- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 397 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION No. 43037/2019 (GM-FOR-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHANMUKHA C AGED 47 YEARS S/O. CHOWDANAIKA R/AT D. NO. 31, SUDURU MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU, SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 2. SMT. BANGARAMMA AGED 87 YEARS W/O. KOLLANAIKA R/AT D. NO. 6, SUDURU MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 3. SRI CHOWDAPPA AGED 76 YEARS S/O. BASAVANAIKA R/AT D. NO. 14 KAVADIHALLI POST KUDI VILLAGE SHIMOGGA - 577 201. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 4. SRI M. KRISHNAPPA AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MANJAPPA R/AT D. NO. 1, SAMPIGEHALLA SIRIGERE POST KUDI VILLAGE SHIMOGGA - 577 201. 5. SRI MANJA NAIKA AGED 96 YEARS S/O. PUTTANAIKA R/AT D. NO. 4, SAMPIGEHALLA SIRIGERE POST KUDI VILLAGE SHIMOGGA - 577 201. 6. SRI SUBAPPA AGED 45 YEARS S/O. BASAVANAIKA R/AT NO. 27, SAMPIGEHALLA SIRIGERE POST KUDI VILLAGE SHIMOGGA - 577 201. 7. SRI. H. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O. BADIYANAIKA R/AT D. NO. 27, KALGANI CHINMANE, SUDURU SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 8. SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY AGED 71 YEARS S/O. KOLLANAIKA R/AT KOODURU MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU, SHIMOGGA - 577 211. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 9. SMT. KANNAMMA AGED 59 YEARS S/O. CHOWDANAIKA R/AT D. NO. 42, SUDURU MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU, SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 10. SRI MANJUNATHA AGED 47 YEARS S/O. KRISHNA SHETTAR R/AT NO. SUDURU MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU, SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 11. SRI MANJAPPA AGED 47 YEARS S/O. BALKANAYAKA R/AT D. NO. 36, SUDURU MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU, SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 12. SRI. SURESHA AGED 43 YEARS S/O. KUMARANAIKA R/AT D. NO. 25, SUDURU MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU, SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 13. SMT. LALITHAMMA AGED 56 YEARS W/O. RAMAPPA R/AT D. NO. 18 SUDURU, MANDAGATTA POST SUDURU, SHIMOGGA - 577 211. 14. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 W/O. RAMAPPA C/OF B. CHOWDAPPA, SAMPIGEHALLI, KUDI, SRINGERI-577 211. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. GIREESH ACHAR AGED 41 YEARS S/O. LATE CHANDRA ACHAR R/AT PUNAJI VILLAGE BRAHMESHWARA HOSANAGARA POST & TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 418. 2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST REGIONAL OFFICE (SOUTHERN ZONE) KENDRIYA SADAN IV FLOOR, E & F WINGS 17TH MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034. 3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT ROOM NO. 448, GATE NO.2 M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 4. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT GATE NO.2, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGGA DISTRICT SHIMOGGA - 577 201. 6. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST WILD LIFE DIVISION SHIMOGGA DISTRICT SHIMOGGA - 577 201. 7. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SAGAR DIVISION SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGGA - 577 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO 7) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER RULE XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2021 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 43037/2019 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY RECALL THE SAID ORDER AND HEAR THE MATTER FRESH AFTER ACCORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is an application seeking condonation of delay of 245 days in filing the recall application. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 245 days in filing the recalling application is condoned. 2. I.A No. 1 of 2023 is an application seeking recall of the order dated 01.03.2023 whereby the above-captioned review petition was dismissed. The review petitioner has since cured the objections and therefore, the order dated 01.03.2023 is recalled and the review petition is restored. 3. The review petitioner has filed the present petition seeking review of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.43037 of 2019 (GM-FOR- PIL). The said petition was filed as a public interest litigation, inter alia impugning a notification dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Government of Karnataka, whereby certain forest lands were - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 reserved in exercise of powers under Section 28 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The Court found that the said notification had been issued without prior approval of the Central Government which was required, in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [hereafter the '1980 Act']. The Court also found that the Government of Karnataka had not followed the directions issued by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Others : (1997 (2) SCC 267). 4. The impugned notification was set aside on several grounds. First, that it was issued without prior approval as required under Section 2 of the 1980 Act. Second, that it was contrary to the directive principles of Article 48A of the Constitution of India, which enjoins the citizens to inter alia protect and improve forests. And, third, that the Doctrine of Public Trust required the State to ensure that forests are protected. The operative part of the order is set out below: "(i) The impugned order / notification dated 23rd February 2017 at Annexure-N is hereby quashed and set aside; (ii) We hold that the power under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 cannot be exercised without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1963; (iii) We also hold that even if the State Government purports to issue a notification under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1980, such a notification shall be per se illegal; (iv) If any of the officers are responsible for allowing non-forest activities on the land subject matter of Annexure-N, needless to add that criminal law shall be set in motion by the State Government against the concerned officers by taking recourse to Section 3(A) read with Section 3(B) of the said Act of 1980; (v) The petition is allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs." 5. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners state that they were not parties to the writ petition and therefore, were not afforded any opportunity to be heard. The review petitioners claim that they have been in occupation of part of the land – which was sought to be de-reserved in terms of the impugned notification dated 23.02.2017 – pursuant to valid orders that were passed prior to the 1980 Act coming into force. 6. It is contented that the relevant facts were not brought to the notice of this Court. It is contended that there have been subsequent statutory modifications and all change of users of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 forest land prior to the 1980 Act coming into force have been protected. 7. We do not think it would be apposite to examine the question whether there was any valid de-reservation of forest land prior to 1980 in favour of the review petitioners, as that was not the subject matter of the petition. 8. As noted above, the challenge in the writ petition was mainly to the notification dated 23.02.2017 and the constitutional validity of Section 28 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. This Court has, in unequivocal terms, held that the forest lands could not be de-reserved after the 1980 Act had come into force without the approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the 1980 Act. There is no ground to review the said decision. 9. We may also note that another writ petition was filed in effect seeking review the Order dated 04.03.2021 (being W.P.No.16753/2022 (GM-FOR)). The said petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 21.09.2022. One of the principal grounds urged in the said petition was that the petitioner was not party to the writ petition (WRIT PETITION No.43037/2019). The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 Court found no merit in the said petition and rejected the same. The dispositive part of the said order is relevant and is set out below: "10. Under the circumstances, we do not find any good reason to recall or review the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.43037/2019. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed." 10. As is apparent from the above, the Court did not find any reason to recall or review the order, the review of which is sought in this review petition. Incidentally, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners in this case, had also represented the case on behalf of the petitioner in the said writ petition. We may also note that this Court had also clarified in the aforementioned order dated 21.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.16753 of 2022 that the order which is subject to review in the present petition, would not preclude the State Government from issuing a fresh notification, in accordance with law. 11. It is also important to note that a contempt petition was also filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.03.2021, the review of which is sought in the present petition (Being CCC No. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41505-DB RP No. 397 of 2022 407 of 2022). The said contempt petition was disposed of by an order dated 14.10.2022 with the finding that the order of wilful disobedience of which is alleged (the review of which is sought) has been complied with. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, we reject the present review petition. However, we clarify that if the petitioners seek to claim any right on the basis of any valid order for de-reserving the lands that were granted prior to 1980, the order dated 04.03.2021 in Writ Petition No.43037 of 2019 (GM-FOR-PIL), would not preclude the petitioners from filing a substantive petition. Needless to state, if any such remedy is availed, the same would be examined, in accordance with law. 13. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1