- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18968 OF 2016 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G HARISH SON OF LATE M GOPAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, THIMMAPPA REDDY LAYOUT HULIMAVU GATE, B G PARK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560076. 2. G KIRAN SON OF LATE M GOPAL SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 2(a). HEMALATHA K., W/O G. KIRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2(b). MS. DANYA K., D/O LATE G. KIRAN AGED : MAJOR. R2(a) & R2(b) ARE R/AT NO.73/A, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS GRAMATANA, BEHIND BGS SCHOOL HULIMAVU B.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076. 3. SRI G VINAY SON OF LATE M GOPAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, THIMMAPPA REDDY LAYOUT Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 HULIMAVU GATE B G PARK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G. PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK, BANNERGHATTA BENGALURU - 560 083. 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM THE ASST. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK BENGALURU - 560 083. 3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM CIRCLE, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THALI ROAD WEAVER COLONY ANEKAL BENGALURU - 562106. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G. ROAD, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 6. STATE OF KARNATAKA FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.448, 4TH FLOOR GATE NO.2, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.12.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN APPEAL NO.242/2015- 16 VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN F.O.C.NO.231/2002-03 VIDE ANNEXURE-N RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the Notification dated 27.12.2011 issued by the respondent-authorities. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of the writ petition are that, the petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing Sy.No. 17 of Ragihalli Village, Anekla Taluk, Bangalore District, measuring 04 acres, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 26.07.1988 (Annexure-A). It is also stated that originally land in question was granted to Ex-Servicemen by the Government of Karnataka in the year 1949-50. The Grant Certificate is produced at Annexure-J to the writ petition. Thereafter, the said grantee-Ex-Servicemen had sold the land in respect of third parties in various registered Sale Deeds and accordingly, the petitioners claim to be the ultimate purchasers of the land in question. Hence, it is also stated, in the petition that, the respondent No.2 has issued notice under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and (Annexure-K) dated 18.08.2006 and same was replied by the petitioners by reply - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure-L). It is also stated that, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2015 (Annexure-N), and same was questioned by the petitioners, in Appeal No.242 of 2015-16 and the Appellate Authority by order dated 30.12.2013 at Annexure-R, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and consequently, confirmed the order passed by the competent authority at Annexure-N. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioners have presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri. S.G. Prashanth Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Sri. S.G. Prashanth Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended by referring to the Grant Certificate at Annexure-G that, land in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 question has been granted to the Ex-Servicemen by the Government and thereafter, the petitioners had purchased the same from subsequent purchasers. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners by inviting the attention of the court to the sketch that the land in question excluded from Sy No.17 of the notification issued by the Government, earmarking the said land as" State Forest Land" and therefore, sought for interference of this court, stating that both the respondent-authorities have not properly appreciated the facts on hand, as the land in question has been granted to the erstwhile owners. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State sought for justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of the petitioners that the land in question to an extent of 4 acres in Sy No.17 was granted in favour of original grantees being Ex-Servicemen. On careful consideration of the Grant Certificate at Annexure-G wherein, no schedule has been shown in the Grant Certificate or in the contemporary documents, pursuant to the issuance of the Grant Certificate. On the other hand, it is forthcoming from Government Order dated 17.07.1940, issued by the Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore, under the Section 17 of the Mysore Forest Act, XI of 1900 in which Sy.No. 17 of Ragihalli of Anekal Taluk, to an extent of 896.32 acres, was declared as "State Forest". In that view of the matter, as the declaration has been made by the Enactment, i.e. Section 17 of Mysore Forest Act, XI of 1900 and thereafter, no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 notification has been issued by the respondent- authorities for deforestation, which has to be exercised by the competent authority under Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Act, 1900, I am of the opinion that the land in question is 'State Forest'. It is relevant to extract Section 30 of the Act, reads as under: "30. (1) The Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that, from a date to be fixed by such notification, any forest constituted a State Forest under this Act or any portion thereof, shall cease to be a State Forest or portion of a State Forest. (2) From the date so fixed, such forest or portion shall cease to be of a State Forest or portion of State Forest; but the rights, if any, which have been extinguished therein shall not revive in consequence of such cessation." 7. On careful consideration of the writ papers would indicate that the petitioners have not produced any notification issued under Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Act and further, the petitioners have not produced any relevant documents along with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 boundaries to establish that, the land in question has been granted to the erstwhile owners-grantees. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. -Vs- I.S.Nirvane Gowda & Ors reported in (2007) 15 SCC 744, wherein, at paragraph 4 reads as under: "4. The trial court as well as the first appellate court, based on the evidence, recorded findings that the lands in question were the part of reserved forest. We do not find any good ground or a valid reason for rejection of Ext. D-1 by the High Court. When the lands were included in reserve forest, the entries in the revenue records were of no consequence and further, mere saguvali chits did not confer any title on the suit lands. This apart, the Revenue Authorities were not competent to deal with the property which was the part of the reserved forest. The first appellate court was right in affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. We find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment and decree as far as these respondents — I.S. Nirwane Gowda and B. Govindaraj in these two appeals are concerned. In this view these appeals are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, they are allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court, so far as these respondents, namely, I.S. Nirwane Gowda and B. Govindaraj are concerned, are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suits are restored. No costs." 8. Following the declaration of law made by the made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, wherein, it is held that, when the lands are included in the "Reserve Forest", the entries in the revenue records were of no consequence and revenue document do not confer title to the grantees in respect of such lands. The said aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Forest Land Construction of Multistoreyed Buildings in Maharashtra, In Re with, T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad, In Re v. Union of India & Others reported in (2025) 9 SCC 359, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down guidelines as to protect the forest lands under the public trust doctrine. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the land in question granted in favour of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50475 WP No. 18968 of 2016 erstwhile owners of the petitioners, however, the land in question, granted to the petitioners is not identifiable in nature and that apart as per the Notification dated 01.08.1940 vide Annexure-R1 to the Statement of Objections, the land is classified as "State Forest", and therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15