

M. T. Ranjith v. Chief Conservator Of Forests

2025-11-17

D.K.SINGH

body2025
ORDER : D. K. SINGH, J. Heard Mr. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State, extensively. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the respondent No.2- Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Forest Resource Management), Bengaluru whereby, the petitioner's application for shifting of M/s. Kailash Wood Industries (saw mill) from its present location bearing No.21/5, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru to Survey No.28/1, Maruru Village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, has been rejected on the ground that the aerial distance of the proposed site is less than 10 kms. from the boundary of the forest/deemed forest. 3. The petitioner has also approached the Supreme Court by filing I.A.Nos.119396/2025 and 119397/2025 in W.P.(Civil) No.202/1995 in the case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, with the following prayers: "i. Allow the impleading applicant/ proposed respondent no.12 to be impleaded as a party Respondent in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995 with Writ Petition (C) No.171 of 1996; ii. Direct the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest to grant a permission to shift the sawmill M/s. Kailash Wood Industry, as per License bearing No.83/2014-15, situated at No.21/5, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru, to Survey No.28/I, Marur Village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District as per order dated 15.02.2021 produced herein as Annexure A-8 and quash the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Conservator Forest produced herein as Annexure A-11." 4. Having been informed by the learned Amicus Curiae that the application filed by the petitioner for shifting had already been rejected by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru on 23.05.2022, and the petitioner had made challenge to the said order of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in W.P.No.29337/2024 i.e., the present writ petition, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 26.05.2025, was of the view that there was no necessity to pass any order on the applications filed by the petitioner and accordingly, the applications were disposed of. The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court would consider the grievance of the petitioner in the pending writ petition and decide it in accordance with law. 5. Mr. The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court would consider the grievance of the petitioner in the pending writ petition and decide it in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order passed by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, it is observed that the proposed site for shifting of the saw mill is situated within 10 kms of the 'deemed forest' area. The Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 do not recognise the concept of 'deemed forest' and therefore, the view taken by the respondent No.2 while rejecting the application of the petitioner for shifting of the saw mill is incorrect and against the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder as well as the judgment of this Court dated 12.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.54476/2016 c/w W.P.No.51135/2016. 6. Mr. M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate, however, would submit that in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.202/1995 in T.N.GODAVARMAN (supra), the State Government constituted a Two-Member Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the said Committee has identified the deemed forests along with the statutory forests as regards the areas which are 'forest' as per the dictionary definition in the field criteria and methodology. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate, therefore, submits that the petitioner's destined location of saw mill falls within and less than 10 kms of the boundary of the 'deemed forest' in Survey No.40 of Prasadihalli Village of Arehalli Hobli of Belur Taluk (9.90 kms) and Survey Nos.38 and 39 of Banavara Village of Chikkamagalore District (2.90 kms). He further submits that under Section 2(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, 'district forest' would include all lands at the disposal of the Government within the limits of any reserved or village forest nor assigned at the survey settlement as free grazing ground or for any other public or communal purposes. It is further submitted that Rule 163(2-A) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 specifically provides that no new saw-mills or any other sawing contrivances shall be established within the limits of or within an aerial distance of 10 kms from the limits of any district forest. It is further submitted that Rule 163(2-A) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 specifically provides that no new saw-mills or any other sawing contrivances shall be established within the limits of or within an aerial distance of 10 kms from the limits of any district forest. The submission is that since the petitioner's proposed site for shifting the saw mill is situated within 10 kms of 'district forest/deemed forest', the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner, which does not require an interference. 8. I have considered the submissions. The order for constituting the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Conservator of Forests for identifying of forest as directed by the Supreme Court in GODAVARMAN's case (supra) would read as under: "It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short "the Act") and the meaning of the word "forest" used therein. There is also a resulting misconception about the need of prior approval of the Central Government, as required by Section 2 of the Act, in respect of certain activities in the forest area which are more often of a commercial nature. It is necessary to clarify that position. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "Forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as 'forest' in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to: (i) identify areas which are "forests", irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest; (ii) identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and (iii) identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. Each State Government would constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee the compliance of this order and file status reports." 9. In pursuance to the said order, the State Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and on the basis of the recommendation submitted by the Committee, the forest in Survey No.40 of Prasadihalli Village, Arehalli Hobli of Belur Taluk and Survey Nos.38 and 39 of Banavara Village of Chikkamagalore District have been mentioned as 'deemed forests'. The proposed site for shifting the saw mill is 9.90 kms from Survey No.40 of Prasadihalli Village of Belur Taluk and 2.90 kms from Sy.Nos.38 and 39 of Banavara Village of Chikkamagalore District. 10. It may also be relevant to take note of the fact that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 will apply for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The Forest (Conservation) Act is a centralised legislation and it would prevail over the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, even if 'deemed forest' is not defined under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder, as the Committee constituted by the State Government in pursuance to the order passed by the Supreme Court has identified the survey numbers as 'deemed forests', this Court would not give its finding against the said identification of 'deemed forests' as mentioned in Annexure-R.1. 11. 11. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, particularly Rule 163(2-A) which provides that no person shall establish saw mill or any other sawing contrivance, other than those specified in Rule 2(b), (6-C) and 163(1) for cutting or converting timber, anywhere in the state, without obtaining a licence from the concerned licence issuing authority. It is also provided that such saw mill should not be situated within 10 kms from any reserved forest, protected forest or district forest. 12. The stand taken by the State Government is that the survey numbers which are mentioned above are situated within the limits of the 'deemed forest' and therefore, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has rightly declined the permission. 13. In paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 12.06.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.54476/2016 c/w W.P.No.51135/2016, it has been observed as under: "19. Accordingly, we dispose of the petitions by passing the following order: (i) The impugned order in both the petitions are hereby quashed and set aside and the applications made by the petitioners for grant of the quarrying licence/lease or the renewal thereof, as the case may be, shall be decided afresh by the concerned competent authority in the light of what is held in the judgment and order. Appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is provided to the concerned authority. We make it clear that while considering the applications afresh, the concerned authority will have to consider whether the subject lands are “forest” or “forest land” as laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in GODAVARMAN (supra) (ii) Needless to add that if the authority concerned finds that the land is a “forest” or a “forest land”, lease or extension of lease cannot be granted unless the consent of the Central Government is obtained as per section 2 of the Forest Act. (iii) We also make it clear that we have made no adjudication about the applicability of the said Rules as amended with effect from 12th August 2016 and all the issues are left out to be decided by the concerned authority. (iv) The petitions are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs." 14. (iii) We also make it clear that we have made no adjudication about the applicability of the said Rules as amended with effect from 12th August 2016 and all the issues are left out to be decided by the concerned authority. (iv) The petitions are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs." 14. The concept of 'deemed forest' may not be in the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder, but this concept is very much present under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Supreme Court, having taken note of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, has passed the order for identifying all kinds of forests which would also include 'deemed forest' and the Committee so constituted in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court has identified all the forests. I am, therefore, not able to persuade myself to say that the concept of 'deemed forest' would not include in the wider definition of 'forest'. 15. It may be further noted that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not take note of the Committee Report. The Committee Report is not under challenge in this writ petition. However, the Division Bench has said in the aforesaid judgment that the concept 'deemed forests' appears to be a foreign to the law and the applications cannot be rejected only on the ground that the lands subject matter are deemed forests. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "18. For the reasons which we have recorded above, the applications made by the petitioners will have to be reconsidered. Whether the applications can be reconsidered or not in the light of the amendment to the said Rules is an issue to be decided by the concerned authority while deciding the applications. As no inquiry is made by the concerned authorities on the question whether the lands are covered by the wide concept of “forest” or “forest land” adopted by the Apex Court by the order dated 12th December 1996, we cannot grant a declaration that the properties subject matter of the petitions are not forest. We, however, make it clear that as the concept of ‘deemed forests’ appears to be a foreign to the law, the applications cannot be rejected only on the ground that the lands subject matter are ‘deemed forests’." 16. We, however, make it clear that as the concept of ‘deemed forests’ appears to be a foreign to the law, the applications cannot be rejected only on the ground that the lands subject matter are ‘deemed forests’." 16. In view of the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.54476/2016 c/w W.P.No.51135/2016 dated 12.06.2019, I set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 and remand the matter back to the concerned authority for giving a fresh consideration. The fresh consideration should be given within two months and the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing an order.