- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6613 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: SRI. K. R. RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT ADDAGAL VILLAGE RAYALPAD HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 2. THE CONSERATOR OF FOREST AND APPELLAE AUTHORIY BANGALORE CIRCLE ARANYA BHAVAN MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 560 003. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563101. 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR FOREST, KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563101. 5. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR FORES CHINTAMANI SUB DIVISION CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 563125. 6. THE TAHSILDAR SRINIVAAPURA TALUKA SRINIVASAPURA KOLAR DISTRICT 563135. 7. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER SRINIVAAPURA TALUKA SRINIVASAPURA KOLAR DISTRICT 563135. …RESPONDENTS 8. K.V. SHIVA REDDY S/O LATE K.P. VENKATARAMA REDDY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KUNDITAVARIPALLI POST YERRAMAVARAPALLI POST RAYALPAD HOBLI SRINIVASPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. …PROPOSED RESPONDENT (BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO R7; SRI. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARENDRA BABU REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT ON IMPLEADING APPLICATION - IA NO.1/2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. A11/BHOOMI/APPEAL/168/2011 DATED 10/02/2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 AS PER ANNEXURE-AJ; DIRECT THE R1 STATE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE DECISION ON THE REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE R3 DATED 08/10/2023, 08/10/2014 AND 25/01/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-W,X AND AH. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The dispute is about the petitioner’s claim to 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.2 [Sy.No.2/P-P3] of Hosahudya village, Rayalpad Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk. The Forest Department asserts that this is part of its land. The cause for the petition is the dispute in the proceedings initiated under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Act']. It can be stated that the commencement of the dispute is with the beginning of the proceedings under Section 64A(3) of the Act and the order dated 26.03.2012, which is challenged before this Court in W.P.No.12996/2012. 2. This Court, by order dated 11.07.2013 in this petition in W.P.No.12996/2012, has intervened - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 quashing such order observing thus while concluding survey are to be conducted in accordance with the directions issued in the earlier petition. "In that view of the matter, the impugned order herein would not be sustainable. The respondents would have to notify the Deputy Commissioner as also the Deputy Director of Land Records and the petitioner, secure their presence along with the Deputy Conservator of Forests and such other officials and thereafter de-mark the boundaries of the forest land as well as the revenue land and measure the land that has been purchased by the petitioner and thus come to a conclusion as to whether the property purchased by the petitioner fails within the revenue jurisdiction or he has purchased any portion of the land that falls within the forest area and thereafter come to a conclusion in accordance with law. The said process shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible. To enable the same, the impugned order at Annexure-Z stands quashed." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 After this order, there are multiple surveys and outcomes. 3. Sri R. Subramanya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the survey/report dated 08.10.2013, 08.10.2014 and 25.01.2025. The first report dated 08.10.2013 is by the District Commissioner, Kolar District, and the Deputy Commissioner has observed certain discrepancies in the revenue records on a conjoint reading of such records with the documents relied upon by the Forest Department. The Deputy Commissioner has forwarded this report to the Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka. 4. In the next report dated 08.10.2014, which is also addressed to the Secretary, Revenue Department, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded that the Forest Department has already demarcated its land in Sy.Nos.1 and 2 of the subject village with RF stones and eucalyptus plants observing that this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 demarcation could be finalized and action taken according to Section 19(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, finally by his report dated 24.01.2025 referring to antecedent circumstances including the petitioner's claim to the title, has reiterated that the Government must redefine the limits of the forest land under Section 92 of the Act. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Conservator of Forest has issued impugned notice dated 10.02.2015 informing the petitioner about further proceedings in the appeal under Section 64A(3) of the Act which is interrupted by this Court in W.P. No.12996/2012, and the petitioner is aggrieved by the continuation of these proceedings. 6. Sri R. Subramanya submits that when the Deputy Commissioner has forwarded an outcome of the survey with a report on the Forest Department having demarcated the boundaries of its land with a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 recommendation for redefining the boundaries as contemplated under Section 19(2) of the Act, the second respondent could not have caused the impugned notice to restart the appellate proceedings. Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant who wants to come on record, is heard in the light of this grievance. 7. Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy submits that the applicant's locus cannot be disputed because the petitioner’s land is surveyed at this applicants’ instance and because of this Court’s order in W.P.No.35827/2024 [GM-FOR] at the applicant’s insistence. The learned Senior Counsel has placed on record the copies of the interim order and the final orders of this Court in such writ petition, and the learned Senior Counsel proposes to rely upon yet another survey, which purportedly is because of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.35827/2024 [GM- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 FOR]1. However when queried, the learned Senior Counsel does not dispute that the applicant was not a party to the proceedings under Section 64A(3) of the Act. 8. At the outset, this Court must observe that if the applicant is not a party to the original proceedings or the appellate proceedings under Section 64(A) of the Act, he cannot be either a necessary or proper party and in that event the application must be rejected. The next question for consideration is: Whether the second respondent could have issued the impugned notice for the continuation of the proceedings which was interdicted by this Court in W.P.No.12996/2012 [GM-FOR] and if this Court opines that the second respondent could have, though the manner in which the second respondent must decide the appeal. 1 The petitioner is not a party of this writ petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 9. This question must be answered based on the outcome in the writ petition in W.P.No.12996/2002 [GM-FOR]. On a reading of this Court's order in this petition, it is just and reasonable to opine that this Court has directed a survey for culmination of the proceedings and not to call out such proceedings. As such, the second respondent must decide on the outcome in the appeal based on the survey and every other survey that could have been in between, but with due opportunity to the petitioner. 10. The petitioner must be at liberty to rely upon the reports to bolster his case that the forest has already demarcated its land, its land is outside the boundaries so identified and also upon the Deputy Commissioner’s opinion that in the factual matrix, the Government must redefine the boundaries under Section 19(2) of the Act - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 notwithstanding the earlier documents relied upon by the Forest Department. 11. As such, the petitioner must have a due opportunity in this regard, and this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot ask for the proceedings to be closed only because of the Deputy Commissioner’s opinion as aforesaid or by the recommendation for a decision in that regard, and this Court is also not persuaded to opine that the proceedings with the second respondent must be deferred until the State Government decides on such recommendation. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the second respondent to issue fresh notice of hearing of the appeal to the petitioner and conduct the proceedings in the light of this - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 Court's observation and the due procedure that must be. [B] The second respondent must extend due opportunity to the petitioner in the light of this Court's observation and pass orders for conclusion [C] The application for impleadment stands rejected. [D] The State Government would always be at liberty to act upon the recommendations by the Deputy Commissioner notwithstanding the proceedings before the second respondent. [E] Insofar as use of the property until the culmination of the proceedings with the second respondent or the State Government deciding in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act, the parties - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36609 WP No. 6613 of 2025 must maintain status quo without changing the nature of the property. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr