- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6328 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES' HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BENGALURU NO.178, CENTRAL SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, PLATFORM ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020 REP. BY ITS INCHARGE SECRETARY SRI. K.A.SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE K.S. ASHWATHAPPA THE KARNATAKA REGISTERED CO-OP. SOCIETY ACT, 1959 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTEMENT OF FOREST VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND THE ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION BWSSB ROAD, 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. 3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER YELAHANKA ZONE 15TH A CROSS RODA NEAR ALLALASANDRA LAKE SECTOR A, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064 4. APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BENGALURU KAMMAGONDAHALLI, JALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 015 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 IN APPEAL NO.381/2023-2024 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-Z IN APPEAL NO.381/2023-2024 AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.04.2023 AT ANNEXURE-T BEARING NO.SA.AA.SOM/B.U.UV/PRADESHA/OTTUVARI/22/2023-24 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Abhinav Ramanand A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Cariappa K.S., the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.02.2025 in Appeal No.381/2023-2024 passed by the 4th Respondent at Annexure - 'Z' in Appeal No.381/2023-2024 as well as the Order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 17.04.2023 at Annexure - 'T' bearing No.Sa.Aa.Som/B.U.UV/Pradesha/Ottuvari/22 /2023-24 to the Writ Petition; b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 18.01.2022 in Forest Crime No.6/2021-22 dated 18.01.2022 registered by the 2nd Respondent at Annexure - 'R' to the Writ Petition;" 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.23757/2022 and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 connected matter, disposed of on 16.06.2023, wherein this Court has held as follows: “ 3. Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The petitioners claim to be the owners of property bearing Sy.No.1B Block 34, 36 and 37 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas situate in Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioners come in possession of the said land pursuant to two deeds of gift executed in their favour – one on 16-08-2017 and the other on 21-03-2018. Just before execution of aforesaid deeds of gift, the 2nd respondent addresses a communication to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North seeking mutation of revenue records of the aforesaid lands along with other lands in favour of the Forest Department. This comes to be rejected by the Tahsildar by issuing an endorsement dated 16-06-2015, expressing his inability in terms of the Rules to carry out such change of entries in the mutation register. The 2nd respondent aggrieved by the said endorsement issued by the Tahsildar preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and seeks a direction as was sought before the Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner while considering the appeal so filed by the Forest Department, seeks a report from the Tahsildar by conduct of an inquiry as to whether the land bearing Sy.Nos.1 to 4 of Jakkur Plantation is a forest land. The Tahsildar on receiving directions from the Assistant Commissioner conducts an enquiry, peruses records and submits his report on 17-12-2015 opining that the lands belong to the Revenue Department, they had been granted to various individuals by Government and the Forest Department had no right or claim over the said lands. On perusal of the said report, certain contemporaneous proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District as to whether the lands were revenue lands or forest lands. The same report that was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 submitted to the Assistant Commissioner was placed before the Deputy Commissioner and all the authorities opined that the lands belong to the Revenue Department and were granted to several persons long ago. 4. Things standing thus, the Assistant Commissioner issues a notice under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act directing appearance of the parties before him. On 18-03-2016, the Forest Department files a revised appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.1 / State filed its objections before the Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings initiated by the Forest Department. It appears that Government of Karnataka then constituted a High Level Committee consisting of several members to look into the fact as to whether the Forest Department had a claim over the subject land. Committee of 14 persons appears to have held that the lands do not belong to the Forest Department. The Assistant Commissioner who was hearing the appeal filed by the Forest Department, rejected the claim of the Forest Department holding that the lands belong to its Department. It further held that the respondents i.e., the petitioners or the erstwhile owners of the lands had produced title documents to show that they are the owners of the property but the same was disputed by the Forest Department. 5. The Assistant Commissioner opined that he cannot decide the title over the land in question in a proceeding under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the Forest Department has to establish its title before the competent Court of law. Despite the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the 2nd respondent again issues a notice dated 10-11-2022, invoking the provisions under Section 64 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. It is this notice that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 6. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would vehemently contend that a report was drawn pursuant to the direction of the Assistant Commissioner to the Tahsildar to conduct inspection and submit his report. The report was submitted to the effect that the lands did not belong to the Forest Department but belong to the Revenue Department and had been granted to various persons over the years. In a proceeding instituted by the Forest Department before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it resulted in the Assistant Commissioner holding that the lands did not belong to the Forest Department. However, it was observed that it was open to the Forest Department to claim title over the lands before the competent Court of law. He would contend that issues of 50 to 70 years vintage are now sought to be re-agitated by the Forest Department without there being any ground to do so. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the first respondent - Forest Department would contend that what is challenged is only a notice. The petitioners can appear before the Assistant Conservator of Forest and answer the notice by producing documents to demonstrate that the lands do not belong to the Forrest Department, which may result in closure of proceedings before the Forest Department as well. Instead of doing so, the petitioners have rushed to this Court calling in question the said notice. He would submit that the writ petitions have to be dismissed as premature as the notices issued are not the one without jurisdiction and the notices can be challenged before this Court only on the ground that it suffers from want of jurisdiction and no other ground. That is not available to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitions should meet its dismissal. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 9. The afore-narrated facts require certain reiteration. It is the averment in the petitions that on 21-09-1949, the then Government of Mysuru issues an order by virtue of which lands measuring 177 acres and 28 guntas situated in Jakkur and Allalasandra Plantations were released from the ambit of Forest Department and handed over to the Revenue Department. It is then the Revenue Department grants it to several persons. Several proceedings then take place in the Revenue Department granting lands to landless people, agriculturists and to several other persons from 1949 to 1971. In the year 2002, when the working plan for Bangalore Urban Forest Division was approved by the Government of India, these lands were shown to be released from the Forest Department and handed over to the Revenue Department. Long after all these proceedings, the Department of Forest on 01-06-2015, addresses a communication to the Tahsildar to change mutation entries of lands in favour of the Forest Department on the ground that the lands where the properties of the petitioners situate among others, were forest lands. 10. The Tahsildar appears to have rejected the claim of the Forest Department to mutate the lands in favour of the Forest Department. This leads the Forest Department to initiate proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2015-16 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner directs the Tahsildar to conduct inspection, verify the records and submit his report. The Tahsildar in terms of the directions, conducts inspection, verifies the records and holds that the lands did not belong to the Forest Department, as they had been granted in favour of several persons. The report of the Tahsildar insofar as it is germane reads as follows: “…. …. …. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«ÄãÀÄ dPÀÆÌgÀÄ ¥ÁèAmÉõÀ£ï JAzÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj¸À®ànÖzÀÄÝ, F zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ‘CgÀtå ¥ÀæzÉñÀ’ JAzÀÄ ªÀVÃðPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄÃ? CxÀªÁ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉAiÉÄÃ? JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ F PÀbÉÃj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ PÀbÉÃjUÀ¼À°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.1 jAzÀ 4 gÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 …. …. …. F ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ®¨sÀå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ CA¢£À «±ÉõÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå.J¯ï.J£ï.r3.103/74-75 ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.08.1974 gÀ°è ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV S.No.1 of ‘Government Kharab’ Out of this extent of 325.08 A.Guntas has already been disposed of leaving a balance of 2.20 A.guntas which is now proposed for disposal. JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÁ¢PÁjUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. (C£ÀħAzsÀ-26) CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ 2002-03 jAzÀ 2011-12£Éà ¸Á°UÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃj CgÀtå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj¸ÀgÀ E¯ÁSÉ, ¨sÁgÀvÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:F(C)A/11.6/182/WP/KAR, ¢£ÁAPÀ:29.08.2002 ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:FEE 32 FAP 2002, ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.09.2002 gÀAvÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ CgÀtå «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢üzÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ PÁAiÀÄð AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå:155 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ C£ÀħAzsÀ-31 gÀ°è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ, 1902-1966£Éà ¸Á°£À°è ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ C¼Áî¼À¸ÀAzÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dPÀÆÌgÀÄ ¥ÁèAmÉõÀ£ï UÁæªÀĪÀÅ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ CgÀtå E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4000 JPÀgÉUÀÆ «ÄV¯ÁzÀµÀÄÖ CgÀtå-¥ÀæzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß CgÀtå E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ Disforest JAzÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÀÄð AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è C¼Áî¼À¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.1, 2, 3, 4PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ Disforest ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀzÀ «ªÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ (C£ÀħAzsÀ-27) 1) A.F.2269-72 FL-47-49-2 dated:21.09.1949 gÀ°è 113.00 JPÀgÉ 2) A.F.2269-72 FL-47-49-2 dated:21.09.1949 gÀ°è 10.00 JPÀgÉ 3) A.F.12207-9 FL-1-55-17 dated:01.03.1956. gÀ°è 35.12.00 J / UÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ (C¥ÀgÀ) vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆç½, dPÀÆÌgÀÄ ¥ÁèAmÉõÀ£ï ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.1, 2, 3, 4 gÀ°è£À d«ÄãÀÄ CgÀtå ¥ÀæzÉñÀ JAzÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA©üPÀªÁV WÉÆö¸À®ànÖzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ PÁ®PÀæªÉÄÃt CgÀtå E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÀPÁðj RgÁ§Ä JAzÀÄ ªÀVÃðPÀÈvÀªÁV PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ ¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁV «¯Éà DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¨sÁUÀ±À: F ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀ¸Àw ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÁV C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PɬÄAzÀ SÁvÉUÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ dPÀÆÌgÀÄ ¥ÁèAmÉõÀ£ï ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.1, 2, 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è£À J¯Áè ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤Ãr, ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ d«Ää£À ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄAdÆj zÁR¯É, ºÀPÀÄÌ zÁR¯É, PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ,, ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É DzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥Áæ¥ÀÛªÁzÀ §UÉÎ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ £Àqɹ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ dPÀÆÌgÀÄ ¥ÁèAmÉõÀ£ï ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.1, 2, 3, 4 gÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÉÆÃftÂzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀĪÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹, ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ.” (Emphasis added) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, in the light of the dispute still pending between the parties i.e., the Forest Department and the Revenue Department, a High Level Committee was constituted to examine encroachment of forest land in Bangalore Urban District. The Committee consisted of 14 members. The Constitution of Committee is as follows: “Sl.No. Name & Designation 1 Sri Arvind Jadhav, IAS Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka 2 Smt Latha Krishna Rau, IAS ACS & Development Commissioner, Government of Karnataka 3 Sri Mahendra Jain, IAS Additional Chief Secretary, FEE, Government of Karnataka 4 Sri Vinay Luthra, IFS Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) 5 Sri B.Basavaraju, Principal Secretary Revenue Department 6 Sri T.M.Jayanthi, IAS Regional Commissioner, Bangalore 7 Sri Vijaykumar Gogi, IFS Secretary (Forest) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 8 Sri Hari Kumar Jha, IFS Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Land Records) 9 Ms.Meenakshi Negi, IFS Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Working Plan) 10 Ms.Dipika, IFS Deputy Conservator of Forests, Urban Division 11 Sri Jaiprakash, Joint Director of Land Records, Bangalore 12 Representative of BDA, Bangalore 13 Sri Sudharshan, For Commissioner, BBMP, Bangalore 14 Director, Karnataka Archives Department, Bangalore” The Forest Department, right from the Secretary to the Government; to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, was part of the Committee. The findings of the Committee insofar as it comprises of the subject lands are as follows: “2. Sub-Committee for Land Records. Comprises of four members under the chairpersonship of principal Secretary, Revenue Department, with Director, Archives Bengaluru as the Convener and has the mandate for tracing records pertaining to the disputed forest lands in Bengaluru Urban district. The principal Secretary, Revenue stated that the meeting of the sub-committee was held on 17th March 2016. The CS asked whether the subcommittee was able to establish as to how the land in Jakkur-Allalsandra came into the possession of its current occupants. In this context it was pointed out that the Sub-Committee had considered the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department vide letter - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 no.Dgï.Dgï.n.(J£ï.J):¹Dgï/36/2015-16 dated 23/12/2015 which gives a detailed account of the land in Jakkur-Allalsandra and how the land came to be in the possession of the current occupants. The report cites corroborative evidence of the forest land having been de-notified. This is done by citing old file notings and other records, like grant registers, etc. a copy of the report is placed at Annexure – II. An old map of the Jakkur Allalsandra plantation showing the dis-afforested area was produced before the HLC by the Forest Department and is placed at annexure – III.” (Emphasis added) As observed hereinabove, the Committee consisted of the Forest Department as its member as well. After the findings of the Committee, the Forest Department pursued the matter before the Assistant Commissioner in the aforesaid proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner in terms of his order dated 17-03-2017, after perusal of records and report of the Tahsildar, has held as follows: “In the light of the above Judgments and reasons stated above, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to explain the Inordinate delay of more than 60 years in filing the appeal. Hence, the appeal is deserved to be dismissed on the ground of limitation only. The contention of the appellant is that the land in question is a forest land and by virtue of Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Act it is a statutory requirement for publication of notification in the official gazettes for disforesting/derserving/denotifying any area in the reserved forest. Further, after the commencement of Karnataka Forest Act 1963, a notification under Section 28 of the said Act is required for disforesting any area in the reserved forest. The appellant states - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 that there is no official gazette notification either under Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Act or Section 28 of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 published in the official gazette declaring that the said Jakkur- Allalasandra reserve forest or part thereof shall cease tobe a reserve forest. Hence the appellant contends that the current legal status of the entire area of 177 acre 28 guntas is reserved forest under the Karnataka Forest Act 1963. Per contra, the respondents contended that the Government is empowered to grant forest land and the grant is made under No.AF2269 dated 21.09.1949. Further they contended that exercising its power under Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Act 1900. The Government of Mysore by Notification dated 21.09.1949 released the forest land to an extent of 113 acres 32 guntas from the Jakkur to the revenue department. Thereafter 2 more notifications dated 28.1.1953 and 01.03.1956 came tobe issued by the Government of Mysore releasing another extent of 45 acres 12 guntas of forest land to the Revenue Department. Hence, the grants made therein are legal. The consequence of which is disforesatation of the land which the appellant is claiming. Further, the working plan of the Bangalore Urban Forest approved by the Government of India and Government of Karnataka are prima facie and conclusive evidence that Jakkur and Allalasandra village is not forest land and has been disforested and handed over to the revenue department. Further, the High Level Committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka headed by the Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka and Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as its member have submitted the report to the government in the month of December 2015 specifically recording that the land in question are disforested and no forest land is in existence in Jakkur Allalasandra Village. The Respondents have produced title documents to show that they are the owners of the property but the same is disputed by the appellant, Department of Forest. However, this authority cannot decide the title over the land in question in the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 proceedings under 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore I am of the opinion that the appellant has to establish their title before the competent court of law. Hence I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed consequently for the reasons stated above the appeal is hereby dismissed.” (Emphasis added) The Assistant Commissioner observes that the Forest Department has failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than 60 years in filing the appeal and further observes that the respondents/land owners have produced all title documents to show that they are the owners of the property, but it was disputed by the Forest Department. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner holds that title cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Forest Department will have to approach a competent Court of law. The said finding has become final as the Forest Department has not challenged the same before any competent judicial/quash judicial fora. Having accepted the aforesaid findings, the Forest Department is now wanting to re-agitate the very same issue by a different route by initiating proceedings under Rule 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, holding that there is violation of several provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. 11. Though the petition is filed challenging only the notices in both the petitions, the said notices itself - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 suffer from want of jurisdiction on the peculiar facts that the Forest Department has suffered an order under Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, where it is held that land owners have produced adequate documents to demonstrate that they are the owners of the property and the Forest Department has failed to convince the Assistant Commissioner. Further, the Assistant Commissioner reserves liberty to the Forest Department to initiate proceedings appropriately seeking title over the property before the competent Court of law. The Forest Department does not do so and issues the impugned notices. It, therefore, becomes an act which is without jurisdiction. 12. This Court is not rendering the finding that the Forest Department does not have power to issue the notice and initiate proceedings under Rule 64 of the Rules. The Forest Department is well within its powers. But, in the peculiar fact that the findings of the High Level Committee, in which the Forest Department was one of the member, on 31-03-2016, held that it was resolved that the lands do not belong to the Forest Department and since the Department suffered an order at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner, the impugned notices become one without jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petitions are entertainable notwithstanding the fact that it challenges only the notices and the notices require to be obliterated reserving liberty to the Forest Department to demonstrate its title over the land before a competent Court of law as is observed by the Assistant Commissioner, as afore-quoted. 13. For the foresaid reasons, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 (ii) The notices dated 10.11.2022 and 14.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent stand quashed. (iii) The Forest Department is at liberty to initiate such proceedings in accordance with law to establish its title over the property as observed by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 17th March, 2017 before any Court of law. WRIT PETITION NO.4814 OF 2023 14. The petitioner in the subject petition is a company owned by the 1st petitioner in the companion petition viz., Writ Petition No.23757 of 2022. What is called in question in the subject petition is a notice issued upon the company on 21-01-2020 and upon individuals in the companion petition. The notice in the subject petition is also the one invoking or initiating proceedings under Rule 64(a) of the Karnataka Forest Rules alleging identical violations of the Act. The facts and the findings rendered in Writ Petition No.23757 of 2022 would become applicable to the facts of the case at hand as they are identical. Therefore, for the reasons rendered in the companion petition, the subject petition deserves to succeed. Hence, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The notice dated 21-01-2020 issued by the 2nd respondent stands quashed. (iii) The Forest Department is at liberty to initiate such proceedings in accordance with law to establish its title over the property as observed by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 17th March, 2017 before any Court of law. Pending interlocutory application if any, is disposed as a consequence.” - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13843 WP No. 6328 of 2025 4. In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 05.02.2025 in Appeal No.381/2023-2024 passed by the 4th respondent, the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.04.2023 bearing No.Sa.Aa.Som/B.U.UV/Pradesha/Ottuvari/22/ 2023-24 and the FIR dated 18.01.2022 registered by the 2nd respondent, stand quashed. (iii) All consequential actions taken pursuant to the subject proceedings would all become a nullity in law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18