1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF , 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.367-378/2012 c/w W.P.Nos.48830-48841/2013 AND R.P.Nos.245/2014 & 273-285/2014

IN R.P.No.246/2012 AND R.P.Nos.367-378/2012

BETWEEN:

1.SRI. H.K.SUBRAMANYA, S/O H.V.KALASAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT HORATIMANE, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, 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, POST, MUDIGERE TALUK.

4.SRI.B.N.THIMMARAS PURANIK, S/O B.N.PURANIKA, AGED 65 YEARS, 2

R/AT GANDAIHALLI ESTATE, HALNALLI POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 142.

5.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: 577 142.

7.SRI.DHARNAPAIAH, S/O PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT HORANADU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 142.

8.SRI.MANGALAIAH, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT HORANADU POST, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124.

9.SRI.B.P.VARDHAMANA, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE, THOTADAMANE, HORANADU P.O., MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124.

10.SRI.CHANDRA RAJAIAH, S/O NAGARAJAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, 3

R/AT HASLE, HORANADU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124.

11.SRI.NEEMIRAJAIAH, S/O CHANDAPPAIAH, AGED 85 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE HORANADU POST, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124.

12.SRI.APPU, S/O KEMPE GOWDA (YENE) KEMPA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT BALIGE, HONNE KADU, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, HORANADU (POST), MUDIGERE TALUK-577 124.

13.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, . 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.

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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 20-04-2012 PASSED IN WA NOS.1453-1464/2005 (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.48830-48841/2013

BETWEEN:

1.SRI.VENKATANATHA BHAT, AGED 49 YEARS,

10

S/O. SRI PARAMESHWARA BHAT, R/A. SOORAMANE, KALASA POST, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, MUDUGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.

2.SRI.JINNARAJAYYA, S/O.CHANDAPPAYYA, AGED 75 YEARS, R/A HUNTANAKALLU, BALIGE, MAVINKERE GRAMA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101.

3.SRI.ASHOK, S/O.CHANDREGOWDA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/A HILIGUDDE SITE, KARAGADDE, MAVINKERE GRAMA, MUDUGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101.

4.SRI.BELLAIAH, S/O.MANJAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/A. KONABAIL, MAVINKERE GRAMA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101.

5.SRI.A.P.JINNARAJAYYA, S/O.PADMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/A. ATTIKANDA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101.

6.SMT.N.P.SUGANDHINI, W/O VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, HOSAMANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101.

11

7.SRI.GAJENDRA BHAT, S/O CHANNAKESHAVA BHAT, AGED 80 YEARS, R/A. BILIGUMPU, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA POST, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101

8.SRI.NARESH.M, S/O A.MADHAVA, AGED 38 YEARS, MANAGER, MAVINKERE ESTATE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

9.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-577 101.

11.SRI.A.P.CHANDRAJAIAH, S/O.PADMAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/A.ATTIKANDA, HORANADU POST, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101.

12.SMT.NEETHA.S.SHENOY, W/O.R.SURENDRA SHENOY, AGED 40 YEARS, R/A AMBATHIRTHA CROSS, ROAD, KALASA-577 124. ... PETITIONERS 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-577 101.

2.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

4.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SRI KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA-577 124.

5.THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

6.THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

7.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

8.THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SUB-DIVISION, BALEHONNUR-577 101.

13

9.MR.GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.

10.SRI.SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101.

11.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-577 101.

15.SRI.A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU-577 101. 14

16.SRI.R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 46 YEARS, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALURU-577 101.

17.SRI.K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.

18.SRI.UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS, MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101.

19.SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBIAH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT TALAGODU BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577 101.

20.SRI.B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/AT TOTADUR GRAMA, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.

21.MR.ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASAS POST, 15

MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.

22.SRI.T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

23.SRI.M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABHADRA NELLI, MAJOR, R/AT MELADIA, HALURALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

24.SRI.VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

SRI.SANNA BIRAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

25.SRI NAGAISH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

26.SRI.B.V.JAYAGANAPATHI, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAJOR, R/AT BALEHOLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

27.SRI.B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK, 16

MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

28.SRI.SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, MAJOR, R/AT BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

29.SRI.V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO, MAJOR, R/AT VALABAIL, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

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-577 101.

31.SRI.M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

32.SRI.M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

17

33.SRI.M.J.VENKATESH, S/O JANARSHNAYYA, MAJOR, R/AT HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

34.SMT.HANAJI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, MAJOR, R/AT MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

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-577 124.

37.SRI.G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GAJENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

38.THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

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 PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO JUDGEMENT & ORDER DT.20.4.12, IN WA.NOS.1453-1464/05, [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 & 273-285/2014

BETWEEN:

1.ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O YOUSUF, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT BALEHOLE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179.

2.PUTTACHARI, S/O VENKATACHARI, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT BALAKUDU HADU MANE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179.

3.A.NAGESH RAO, S/O RANGAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS,

19

ATTIKUDIGE, HALLUVALLI POST, KALASA, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179.

4.K.R.GOPINATH PAI, S/O K.RAMACHANDRA PAI, AGED 68 YEARS, KALASA MAIN ROAD, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI: P.N.MANMOHAN, ADV.)

AND:

1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

3.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SHREE KALASHESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

4.THE LAND TRIBUNAL MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179.

5.THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

20

6.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KOPPA DIVISION, KOPPA, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

7.M.SHEKAR SHETTY, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MANGALAGIRI ESTATE, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

8.VISHWANATH RAI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, S/O SUBBARAYYA RAI, R/AT “ASHIRVAS” BALEHOLE, MOODIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179

9.T.V.VENKATASUBBAYYA, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT BALEHOLE POST, HEBBAR, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

10.M.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O RAMABADRA NELI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MELADIA HALURALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

11.VISHNUMOORTHY, S/O JANARDANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BETAGERY HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, 21

CHICKAMAGALUR.

12.NAGAIAH, S/O SANNA BIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KADEMAKKI, HALUVALLI POST, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179.

13.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-577179.

14.B.V.NARAYAN PURANIK, S/O VASURAYA PURANIK, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HALUVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

15.SRINIVASAYYA, S/O SUBBAIAH.V, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BETTAGERE HOUSE, HALUVALLY POST, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

16.V.N.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O NAGESH RAO, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, VALABAIL, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, 22

KALASA, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

17.M.J.SADASHIVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMGALUR-577179.

18.M.J.CHENNAKESHAVA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK-577179.

19.M.J.RAMESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 179.

20.M.J.VENKATESHA, S/O JANARSHANAYYA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, HATTIKADLU, HALUVALLY POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577179.

21.HAJANI BEJIYAMMA, W/O IDINABBA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MAVINAKERE, KALASA, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

22.LAKSHMI, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 23

R/AT GANTE MAKKI, MAIN ROAD, KALASA-577124.

23.MOHINI, D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA-577124.

24.SHANTHA, D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT GANTE MAKKI MAIN ROAD, KALASA-577124.

25.G.BHEEMESHWAR JOSHI, S/O GANENDRA PRASANNA JOSHI, MAJOR, R/AT KALASA POST, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

26.GIDDA, S/O KENCHA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179.

27.SANJEEVA, S/O NADU, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179.

28.KALASAIAH, S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

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-577179.

32.A.VENKATESHAIAH, S/O ANANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT AJJAYANA MANE, HALUVALLI POST, KALASA HOBLI, MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR-577179.

33.R.K.PRASAD SHENOY, S/O R.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

34.K.V.ANANTHA, S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BETTADA KUMBRI, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI,

25

MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179.

35.UMESH, S/O B.S.KALASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MADDINAKOPPA TOTADUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

36.T.V.VENKATASUBBAIAH, S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT TALAGODU, BALEHOLE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

37.B.CHENNAIAH, S/O NAGAPPAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/AT BOMMANA BELALU, TOTADUR VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR-577179.

38.ALAN LOBO, S/O GILBERT PETER, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT BROOK SIDE ESTATE, DARIMANE, KALASA POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577179.

39.THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIKMAGALUR CIRCLE, CHIKMAGALUR-577179.

26

40.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KALASA SUB-DIVISION, KALASA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179. ... 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. 1453- 1464/2005 (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 20.04.2012 passed by this Court W.A. Nos.1453-1464/2005 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

order dated 20.04.2012 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 06.03.1928.

2. 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

Diwan of 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 25.10.1943, it was declared that the aforesaid five blocks notified under Section 35(iii) of the Regulations was 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

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.48830-

48841/2013. 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

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.1453-1464/2005 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.26882-

26883/2001 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.1453-1464/2004. 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

(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, 1900. 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

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

(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

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

(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

(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

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

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

* * * 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 07.08.2003. Further, as noticed, the FC Act 1980 had also come into force with effect from 25.10.1980. 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 24.04.1992 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

34. 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 06.03.1928. 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 27.02.1964 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 27.02.1964 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

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 07.08.2003 who are the respondents in W.A.No.1453-64/2005 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

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 04.10.1989 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.1453-64/2005 are allowed in the above terms. The order dated 07.08.2003 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

in possession of the forest lands which is the subject matter of the notification dated 06.03.1928 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 31.12.2012. 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

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,

1900. 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

10. 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

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 non- forest 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

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) 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; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non- forest purposes; (iii) 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; (iv) 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

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

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

12. 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; 59

i) all forests as understood in the dictionary sense ii) all statutorily recognized forest, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise; and iii) forest land recorded as forest in the Government records;

13. As per Chambers English Dictionary “forest” means,

a large uncultivated tract of land covered by trees; woody

ground and covered with upright objects and unfenced

woodland.

As far as statutorily recognized forest is concerned,

the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was operating in British India

and after Independence, extended to the whole of India,

except the territories immediately before the 1 st

November, 1956 comprised in part B States. That Act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit of forest-produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest-produce. Chapter II of that Act pertains to Reserved Forests. It enabled the State Government to constitute any forest-land, or waste-land, which is the property of the Government or over which the Government 60

has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled as a reserved forest. Sections 3 to 22 of that Act are almost in

pari materia with Sections 3 to 18 of the Karnataka Forest

Act, 1963. The Karnataka Forest Act of 1963 was enacted

pursuant to the integration of Karnataka State so as to

consolidate and amend the law relating to forests and

forest produce in the State. Under that Act, Section 2

defines the “District Forest” to include “all lands at the

disposal of Government and not 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.” However, the State Government

is competent to modify or set aside such assignment and

constitute any such land as reserved, village or district

forest, or devote the same to any other purpose it may

deem fit. Section 2(8) defines ”land at the disposal of the

State Government” to mean “land in respect of which no

person has acquired: a) permanent, heritable and

transferable right of use and occupancy under any law for 61

the time being in force; or, b) any right created by grant or lease made or continued by or on behalf of

Government.”

Section 2(13) defines “Protected Forest” to mean

any area at the disposal of Government which has been

placed under special protection under clause (ii) of sub-

section (2) of Section 33 or is declared to be a protected

forest under Section 35. Section 2 (14) defines a

“Reserved Forest” to mean any land settled and notified as

such in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II

(comprised of Sections 3 to 28) of the Act. As seen earlier

all forest lands recorded as forest in the Government

records come within the nomenclature of forest as per the

judgment in Godavarman (supra). Thus, the provisions of

Central Act, would apply to all forest lands, as understood in its extended meaning, irrespective of ownership or classification thereof.

14. Therefore, by virtue of Section 2 of the FC Act, prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory as well 62

as a pre-condition for the grant of forest lands for non- forest purposes. The expression “prior approval” would mean that before a grant of lease is made, there should be a previous approval of the Central Government. It cannot be construed to mean that, after the grant of land or a lease, the approval of the Central Government would be obtained. It has to be prior to commencement of non-forest operations. The requirement of approval by the

Central Government under Section 2 is thus a mandatory condition precedent to the grant of land in a forest area, for a non-forest activity as held in Rural Litigation and

Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1989 SC

594) and Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat

(AIR 1987 SC1073) . Thus, Section 2 of the Central Act places a restriction on the State Government or other authority to grant any part of the forest land or any portion thereof for non-forest purpose except with the prior approval of the Central Government. In fact, when an application is made for grant of lease of land for non-forest purpose, it would be incumbent upon the State 63

Government to first ascertain all relevant particulars as to whether the grant of land is legally permissible and viable or not. If the State Government decides that such a forest land should be granted, then requirement of prior approval of the Central Government would arise.

15. It may be also noted that the definition of “District

Forest” in Section 2(2) of the Act, is inclusive and wide enough to expressly include all land at the disposal of

Government except the land within the reserved or village forest or the land assigned as free grazing ground or for any other public or community purposes. And the provisions of Section 33 of the Act empowers the government to make rules to provide for regulating or prohibiting non-forest activity including quarrying of stones over the land at the disposal of the Government. But in so far as the lands in question are concerned, we again reiterate that mere issuance of a notification under Section

4 of the Act is sufficient to constitute the land comprised in 64

it as “forest”, in which any non-forest activity would require prior approval under Section 2 of the Central Act.

16. The decisions cited at the Bar could be referred to at this stage.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following decisions:-

(a) In V.K.Majotra v. Union of India and Others

[(2003) 8 SCC 40], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the writ Courts had to decide the petitions on the points raised in them and not overstep their jurisdiction in giving a direction beyond the pleadings or the points raised by the parties during the course of arguments, otherwise parties would be taken by surprise. This decision is cited in support of the contention that there was no prayer to pass orders of a general nature in the Public Interest Litigation and therefore, the directions had to be restricted to the grants of the respondents therein. The submission was that in the absence of pleadings and prayers, this Court 65

could not have passed a general order. The aforesaid decision is not applicable to this case having regard to the fact that in the PIL, the grants of the private respondents therein, which were sought to be quashed were only illustrative and that the main thrust of the petition was to save the forest land notified by Notification dated

06/03/1928 from private cultivation and exploitation.

(b) Delhi Development Authority v. Ram Prakash

[(2011) 4 SCC 180], has been cited in support of the proposition that administrative or executive action must be taken in time and not after the great deal of delay. In that case, the demand after a lapse of about 25 years for misuser charges was quashed on the ground of delay.

That decision cannot be applied to the instant case to contend that inspite of the Notification of the year 1928 being in existence all along, it was not acted upon by the State and

therefore, it had lost its efficacy. The Division Bench has

categorically observed that when once the Notification of

1928 notified the reserved forest area, it continued to be so 66

under the Act also and no grants could have been made particularly after the enforcement of F.C.Act.

(c) In Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of

Maharashtra [2007 (5) SCC 211], it has been stated that no order can be ignored altogether unless a finding is recorded that it is illegal, void or not in consonance with law. It was contended that in the instant case, in the absence of there being proceedings initiated against the grants made in favour of the petitioners herein, that they could not have been declared to be invalid by the Division

Bench. That unless the necessary proceedings are taken in law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed, it would remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. It was also noted in that judgment that there is no doubt that an order does not bear a brand of its invalidity on its forehead.

That its invalidity can only be pronounced in its proper proceeding.

67

Placing reliance on the aforesaid observations, it was urged that the grants made in favour of the private respondents in the PIL and all other similar grants were held to be void by the Division Bench, but grant orders in respect of the petitioners herein, who were not parties in the earlier litigation, were required to be set aside by a competent Court of Law as such orders are valid until set aside by a competent Court of law. It was also urged that an order cannot be declared to be void in a collateral proceeding and that too in the absence of authorities who are the authors thereof. The aforesaid pleas would not apply in the instant case as the Division Bench only opined that the grants had been rendered void on account of the enforcement of the F.C. Act r/w the provisions of the Act.

Further, an opportunity has been given to the grantees to establish the validity of their grants and for that purpose, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chikmagalur Circle, was directed to take steps to evict all persons who are not entitled to remain in possession in accordance with law, as 68

stated in Paragraph Nos.28, 33 and 34 of the order/judgment.

We have perused the dates on which the grants have been made in the case of the present petitioners. They have all been made subsequent to the enforcement of

1963 Act and in some cases after the enforcement of the

Forest Conservation Act. Bearing in mind the judgments and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this

Court, under those cases, the grants in favour of various grantees have been quashed which would also include the grants made in favour of the petitioners also in case the

F.C. Act has been ignored while making the grants. The

Division Bench has ensured that the grantees would have an opportunity to explain about the validity or otherwise of their grants before the Conservator of Forest,

Chikmagalur. The proceedings already initiated or to be initiated by the Conservator of Forest, Chikmagalur, precisely give an opportunity to the petitioners and other 69

similarly situated persons to establish their rights vis-à-vis, the lands in their possession.

(d) K.T.Plantations v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9

SCC 1], has been cited in the context of Article 300-A of the Constitution which protects private property against executive action. Article 300-A proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, i.e., merely by an executive fiat, without any specific legal authority or without the support of law made by a competent legislature. Article 300-A is irrelevant in the instant case as the question that was considered by the

Division Bench was as to whether lands notified to be reserved forest could have been the subject matter of grant to private persons. This is not a case where private property is being taken away by the State Government without complying due process of law. On the other hand, the judgment impugned protects reserved forest which is public property.

70

The aforesaid decisions do not support the pleas of the petitioners herein.

17. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the

State has relied on the following judgments:-

(a) In Godavarman (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has delineated the true scope of the Forest

Conservation Act and the meaning of the word “forest” used therein. We have followed that decision in

W.P.No.10319/2013 and connected matters, disposed of on 25/10/2013 supra, on which reliance has been placed and therefore, it would not be necessary to once again discuss at this stage.

(b) In K. Balakrishnan Nambiar v. State of

Karnataka and Others (2011) SCC 353 , it has

been stated that after the enforcement of the Forest

Conservation Act from 25/10/1980, no State Government

or other authority can pass an order or give a direction for

de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or 71

permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or grant any lease, etc., in respect of forest land to any private person or any authority, corporation, agency or organization which is not owned, managed or controlled by the Government. Also, if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for non- forest purpose, like undertaking mining activity for a particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the

1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25/10/1980 without obtaining prior approval of the Central

Government. This judgment is squarely applicable to the grants made in the instant case, either prior to or subsequent to the date of enforcement of F.C. Act.

(c) In State of Karnataka and Others v. I.S.Nirvane

Gowda and Others [(2007) 15 SCC 744], it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the lands were included in reserved forest, the entries in the revenue records were of no consequence and further, 72

mere saguvali chits did not confer any title on the suit lands. That apart, the Revenue Authorities were not competent to deal with the property which was part of the reserved forest. The aforesaid decision has been relied upon by the Division Bench.

(d) In Avishek Goenka (2) v. Union of India and

Another [(2012) 8 SCC 441], the controversy was with regard to use of black films of any VLT percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (Front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles through out the country.

In Avishek Goenka (1) v. Union of India

[(2012) 5 SCC 321], the ban was imposed having regard to the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.

That judgment was passed in a Public Interest Litigation and the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was held to be operative in rem . When a question arose as to whether all persons dealing with black films had to be notified, the Apex Court observed that it was neither 73

expected of the Court nor was it a requirement of law that the Court should have issued notice to every shopkeeper selling the films, every distributor distributing the films and every manufacturer manufacturing the films.

That the matter was widely covered by the press and the persons to be affected by the order could have always approached the Court. It was also observed that the writ petition was pending for almost a year and therefore, persons who did not approach the Court during the pendency of the proceedings could not subsequently state that they were adversely affected by the order.

In the instant case, the Public Interest Litigation was filed in the year 1999 and was disposed of in April 2012 and the writ appeals of 2005 arose out of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions which were filed as early as in the year 1999. Therefore, for over a decade, the petitions were pending for adjudication before this Court. Those who were affected by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner or the notices 74

issued by various authorities, had assailed them in writ petitions. The forest lands in question are all situated in

Chikmagalur District. The pendency of the proceedings before this Court would have been a matter of public knowledge and it cannot be believed that these petitioners were not aware of the pendency of the Public Interest

Litigation and appeals before this Court.

The aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned

Additional Government Advocate are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of

B.S.Mohinuddin by his L.Rs. v. State of Karnataka

(W.A.No.203/1982 disposed of on 01/07/1986) has held that in respect of forest lands, an Inamdar cannot claim occupancy rights. Though the said decision is under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)

Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the aforesaid reasoning would apply under the provisions of KRCIA Act in view of Section

6 of the latter Act. 75

Another relevant judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court could also be cited at this stage. In Nature Lovers

Movement v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 5

SCC 373], the facts were that large tracts of reserved forest/forest land were unauthorizedly occupied/encroached and used for non-forest purposes.

The State Government regularized unauthorized occupants/encroachments of forest land made prior to

01/01/1977 and sought to remove those encroachments which were made on or after that date. However, before that decision could be implemented, the F.C. Act was enacted by Parliament and in view of the non-obstante clause contained in Section 2 thereof, the State

Government could not pass any order for regularizing unauthorized occupation/encroachments of forest land.

Nearly six years later, the State Government requested the

Central Government for permission to regularize unauthorized occupation/encroachments by issuance of title deeds under the relevant State Land Assignment

Rules. The Central Government granted conditional 76

approval for regularization of pre 01/01/1977 encroachments of forest land subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. In the meanwhile, the State

Government had framed Special Rules, 1993 for regularization of occupation of forest lands by way of assignment subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The

Central Government by letter dated 31/01/1995 accorded the final approval under Section 2 of the F.C. Act for diversion of 28,588.159 hectares of forest land in the districts concerned for regularization of pre 01/01/1977 unauthorized occupation/encroachments. While considering the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 in juxtaposition

with Forest Conservation Act, 1980 at Paragraph 35 and

36, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“35. An analysis of the above-reproduced provisions of the 1961 Act makes it clear that once a land was declared as reserved forest, no right could be acquired by anyone after issue of notification under Section 4 except under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the 77

Government, or by or on behalf of some person in whom such right or power to create the same was vested or by succession from such person and no activity of clearing such land or collection of forest produce could be made. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 (sic Section 7) of the 1961 Act also imposes prohibition against grant of patta in such land without previous sanction of the Government.

36. The 1980 Act was enacted by virtue of Entry 17-A of List III in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Section 2 (as originally enacted) contains a non obstante clause. It lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or authority shall without prior approval of the Central Government make any order directing that any reserved forest or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved or that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose.”

78

The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by referring to various decisions including Godavarman and

held as follows:-

“48. Another principle which emerges from these judgments is that even if any forest land or any portion thereof has been used for non-forest purpose, like undertaking of mining activity for a particular length of time, prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Act, the tenure of such activity cannot be extended by way of renewal of lease or otherwise after 25-10-1980 without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government.”

At Paragraph 52(2) it held as under:-

“52. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms: (1) XXX (2) After the enforcement of the 1980 Act, neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an order or issue direction for dereservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest 79

purpose or assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. (3) XXX (4) XXX”

The reason for the aforesaid conclusion was that after the enforcement of F.C. Act, the State Governments were denuded of their power to dereserve reserved forest or forest land and permit use thereof for non-forest purposes. They could do so only after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. The object of the F.C.

Act is conservation of forests and to prevent depletion thereof. Therefore, the Court is bound to interpret that Act to further its objects.

Having regard to the facts of the case and the applicable law we are in complete agreement with the conclusions arrived at and directions issued by the Division 80

Bench in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the impugned

judgment/order. In fact, the petitioners herein have the opportunity of complying with the directions issued by the

Division Bench as in that process, their individual cases would be considered by the concerned authority as has been stipulated in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the

judgment/order of the Division Bench.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the writ petitions as well as in the review petitions.

They are, hence, dismissed without any order as to costs.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

s/*mvs