IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA R.P.No.246/2012 AND R.P.Nos /2012 c/w W.P.Nos /2013 AND R.P.Nos.245/2014 & /2014 IN R.P.No.246/2012 AND R.P.Nos /2012 BETWEEN: 1.SRI. H.K.SUBRAMANYA, S/O H.V.KALASAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT HORATIMANE, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, MUDIGERE TALUK. 2.SRI. MURALIDHARA, S/O H.V.KALASAIAH, AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT HORATIMANE, MAVINAKERE GRAMA MUDIGERE TALUK. 3.SRI. CHENNAPPA GOWDA, S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT KARGADDE DEVARAGUDDA, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK. 4.SRI.B.N.THIMMARAS PURANIK, S/O B.N.PURANIKA, AGED 65 YEARS,

2 2 R/AT GANDAIHALLI ESTATE, HALNALLI POST, MUDIGERE TALUK SRI.G.V.VASUDEV RAO, S/O G.VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT GORASANGNDIGE, TALGODU VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK. 6.SRI.KALASA, S/O BELLA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT THOTADAR, THOTADAR POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, PIN: SRI.DHARNAPAIAH, S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT HORANADU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK SRI.MANGALAIAH, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT HORANADU POST, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK SRI.B.P.VARDHAMANA, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE, THOTADAMANE, HORANADU P.O., MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK SRI.CHANDRA RAJAIAH, S/O NAGARAJAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS,

3 3 R/AT HASLE, HORANADU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK SRI.NEEMIRAJAIAH, S/O CHANDAPPAIAH, AGED 85 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE HORANADU POST, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK SRI.APPU, S/O KEMPE GOWDA (YENE) KEMPA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE, HONNE KADU, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, HORANADU (POST), MUDIGERE TALUK SRI.H.S.RAJASHEKAR, S/O H.V.SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAKOPPA, THOTADUR POST, MUDIGERE TALUK. 14.SRI.H.S.PRASANNA, S/O H.V.SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAKOPPA, THOTADUR POST, MUDIGERE TALUK.... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: ARUN SHYAM.M., ADV. FOR DHARMASHREE ASSTS. ADVs.) AND: 1.SRI.M.SHEKAR SHETTY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT MANGALAGIRI ESTATE, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR.

4 4 2.SRI.VISHWANATH RAI, S/O SUBBARAYA RAI, AGED MAJOR. (DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2013) 3.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE. 4.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALUR. 5.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SRI KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA. 6.THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 7.THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR. 8.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHIKMAGALUR. 9.GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 10.SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR.

5 5 11.KALASAIAH, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, 12. GIDDAIH, S/O SUBBAIAH, MAJOR, 13. KRISHNA, S/O SOMAIAH, MAJOR, 14. BELLAIAH, S/O MAMANJAIAH, MAJOR, R11 TO R14 ARE R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR. 15. A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU. 16. R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 46 YEARS, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALURU. 17. K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA VILLAGE,

6 6 MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 18. UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKAMAGALUR. 19. T.V.VENKATASUBBIAH S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O TALAGODU, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR. 20. B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, TOTADUR GRAMA, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 21. ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASAS POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 22. SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 23. SRI.M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABHADRA NELLI, MAJOR, R/AT MELADIA, HALURALLY POST,

7 7 KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 24. SRI.VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 25. SANNA BIRAIAH, SINCE DECEASED, BY LRS, 25(a) SRI NAGAISH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 26.SRI.B.V.JAYAGANAPATHI, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 27.SRI.B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 28.SRI.SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, MAJOR, R/AT BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 29.SRI.V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO,

8 8 MAJOR, R/AT VALABAIL MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR. 30.SRI.M.D.SADASHIVA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 30(a) SRI.M.J.SADASHIVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 30(b) SRI.M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 30(c) SRI.M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, R/AT HATTIKADLU POST, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 30(d) SRI.M.J.VENKATESH, S/O JANARSHNAYYA, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR. 31.SMT.HANAJI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, R/AT MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR. 32.SRI.NAGAPPA, S/O VENKATAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

9 9 32(a) SMT.LAKSHMI, W/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 32(b) SMT.MOHINI, D/O NAGAPPA, 32(c) SMT. SHANTHA, S/O NAGAPPA, 33.SRI.G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GAJENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR.... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: G.NARENDRA, LEARNED AGA FOR R3, R4, R6 TO R8, SRI.G.LAKSHMEESHA RAO, ADV. FOR R1, SRI.M.H.SAWKAR, ADV. FOR R21, R22, R24, SRI.C.N.KAMATH, ADV. FOR R23 AND R27, SRI.L.M.SOURABHA JEEVALA FOR R5, SRI.HEGDE AND RAO FOR R17, SRI.B.G.SRIRAM, ADV. FOR R29, SRI.K.GOVINDARAJ FOR R33, SRI.V.SANJAY KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R30(a); R9, R10 TO R16 ARE SD; R17 TO R20, R25(a), R26, R28, R30(b) TO 30(d), R32(a) TO R32(c) SD; R2 IS DELETED V/O DATED 11/01/2013) THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED PASSED IN WA NOS /2005 (KLR-RES) C/W WA NO.1558/2007 (GM-FOR) & WP NO.9573/1999 (LR- PIL), ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. ********* IN W.P.Nos /2013 BETWEEN: 1.SRI.VENKATANATHA BHAT, AGED 49 YEARS,

10 10 S/O. SRI PARAMESHWARA BHAT, R/A. SOORAMANE, KALASA POST, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, MUDUGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT SRI.JINNARAJAYYA, S/O.CHANDAPPAYYA, AGED 75 YEARS, R/A HUNTANAKALLU, BALIGE, MAVINKERE GRAMA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT SRI.ASHOK, S/O.CHANDREGOWDA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/A HILIGUDDE SITE, KARAGADDE, MAVINKERE GRAMA, MUDUGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU SRI.BELLAIAH, S/O.MANJAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/A. KONABAIL, MAVINKERE GRAMA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT SRI.A.P.JINNARAJAYYA, S/O.PADMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/A. ATTIKANDA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT SMT.N.P.SUGANDHINI, W/O VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, HOSAMANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT

11 11 7.SRI.GAJENDRA BHAT, S/O CHANNAKESHAVA BHAT, AGED 80 YEARS, R/A. BILIGUMPU, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA POST, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT SRI.NARESH.M, S/O A.MADHAVA, AGED 38 YEARS, MANAGER, MAVINKERE ESTATE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.M.S.VENKAPPAIAH, S/O.SUBBARAO, AGED 68 YEARS, R/A. MUZEKHAN, HALAVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR. 10.SRI.M.M.SATISH, S/O.MANJAPPAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, R/A. MUZEKHAN, HALAVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR SRI.A.P.CHANDRAJAIAH, S/O.PADMAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/A.ATTIKANDA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT SMT.NEETHA.S.SHENOY, W/O.R.SURENDRA SHENOY, AGED 40 YEARS, R/A AMBATHIRTHA CROSS, HORNADU ROAD, KALASA PETITIONERS

12 12 (BY SRI: P.N.MANMOHAN, ADV.) AND: 1.SRI M.SHEKAR SHETTY, FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAJOR, R/AT MANGALAGIRI ESTATE, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE , REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALUR THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SRI KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHIKMAGALUR THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BALEHONNUR SUB-DIVISION, BALEHONNUR

13 13 9.MR.GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT SRI.SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR SRI.KALASAIAH, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, 12.SRI.GIDDAIH, S/O SUBBAIAH, MAJOR, 13.SRI.KRISHNA, S/O SOMAIAH, MAJOR, 14.SRI.BELLAIAH, S/O MAMANJAIAH, MAJOR, RESPONDENT Nos. 11 TO 14 ARE R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR SRI.A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU

14 14 16.SRI.R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 46 YEARS, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALURU SRI.K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT SRI.UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBIAH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT TALAGODU BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR SRI.B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/AT TOTADUR GRAMA, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT MR.ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASAS POST,

15 15 MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABHADRA NELLI, MAJOR, R/AT MELADIA, HALURALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE CHIKMAGALUR SRI.VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.SANNA BIRAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, 25.SRI NAGAISH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.B.V.JAYAGANAPATHI, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK,

16 16 MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, MAJOR, R/AT BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO, MAJOR, R/AT VALABAIL, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.M.D.SADASHIVA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 30.SRI.M.J.SADASHIVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR

17 17 33.SRI.M.J.VENKATESH, S/O JANARSHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR SMT.HANAJI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, MAJOR, R/AT MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR SRI.NAGAPPA, S/O VENKATAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 35.SMT.LAKSHMI, W/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 36.SMT.MOHINI, D/O NAGAPPA, MAJOR, RESPONDENT Nos. 35 AND 36 ARE R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA SRI.G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GAJENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE

18 18 (SL.Nos. IN CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V.C.O.DATED 12/02/2014 PASSED ON IA 1/2014)... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: G.NARENDRA, LEARNED AGA FOR R2, 3, 5 TO 8 AND 37, SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R17 AND R20, SRI.M.H.SAWKAR, ADV. FOR R21, SRI.L.M.SOURABHA JUVALA, ADV. FOR R4; R9 TO R12, 14 TO 16, 18, 19, 22 TO 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 TO 33, 35 TO 37 - SD) THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO JUDGEMENT & ORDER DT , IN WA.NOS /05, [KLR-RES] C/W WA.NO.1558/07 [GM-FOR] & WP NO.9573/1999 [LR-PIL] PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. ********* IN R.P.Nos.245/2014 & /2014 BETWEEN: 1.ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O YOUSUF, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT BALEHOLE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT PUTTACHARI, S/O VENKATACHARI, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT BALAKUDU HADU MANE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT A.NAGESH RAO, S/O RANGAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS,

19 19 ATTIKUDIGE, HALLUVALLI POST, KALASA, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT K.R.GOPINATH PAI, S/O K.RAMACHANDRA PAI, AGED 68 YEARS, KALASA MAIN ROAD, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT PETITIONERS (BY SRI: P.N.MANMOHAN, ADV.) AND: 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE , REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SHREE KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 4.THE LAND TRIBUNAL MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR

20 20 6.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHICKMAGALUR M.SHEKAR SHETTY, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MANGALAGIRI ESTATE, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR VISHWANATH RAI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, S/O SUBBARAYYA RAI, R/AT ASHIRVAS BALEHOLE, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABADRA NELI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MELADIA HALURALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BETAGERY HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE,

21 21 CHICKAMAGALUR. 12.NAGAIAH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT B.V.JAYAGANAPATHI, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT TALAGODU VILLAGE, BALEHOLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HALUVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, VALABAIL, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE,

22 22 KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR M.J.SADASHIVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMGALUR M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR M.J.VENKATESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR HAJANI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHICKMAGALUR LAKSHMI, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

23 23 R/AT GANTE MAKKI, MAIN ROAD, KALASA MOHINI, D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA SHANTHA, D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GANENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT KALASAIAH, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

24 24 29.GIDDAIAH, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, 30.KRISHNA, S/O SOMAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, 31.BELLAIAH, S/O MANJAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R28 TO R31 ARE R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI,

25 25 MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR T.V.VENKATASUBBAIAH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT TALAGODU, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT BOMMANA BELALU, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR CIRCLE, CHIKMAGALUR

26 26 40.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KALASA SUB-DIVISION, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT RESPONDENTS THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20/04/2012 PASSED IN W.A.NOS /2005 (KLR-RES) C/W W.A.NO. 1558/2007 (GM-FOR) & W.P.NO.9573/1999 (LR-PIL), ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THE JUDGMENT IN THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED ON 09/04/2014 AND IT BEING LISTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT TODAY, NAGARATHNA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1. In these petitions, the petitioners have in effect sought review of judgment and order dated passed by this Court W.A. Nos /2005 C/w. W.A. No.1558/2007 & W.P.No.9573/1999. By that order, the writ appeals as well as writ petitions were allowed. In the alternative, a declaration is sought to the effect that the

27 27 order dated passed in the aforesaid matters is not binding on the petitioners. Certain notices issued by the 8 th respondent - the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Balehonnur Sub-Division, Balehonnur, are also assailed. In addition, a prayer is made for quashing the Notification dated Briefly stated, the facts are that, Kalaseshwara Swamy Temple of Kalasa, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur District, was dedicated approximately 16,000 acres of land in Mavinakere, Talagodu, Totarur Villages of Kalasa Hobli, Chikmagalur District. The endowment was made with a condition that agricultural and forest produce from the said lands would be utilized for maintenance and management of the said temple, which also included infrastructure and other facilities for devotees who visited the temple. It is averred by the petitioners that many persons were in occupation of the said lands and they were cultivating it and providing a portion of the agricultural produce to the temple. It is further stated that in the year 1922, the

28 28 Diwan of Mysore visited Kalaseshwara Swamy Temple and had discussions with the Muzarai Commissioner regarding its financial resources. A Report dated 25/06/1925 was submitted by the Muzarai Commissioner making certain recommendations. Accepting the same, the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore issued Notification dated 09/10/1925 stating that in an extent of 11,000 acres of land, there was illegal removal of forest produce. Therefore, by that Notification, the Government ordered for control of the forest produce and to prevent waste by smuggling and illegal removal. Subsequently, Notification dated 06/03/1928 was issued by the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore invoking Section 35(iii) of the Mysore Forest Regulation of 1900 (hereinafter referred to as the 1900 Regulation ) in respect of five block namely, Devarabetta, Karimane Kalgode, Mavinakere Talgode, Totadur and Balagi, which were five forest blocks endowed to the temple along with their boundaries. Thereafter, by order dated , it was declared that the aforesaid five blocks notified under Section 35(iii) of the Regulations was

29 29 deemed to be forest taken over for management by the Forest Department under Section 36(d) of the Mysore Forest Act, 1900 (hereinafter referred to as 1900 Act ) and that all provisions of Chapter II and IV thereof and the rules made thereunder were to apply to those blocks. A copy of that Notification is produced as Annexure- F-1. It is the case of the petitioners that the Forest Department never took over possession of the said lands and the same continued to be revenue lands. 3. More specifically, it is the case of the petitioners that although Notification dated 15/03/1928 was issued declaring the area as Reserved Forest, that Notification was not given effect to and in the revenue records, the lands were shown as Devadaya Kalaseshwara Swamy Inam Lands and the lands were shown as Bhagayat Kushki Tari and used for growing coffee, tea and pepper and not forest lands. Some portions of Devadaya Inam Lands were given to private persons for mining activities and royalty was payable to the Temple. Subsequent to the

30 30 enforcement of Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as KRCIA Act ), the Inam Lands of the temple were vested with the State Government and the temple authorities received compensation to an extent of 4,000 acres of land and the matter was under consideration with regard to another 10,000 acres of land. That the State Government granted various parcels of land to persons, who were in possession and enjoyment of the same, under the provisions of the KRCIA Act and Land Reforms Act as well as under the Land Grant Rules. According to the petitioners, they are also in possession and enjoyment of their respective extents under various grants made by the State Government. Copies of grant or allotment orders are at Annexures Q to Q-6 annexed to W.P.Nos /2013. That by Circular dated 18/08/1981, issued by the State Government, various extents of C and D Class lands were transferred from the Revenue Department. According to the petitioners on account of some personal and ulterior motive, some persons filed

31 31 W.P.No.9573/1999 before this Court as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the grants made in favour of certain persons, who were respondents in that writ petition. That writ petition was heard along with W.A.Nos /2005 and connected matters and by judgment dated 20/04/2012, the writ appeals were allowed and the PIL in W.P.No.9573/1999 was disposed of with certain directions. That order is sought to be reviewed in the writ petitions as well as in the review petitions while assailing the notices issued by the concerned authorities, pursuant to the judgment dated 20/04/2012. In fact, as against that order, certain persons who were not parties therein had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Hon ble Supreme Court and by order dated 18/11/2013 the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek review of that order before this Court. It is under these circumstances, the writ petitions as well as review petitions have been connected and are heard and disposed of by this order.

32 32 4. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners by learned counsel, Sri. Manmohan, was that the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20/04/2012 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as these petitioners were not parties to those proceedings and therefore, were not heard in the matter. That, no adverse order could have been passed against the petitioners by making it binding on them as they were not parties to those proceedings. Elaborating the said contentions, it was submitted that, in the PIL, there were no pleadings against the petitioners herein and that litigation was restricted to the private respondents arrayed in that petition. But this Court passed a general order invalidating the grants made in respect of the petitioners herein. Therefore, it was contended that the judgment dated 20/04/2012 is not binding on these petitioners. On merits, it was contended that the Government Notification dated 06/03/1928 has not been given effect to since then, as no survey whatsoever was conducted, nor any boundaries were earmarked. In that

33 33 Notification, though it was stated that the lands were Reserved Forest, that had no effect as the lands continued to be revenue lands. In this context, it was submitted that the very issuance of a Notification under the 1900 Act was not sufficient to make the lands as Reserved Forest Lands without further steps being taken. That for the first time, by order dated 20/04/2012, Notification dated 06/03/1928 was being given effect to, which is after more than eight decades and which is not permissible in law. Therefore, it was contended that the Division Bench could not have held that the grants made in favour of the petitioners as well as others were invalid and thereby given directions for the resumption of land. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon certain decisions. 5. Sri. Aruna Shyam M., learned counsel for the petitioners in R.P.No.246/2012 and connected matters has adopted the submissions made by Sri. Manmohan P.N., learned counsel appearing in W.P.No.48830/2013. The

34 34 contentions of the petitioners were submitted by way of written arguments, which we have perused. 6. Per contra, Sri.Narendra G., learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State, in his written arguments has contended that the Division Bench in its judgment dated 20/04/2012, has kept in mind principles of natural justice. The Division Bench has not directed a summary eviction of the parties, but has directed an enquiry into the matter before taking any precipitative action. Therefore, the Bench was alive and conscious of the implication of its order and hence, ensured that there was fairness on all counts. It was next contended that the order made in the PIL is in rem and it is binding on all and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek reopening of that judgment by way of fresh petitions. It was also contended that in the instant case, PIL was filed in the year 1999 and it was disposed of in the year 2012 and the pendency of the matter before this Court was a known fact to the petitioners herein. It was also contended

35 35 that the PIL was not restricted against the private respondents arrayed in that petition but in respect of notified lands, though no specific pleadings pertaining to these petitioners were made in that petition, the order being in rem, is binding on all parties to the proceedings as well as other persons who are similarly situated and hence, by this proceeding, that order cannot be interfered with. It was further contended that in 1928 itself, the notification was given effect to and when once a Notification is issued declaring an area to be Reserved Forest, the provisions regarding restrictions on the use of forest land would ensue. Placing reliance on certain decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, particularly in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad V/s. Union of India & others [(1997)2 SCC 267] (Godavarman), it was contended that there was no merit in these petitions. 7. Before we consider the rival contentions, it would be useful to note the salient points of the impugned order

36 36 dated 20/04/2012 as that is the bone of contention between the parties. (a) W.P.No.9573/1999 was filed by certain residents of Balehole, Chickmagalur District, assailing the grant made by the Land Tribunal under the KRCIA Act. It was contended by the petitioners therein that those lands claimed by respondent Nos.7 to 18 therein as occupants were not Inam Lands as on the date of coming into force of KRCIA Act. According to the petitioners therein, originally the land belonged to Kalasheshwara Swamy Temple. That out of 14,357 acres, more than 10,000 acres were thick forest land consisting of valuable trees and they were notified as Reserved Forest. Only 4,109 acres remained as Inam Lands in which grants could have been made, but rest of the land was forest land, in which no grants could have been made

37 37 under KRCIA Act. It is, in this context, that the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District, passed certain orders directing certain lands to be entered as Forest Lands in the revenue records and directed the occupants of those lands to handover vacant possession to the Forest Department. That action led to a spate of writ petitions being filed before this Court. The action of the Deputy Commissioner was based on the Government Notification dated 06/03/1928 issued under the Mysore Forest Regulation declaring an extent of about 6,800 acres as Reserved Forest. Certain persons had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, while certain others had assailed show-cause notices issued by him, while others had challenged Government Notification dated 06/03/1928. Learned Single Judge of this Court did not quash Notification dated 06/03/1928, but held that the lands

38 38 were endowed to the Temple. The writ petitions were allowed and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner were quashed. In certain other writ petitions, learned single Judge permitted the petitioners therein to file their reply to the impugned notices. These orders were passed in W.P.Nos /2001 and connected matters. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District, the latter as well as State of Karnataka filed W.A.Nos /2004. The petitioner in W.P.No.28612/2003 had challenged the order of the Conservator of Forests-cum-Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur, in Forest Appeal No.27/2001 dated 29/05/2003. That writ petition was dismissed by order dated 06/06/2007. That petitioner had filed W.A.No.1558/2007.

39 39 (b) The Division Bench noted that though the matters were pending in separate proceedings and on different causes of action, the issue in all those proceedings was, as to whether the lands involved in those cases were forest lands. In that context, Government Notification dated 06/03/1928 was considered. That Notification was published in the Mysore Gazette on 15/03/1928 under which various extents of lands in Devarabetta, Karimane Kalgod, Mavinakere Talagode, Thotadur and Balagi were notified as Reserved Forest under Mysore Forest Regulation, Prior to that, by proceedings dated 03/11/1924, the Muzurai Commissioner was requested to submit a Report with regard to the transfer of management of the temple s forest lands to the Forest Department. The Dharmadarshis of the Temple had agreed to the proposal without prejudice to their right to remove leaves etc.,

40 40 for agricultural purposes. After following the procedure contemplated in law, Notification dated 06/03/1928 was issued. Subsequently, on 25/10/1943, the erstwhile Maharaja had issued one more notification declaring that the lands notified under the Notification dated 06/03/1928 as well as other Notifications as deemed forest be taken over for management by the Government through the Forest Department. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the State that the notified lands were Reserved Forest and were not Inam Lands as on the date of KRCIA Act coming into force. Therefore, the Land Tribunal or its Appellate Authority or the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition had no jurisdiction to grant lands. The State, therefore, contended that the grants were not sustainable in law. In fact, this was the very plea made in the PIL.

41 41 (c) On the other hand, the grantees of various parcels of notified lands contended that Notification dated 06/03/1928 was not valid as the Regulation did not provide for declaration of lands in possession of private individuals as Reserved Forest. That the lands were owned by the temple and therefore, Inam Lands and continued to be so and were in occupation and cultivation of private parties. That subsequent to the enforcement of KRCIA Act, the occupants had the right to get their names registered in respect of those lands. Therefore, the private respondents in the writ appeals as well as in the PIL contended that Notification dated 06/03/1928 did not apply to the Inams lands and that the PIL was a motivated one. (d) The Division Bench noted that as the learned single Judge had not quashed the Notification dated 06/03/1928, it continued to

42 42 be in force. But it contemplated on the question as to whether the said Notification had declared the notified lands as Reserved Forest. Regulation 35(i)(iii) of the Regulations, 1900 were considered in light of the prior proceedings leading upto the issuance of the Notification dated 06/03/1928. The Division Bench considered the meaning of District Forest, Reserved Forest and Lands at the disposal of the Government, the definition and meanings under the Regulations as well as under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act ) and held that the Notification dated 06/03/1928 was not contrary to 1900 Regulations and neither was it issued without any competence. The said Notification was also considered in light of the 1963 Act, which was enforced on 27/02/1964, particularly Sections 117 and 106 of that Act.

43 43 (e) The Division Bench also considered the claim of the private respondents therein and other such persons, who were not parties to those proceedings with regard to occupancy rights under KRCIA Act and under Karnataka Land Grant Rules in light of the Notification dated 06/03/1928 and the nature of the lands. Admonishing the State Government for the sorry state of affairs, the Division Bench considered the Report of the Court Commissioner, Sri.R.M.N. Sahai, Conservator of Forest and General Manager, Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation Ltd., Bangalore, dated 18/07/2000, which stated that the lands in question were thickly wooded and tropical moist deciduous/semi-evergreen type of forest area. The Commissioner s Report was also filed before Hon ble Supreme Court in W.P.Nos.202/1995 C/w. No.171/1996 on 12/12/1996 (Godavarman).

44 44 (f) In the aforesaid backdrop, the Division Bench considered the right of grantees under KRCIA Act, which was enforced on 01/07/1970 and held that the lands which were notified by Notification dated 06/03/1928 were Forest Lands and on the enforcement of the 1963 Act, it had to be considered as Reserved Forest and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ( FC Act, for short), a Central Act which was enforced from 25/10/1980 was applicable. Taking note of the provisions of KRCIA Act, the nature and history of the lands as forest lands, the Division Bench held that no right was created under KRCIA Act in respect of the notified lands. Following the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Godavarman and mandate of FC Act, which came into force in 1980, the Division Bench held that neither the Land Tribunal or its Appellate Authority nor the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam

45 45 abolition had any jurisdiction to grant forest lands subsequent to 25/10/1980 when the FC Act was enforced without approval of the Central Government as that Act had an overriding effect over all other laws. Hence, the grants made in respect of the notified lands without approval of the Central Government were deemed to be void and invalid. Finally in paragraphs 28 and 33 to 35 the Division Bench observed as follows and issued directions as under: 28. Taking all the above aspects into consideration it is necessary for us to crystallize the position and indicate the further course of action. In that direction, the entire sequence would clearly establish that the lands which are subject matter of the notification dated 06/03/1928 were Inam Forest Lands. Pursuant to the notification, it had become Protected Forest and on coming into force of the Act 1963 it was to be considered as Reserved Forest. Hence, the Revenue

46 46 Authorities had no jurisdiction to make any grants under the Karnataka Land Grants Rules or such other grants under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, more particularly after the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (the FC Act for short) had come into force on 25/10/1980. In fact the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Others vs- I.S.Nirvane Gowda & Others (2007 (15) SCC 744) has held that the grants made by the Revenue department in respect of Forest Lands is of no consequence and would not confer title to the land. Therefore, any contrary notification under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to indicate the lands as Revenue Lands for any purpose also would not be valid unless dereservation is made in accordance with law under Forest Act. All such grants are therefore to be set aside. In so far as the encroachments, they shall not be permitted and they are liable to be evicted. The question however is with regard to persons claiming under KCRIA Act as they contend that they had become tenants under the Temple and at one point, it was Inam land, though nature of the land was thickly wooded forest.

47 47 * * * 33. Keeping all these aspects in perspective, since we have arrived at the conclusion that no right is created either for granting occupancy right or being continued as tenants keeping in view the nature and history of the lands, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the relief to the extent done by the order dated Further, as noticed, the FC Act 1980 had also come into force with effect from Therefore, in respect of forest land neither the Tribunal, Appellate Authority nor Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition would have jurisdiction to grant the forest land subsequent to the said date without approval of the Central Government which has overriding effect over all other law. In that view, the distinction made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the orders passed prior to by the Tribunal to uphold the same is inconsequential and is also not sustainable. Hence, all grants made in respect of the lands in question without such approval of the Central Government are deemed to be void and invalid.

48 The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle shall therefore issue notice to all such occupants and grantees and take steps to evict them from the lands which are part of the notification dated However, having noticed the contention put forth that some of the grantees belong to the second or third generation and their forefathers/ancestors have been in cultivation having obtained the land from Temple and since all of them are not before this Court, it would be open to such of those beneficiaries of the order passed under the KRCIA Act to bring to the notice of the Conservator of Forests that the forest land had been broken up for cultivation prior to i.e., the date on which the Karnataka Forest Act came into force. However, to establish that they were in possession and cultivation prior to there should be authentic material to indicate that the tenancy is granted by the Temple/ Competent Government Authorities. Further, since it is contended that there is coffee cultivation, proof of such cultivation in terms of the requirements under the Coffee Act 1942 shall also be produced. Mere stray entries in

49 49 revenue records shall not be acceptable. If the said requirements are found to be satisfied and in such cases, if the Land Tribunal/Land Reforms Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams has granted, the same shall form material for recommending to the Central Government/Central Advisory Committee under FC Act for consideration. If the recommendation is not accepted by the Central Government, it shall become final and they shall thereafter be evicted. If the above requirements are not satisfied and despite the same, if grants are made by the Authorities indicated above, such grants shall remain void and invalid as already stated. The Conservator of Forests shall undertake the above exercise even in respect of persons who have had the benefit of the order of the learned Single Judge dated who are the respondents in W.A.No /2005 and if they do not satisfy the condition stipulated above, they shall also be evicted. The said procedure shall also be followed in respect of respondent No.7 to 8 in W.P.No.9573/1999 (PIL). Insofar as the appellant in W.A.No.1558/2007, it is seen that the Conservator of Forests as the

50 50 Appellate Authority has already rejected the case of the appellant. The appellant therein had claimed right in respect of a portion of the property as having purchased under sale deed dated from its previous owners and in respect of the other portion since it is contended that the Revenue Authorities have collected T.T. Fine, it is obviously on encroached land. Not only survey has been conducted to indicate it as forest land, we have also concluded that they are forest lands and as such he is liable to be evicted. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in his conclusion. 35. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER i) W.A Nos /2005 are allowed in the above terms. The order dated passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside to the extent assailed. ii) W.A.No.1558/2007 is dismissed. iii) W.P.No.9573/1999 is allowed in terms of the above with the following directions: iv) The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle is directed to take steps to evict all persons who are not entitled to remain

51 51 in possession of the forest lands which is the subject matter of the notification dated as indicated above in paras 28, 33 and 34 and take possession of the same. v) The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle shall file the action taken report before this Court on or before vi) Parties to bear their own costs. (Underlining by us) 8. As no Report was prepared, by order dated 26/12/2012, six weeks time was granted to the State to file Action Taken Report. Thereafter, further period of six months was granted to evict the persons from the forest land and to file the Report and subsequently, this Court granted a further period of three months by Order dated 30/08/2013. In the meanwhile, these review petitions and writ petitions had been filed and they were ordered to be listed along with the disposed of writ appeals. The interim order operating in the writ petitions and review petitions was not extended and this aspect was clarified by order

52 52 dated 28/10/2014. By order dated 11/03/2014, further, extension of time to file the Report was granted till 30/05/2014. Subsequently, these review petitions as well as writ petitions were heard and reserved for orders. 9. The Notification dated 06/03/1928 was issued under Regulation 35(iii) of the Mysore Forest Regulation 1900, which was passed on 16/11/1900 and came into force on 01/01/1901. The aforesaid Regulations are in pari materia with Mysore Act No XI, which is the Mysore Forest Act, Under Section 117 of the Act, it is expressly stated that the Karnataka Forest Act, 1900 (Karnataka Act No.X of 1900) has been repealed along with the other Acts applicable to forest paths of the Karnataka State. The aforesaid provisions have been considered by the Division Bench in juxtaposition with the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 as well as Forest Conservation Act, 1980 ( F.C.Act for short) which is a Central Act.

53 Therefore, the question addressed by the Division Bench was whether the grants made in favour of the respondents in the PIL in the absence of FC clearance was legal or not. The Division Bench held the grants to be void but at the same time, issued specific directions in the context of the Act as well as the F.C. Act. In order to answer the question as to whether the Division Bench was right, it has to be noted that the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act would constitute the lands as forest requiring FC clearance under the F.C. Act. Although the notification dated 06/03/1928 has been issued under the 1900 Act, constituting the notified lands as Reserved forest, that notification must be deemed to be continued in view of proviso to Section 117 of the Act. In this context we draw sustenance from our Order in W.P.No.10319/2013, (Sri Girish and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others). 11. In the aforesaid matter, the issue before another Division Bench of this Court of which we were members

54 54 was, with regard to the grant of licences for quarrying building stone in certain lands in Harappanahalli, Davanagere District, which had been notified under Section 4 of the Act as Reserved Forest. This issue was considered in light of the provisions of F.C.Act as has been done in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench under consideration. The concerned authority had issued notices and communications stating that quarrying activity in reserved forest area could not be continued and those notices were assailed in the writ petitions. In those writ petitions, the effect of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the context of carrying on any nonforest activity as defined in the F.C.Act in the areas covered under the Notification was considered. The F.C. Act is a Central Act but does not define the word forest. Section 2 of the FC Act reads as follows:- 2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose:- Notwithstanding

55 55 anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression reserved forest in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any nonforest purposes; that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government; that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation;]

56 56 Explanation:- For the purposes of this section non-forest purpose means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes. (Emphasis added) A bare reading of the said Section would make it apparent that it begins with a non-obstante clause and it overrides any other law for the time being in force in a State. No State Government or any other authority can make an order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof be ceased to be reserved; that any forest land or

57 57 any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purposes; that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Government; that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation. The expression non-forest purpose is defined in the explanation to mean the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than re-afforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purpose.

58 The F.C.Act can be considered in juxtaposition with the Act at this stage as has been done in W.P.No.10319/2013. On a reading of the explanation to Section 2 of F.C.Act, it becomes very clear that agricultural activity is non-forest activity. No doubt, Section 4 of the Act empowers the State Government to declare the decision to constitute any land as a reserved forest, but would the declaration of any land as reserved for forest per se be sufficient to extend the nomenclature of forest to such a land for the purpose of the Central Act, so as to require F.C. clearance, is the question. Having regard to the object of the Central Act, and the fact that it has an overriding effect on all State laws, the Hon ble Supreme Court has enunciated what the expression forest under that Act would mean, in Godavarman. In that case, it has been held that the term forest, occurring in Section 2 of the Central Act would not only include forest as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any land recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of ownership. Thus, the expression forest would include;