- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107313 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI RAJENDRA S/O BAPUSAHEB INAMDAR AGE 32 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O KHONDANPUR-591102 TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELGAUM 2. SMT JAYASHREE W/O BAPUSAHEB INAMDAR AGE 57 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O KHONDANPUR-591102 TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELGAUM 3. SHRI VISHAL S/O BAPUSAHEB INAMDAR AGE 30 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O KHONDANPUR-591102 TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELGAUM 4. SHRI VIJAY S/O BAPUSAHEB INAMDAR AGE 28 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O KHONDANPUR-591102 TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELGAUM …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVASREDDY MUDAGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM KHADE BAZAR RAVIWAR PETH BELAGAVI 590001 3. THE TAHSILDAR KULAVALLI VILLAGE TQ. BAILHONGAL, BAILHONGAL 591102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25-05-2023 BEARING NO.KRA.KAM.SHA/ KLR/CR/32/2022-23 AND DATED 26-05-2023 BEARING NO.KRA.KAM.SHA /KLR/CR/32/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND N1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to quash the impugned orders of the passed by the 2nd respondent dated 25-05-2023 Bearing No.Kra.Kam.Sha/ Klr/Cr/32/2022-23 and dated 26-05- 2023 Bearing No.Kra.Kam.Sha /Klr/Cr/32/2022-23 vide Annexure-N and N1 and etc. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 ii. By Issue of a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ to Direct Respondent No.2 To Delete The Name Of Karnataka Sarkar, Khasagi Aranya In Column No.9 and also to delete the condition As Mentioned In Column No.11 Khasagi Aranya Jaminugalagiruv Karana Bharatiya Aranya Kayde 1927 R Kalam 35 Radi Adhisuchane Aagiruvudrinda Kalam 36 Hagu 37 Ullanghaneyadalli Krama Jarugisuv Shartige Olapattiruttade In Rtcs Of Survey Numbers Sy.No.28/A, 37, 38/A+B 22, 114 39/B, 44,45,46,47,112,115,118,119/1,126,187,339/A B K (of this 1/2), 54,42,41,40,21,55,43,39/A 23(Schedule A properties), 26, 34/1, 153,159,162, 163,164,165,166, 167,170,200,183( of this 1/2), 176( of this 1/2), 202,206,208,224/1, 225,293 (Schedule B properties), 173/4, 173/5 Schedule Property, 110,117,169,178, 184/2,185, 207,344/1,113,116 AND 333/1A (Schedule D Properties) Sy.No.173/1, 173/2K, 173/2B, 173/2A, 173/3, 333/1B, 333/2, 337/1, 337/2, 337/3, 337/4, 337/5 AND 121/2 Situated In Kulavalli Village, Bailhongal Taluk. iii. To conduct disciplinary proceedings on respondent no.2 for the illegal conduct and contempt of court committed by him for not following the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Slp.No.24260-24261/2019 and also W.P.112744/2015 (LR). iv. Grant such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that by impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 25-05-2023 bearing No.Kra.Kam.Sha/KLR/CR/32/2022-23 and dated 26-05-2023 bearing No.Kra.Kam.Sha /KLR/CR/32/2022-23 vide Annexure-N and N1, the name of the Government of Karnataka along with the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 endorsement that private forest has been entered into in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners wherein earlier the names of the petitioners had been entered. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property belonging to the petitioners having been contested in various proceedings and having gone up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioners rights have been upheld in all those proceedings, the question of respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner directing the entry of the name of the Government of Karnataka with the further entry of private forest in Column No.9 as also imposing a condition in Column No.11 that the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the restriction under Section 35, 36 and 37 would be applicable thereto is completely misconceived inasmuch as no such entry could have been made without acquisition of the land by the State of Karnataka. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 4. The land having been held to be that belonging to the petitioners by the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal subsequently confirmed by this Court in various Writ Petitions, which were necessitated on account of the State represented by the Revenue Department as also by the Forest Department claiming an interest in the property in the contempt proceeding which had been filed as also finally in SLP No.24260- 24261/2019 there is no question of such entry being made and as such, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the name of State of Karnataka along with the endorsement private forest as also the condition which have been imposed as indicated above would have to be deleted. 5. 5. Learned AGA for the respondents would submit that there being healthy grown trees in the said land and the trees being required to be protected by the State, the State has caused the entry of the name of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 the State of Karnataka along with private forest since the trees were akin to a forest situated in private land of the petitioners and as such, impose the conditions under Section 35, 36 and 37 of the Indian Forest Act and as such, he submits that these restrictions are to protect the trees and the environment and as such no fault can be found therewith. On this ground, he submits that no grounds being made out, petition is required to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers. 7. This Court in several rounds of litigation has confirmed that the petitioners are the owner of the properties in issue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition has also done so. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex Court was on an apprehension raised by the State as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 regards to compliance with the applicable rules relating to the trees which had been grown thereon when it was submitted that the petitioners would abide by any applicable statute, rules or regulation. 8. That submission is made only in so far as the petitioners would be governed by any law which is applicable to the said land and the trees which have been grown thereon, it was therefore not required for respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner to cause the entry of the name of State of Karnataka with an endorsement private forest in Column No.9 of the RTC. 9. The name of the State of Karnataka can only be included on acquisition of the land being completed from a private owner and on compensation being paid to such private owner or if the land had belonged to and continues to belong to the State. Apart from the above two main reasons, the name of the State of Karnataka could not be included in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 RTCs. That being so merely because there are valuable trees on the land of the petitioners, the name of the State of Karnataka could not have been entered. 10. The fact that there is an endorsement made of private forest in the RTCs is also a contradiction in terms. The name of the State of Karnataka cannot be included with an endorsement private forest which indicates that the land or the forest belongs to a private person. 11. Though the intention of the Deputy Commissioner appears to be to safeguard the trees which are grown on the said land, such intention could be well implemented by resorting to implementation of the necessary restriction which has already been contained in the applicable law in the event of the petitioners violating any of those laws. Mere entry in the RTCs would not by itself protect the trees if no action is taken in terms of the applicable law. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 12. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued. ii) The impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 25-05-2023 bearing No.kra.kam.sha/ KLR/CR/32/2022-23 and dated 26-05-2023 bearing No.kra.kam.sha/KLR/CR/32/2022-23 vide Annexures-N and N1 are quashed. iii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to delete the endorsement State of Karnataka ( ), Private Forest ( ) in Column No.9 as also delete the condition imposed in Column No.11 in the RTCs in respect of Sy.Nos.28/A, 37, 38/A+B 22, 114 39/B, 44, 45, 46, 47, 112, 115, 118, 119/1, 126, 187, 339/A+B+K (of this 1/2), 54, 42, 41, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2726 WP No. 107313 of 2023 40, 21, 55, 43, 39/A 23 (Schedule A properties), 26, 341/1, 153, 159, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 200, 183 (of this 1/2), 176 (of this 1/2), 202, 206, 208, 224/1, 225, 293 (Schedule B properties), 173/4, 173/5 Schedule Property, 110, 117, 169, 178, 184/2, 185, 207, 344/1, 113, 116 and 333/1A (Schedule D Properties) Sy.No.173/1, 173/2K, 173/2B, 173/2A, 173/3, 333/1B, 333/2, 337/1, 337/2, 337/3, 337/4, 337/5 and 121/2 situated in Kulavalli Village, Bailhongal Taluk within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33